There are many junctions in the area that were clearly once just a straight cross-roads, but now have one of the minor road approaches dog-legged. Local legend has it that there were so many accidents at these when Mildenhall- and Lakenheath-based US visitors did not see their familiar hexagonal red 'Stop' signs that the modification was done to present an unambiguous junction.
Do you have two brain cells to rub together? What would be the point in= thinking of it in a way incompatible with how everybody speaks? That w= ould only cause confusion.
Let me explain it for the single celled thing on your head:
I give you =A3100. You have =A3100. With me so far?
I walk over to your friend and give him =A3100 twice. He has =A3200. =A3=
200 =3D =A3100 x 2.
No it shouldn't. "mother-in-law" is one word. If there are two such be= asts, you pluralize the whole thing.
Er, no. 'Mother' is the operative noun, or head, and is what becomes plural. =20 Here is an explanation:
"Forming the plural of a compound noun is very easy - you add the 's' to the primary noun, regardless of its location within the compound."
Here is another:
"A compound that has one head, with which it begins, usually pluralises its head:
attorney general attorneys general bill of attainder bills of attainder court martial courts martial governor-general governors-general passerby passersby ship of the line ships of the line son-in-law sons-in-law minister-president ministers-president knight-errant knights-errant procurator fiscal (in Scotland) procurators fiscal"
Other terms, in which the head is the last word, may indeed pluralise the final word, but 'mother-in-law' is not one of them. See 'sons-in-law above. In plural form, they are both Mothers-in-law.
--=20 Davey.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:07:16 -0000, Davey wrote:=
If the explanation needs to be that complex, it's not worth adhering to.= I have something, now I have two of them. That thing gets an s on the= end. English is for communication, if that communication is clear, it = is fine the way you are doing it. This is not precision mathematics whe= re a misplaced letter could completely ruin the formula.
Trouble is the lootenant can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective. And his ignorance spills over into arithmetic, too, as we have seen.
Treating English as an exact science like mathematics is why people like= you sound so pompous.
English is quite exact, as you'd know if you bothered to learn it. You'd also communicate rather better if you did.
Treating it like Humpty Dumpty is why people like you look so bloody ignorant
You are a pompous ass. English most certainly does not have to be precise. The world would be a very boring place if we all spoke like BBC newsreaders.
Tell me what part of the sentence I wrote "Treating English as an exact = science like mathematics is why people like you sound so pompous." is co= nfusing for you. I seem to be writing perfectly understandable English,= so where's the problem?
Tim,
I believe that we are never going to educate the Lieutenant, so it is a lost cause. Let him wallow in his blissful ignorance, and not complain when he is misunderstood by someone who matters, such as the taxman. But at least we can take comfort from the fact that he could not have had more than one court-martial, if he had, he would know the correct form of the plural.
"someone who matters, such as the taxman" - that is the silliest phrase I've ever seen!
I suppose you'd write courts-martial hahahaha!
Have you entered this?
courts martial = lots of military courts
court martials = many attened by the the same person.
Surely "martial courts"?
[Snip]
Not what they are called.
Yes. As would anyone who wrote English correctly.
For once Lieutenant Scott is not totally wrong about English usage. Collins dictionary gives both plurals as correct and likewise for attorney general and governor general. However on the subject of mothers-in-law, etc. it does not offer an alternative.
The story I have heard, is that locals were wary of overtaking US drivers in the area, especially when approacing a RH junction, because US drivers are used to driving on the right, and were therefore prone to make RH turns without looking out for overtaking vehicles. In much the same way that UK drivers making a left turn, would not expect vehicles overtaking fast on their left.
Could be, but I don't think it fits the circumstances as well.
--=20 Davey.
Could be, but I don't think it fits the circumstances as well.
The first year I worked in a hospital near one of the USAF bases I was overtaken by a large American car in the snow. Some miles further on there she was with her car wrapped round a tree. An ambulance was called and she was carted off with her two kids.
Later she attended my department so I asked why she was going so fast in the snow. She was from Florida she said and "Nobody told me the Goddam stuff was slippery".
TonyB
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.