|
|
|
What?
|
|
|
|
Rob
Tuesday 17/1/06 14:08
- # -
|
"Mice"? I assume I'm missing some clever joke.
|
|
|
Mark Holland
Wednesday 18/1/06 13:10
- # -
|
Or if there is it's the same word like for sheep, fish and cannon.
|
|
|
JB
Wednesday 18/1/06 13:24
- # -
|
Surely its a pronunciation thing?
|
|
|
Squander Two
Thursday 19/1/06 21:17
- # -
|
> sheep, fish and cannon
Very interesting plurals, those. What they have in common is that, despite the fact that the plural of sheep is sheep, of fish is fish, and of cannon is cannon, the words sheeps, fishes, and cannons are still valid, only with subtly different meanings from the standard plurals. I think.
|
|
|
Mark Holland
Friday 20/1/06 14:28
- # -
|
Really? Go on.
|
|
|
Squander Two
Saturday 21/1/06 15:40
- # -
|
Well, fishes is a valid word, but not as a collective noun — you can't say, "a school of fishes," but you can say, "two fishes." Now I think about it some more, sheep isn't like that at all: sheeps is just plain wrong. I have no idea what came over me there. I think cannons is as valid as fishes, but, having been on completely the wrong side of the great sheeps controversy, I'm going to reserve judgment.
Oops.
|
|
|
JB
Monday 23/1/06 02:36
- # -
|
So its a pronunciation thing right? In Surrey. The not having a plural of mouse...
|
|
|
Squander Two
Monday 23/1/06 13:36
- # -
|
I hate explaining jokes. Especially to people who have, in fact, got the joke.
|
|
|
|
If you're really that interested, here's an RSS feed for the latest comments to this blog. Never miss another pointless argument.
Of course comments are moderated, in a common-sense sort of a way. You don't have to give your email address to post here.
If you know your HTML, you can use <a>, <b>, and <i> tags, and entities, too. If you don't, you can still use them, but with a greater sense of trepidation.
Cheers.
|
Comment management by HaloScan.
|
