Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

If you set up a store and sold people "tomato smoothies" and gave them a cup full of tomato ketchup, would you be sued?

[Magmacube_tr]

If you set up a store and sold people "tomato smoothies" and gave them a cup full of tomato ketchup, would you be sued?

Yes. Moving on.

[Magmacube_tr]

What is the plural for Forumite? A Thread? A Bracket? A Cluster? What is it?

[Loud Whispers]

A forum of forumites

[Kagus]

A bad idea of forumites

[heydude6]

"Gathering of Forumites" seems apt if you want to pay homage to the discussion forum's pre-tech roots.

[EuchreJack]

A forum of forumites

+1
Additionally, the correct question is:
"What is the proper term of address for the members of a forum?"

[Rolan7]

Forutites unless they're on the ground.

[Loud Whispers]

Forumees
Foromodes
Forumeses

FORUMEMNON, KING OF ALL ARGIVES AND ACHAEANS

[TD1]

Forumemnon, the ultimate source of all Trojan horse viruses.

[hector13]

How come we refer to clothes we wear on the bottom half of our bodies in the plural form, whereas clothes we wear on the top half of our body are singular?

[Il Palazzo]

How come we refer to clothes we wear on the bottom half of our bodies in the plural form, whereas clothes we wear on the top half of our body are singular?

You mean like gloves or mittens? And conversely, a kilt or a dress?

[heydude6]

The singular of gloves and mittens is a glove or a mitten.

This logic applies to shoes and socks as well.

Pants and trousers are the only anomaly. There is no generalized distinction between top and bottom-half clothes.

Glasses is a always plural btw.

[hector13]

Glasses aren’t clothing, though. Equally so, there are generally two glasses in glasses, so that actually makes sense. As do socks and shoes, and gloves and mittens. They are plurals because they are more than one.

Dresses tend to be full body things so they are outliers. Kilts, fair enough, too broad a question I suppose.

Pants (underwear), trousers, chinos, leggings, khakis, jeans, shorts, etc. They are singular things referred to in the plural, but why?

[Il Palazzo]

I suppose it's 'cause you have two limbs to cover, in a manner that treats them separately. So it's the same category as shoes, socks, mittens, gloves, leg/arm warmers, etc. Unlike a kilt, skirt, muff, or shawl, which cover the limbs collectively, without wrapping around each individually.
I have a vague recollection of seeing/reading about historical leg garments consisting of separate leg coverings being tied to a waistband or directly to upper garments. In which case integrating the waistband to form a single garment could nonetheless still preserve the old meaning of a pair of separate items of clothing.

Just an educated(?) guess, though.