Ferdinand Cesarano Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Just now, hormone said: Lightning and thunder are both uncountable nouns, but there are two of them, i.e. it is possible to count uncountable-noun words. For this reason we use the plural form are: Lightning and thunder are both natural phenomena The fact that "lightning" is an uncountable noun does not mean that it is plural as well as singular. In the sentence "Lightning and thunder are both natural phenomena", the subject of the plural verb "are" is "lightning and thunder". But it is not possible to say "Lightning are natural phenomena". The noun "lightning" is always singular, and so always takes a singular verb; we'd always say "Lightning is a natural pheomenon". Side note: Some uncountable nouns can be rendered in the plural; the resulting form tends to mean either "types of" ("Many wines are available there.") or "collections of" ("He studies the waters of the world."). But there is no application of this to the noun "lightning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chcarlson23 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Mingjai said: Though in this case, the team name should be St. Paul Wild (suck it up, Minneapolis). Living in St. Paul and working in Minneapolis, I can see the justification for teams wanting to not alienate one city or the other. The city rivalry is not as heated as it was 100 years ago, but the two cities have unique enough identities that having a team called the Minneapolis Vikings would lose some support in St. Paul or likewise the St. Paul Wild would lose some support among Minneapolitans. I know many St. Paul residents would have a hard time calling a team named Minneapolis "our team." I'm like team names that pay homage to something by incorporate both place and nickname--.e.g, the Texas Rangers, Florida Panthers, Baltimore Orioles, Buffalo Bills. But then, I also have no problem using a state name instead of a city name. It's regions like New England or Golden State that always seem odd to me. Except, almost any of those names are A LOT worse when they're referred to by a city name. St. Paul Wild? No Minnesota Wild. Minneapolis Vikings? No... Minnesota Vikings. MINNESOTA is famous for having a lot of Scandinavian immigrants. (Even though we have a lot more immigrants from all over the World now) MINNESOTA is also famous for it's abundance of Wildlife and Natural scenery. I think the only team that could get away with being a city or in this case, cities, would be the Twins. Twin Cities Twins sounds ok... Some regions work... Usually states, especially when the have only one team in the state. I definitely agree about New England and Golden State. I do like the Carolina team names, as the team names sound less choppy, and kinda unify the area with one team... What I also don't understand, is why everyone on here seems to think that teams HAVE to be named after the city. Regions can work too. In fact, sometimes, I prefer regions over cities. Texas Stars would be better than Dallas Stars... Wisconsin Brewers has a nice ring to it, and so does Pennsylvania Pirates. New York Nets, California Clippers,and even Oregon Trail Blazers could work... "And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 among teams playing: Minnesota Wild Texas Rangers New England Patriots Golden State Warriors Oklahoma City Thunder ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckymack Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 How has no one mentioned the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns? Like, what the hell is a Brown or a Bill? I know they've been that way forever-- and I get that they were named after people-- but that doesn't make the names magically sensible. Sigs are for sissies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Buffalo Bills is a little dopey but doesn't bother me as much as purporting to represent six states. The Cleveland Browns are named for a builder of the game whose name conveniently happened to be a color. The Cleveland Szymanskis would be a little harder to come to terms with. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Bear Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Boston Patriots > New England Patriots > Massachusetts Patriots I can barely spell the last one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smzimbabwe Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I know someone who says naming a team something like "Tampa Bay" is like naming a Seattle team something like "Puget Sound Seahawks" or a Portland team "the Willamette River TrailBlazers". He's not a big fan of Arizona, Minnesota, Golden State, or New England as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Carolina is kind of dopey too as there is no place called Carolina... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I wonder if the Warriors have any plans to rename themselves the San Francisco Warriors once they move into their new arena in Mission Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 34 minutes ago, Trapper John said: Carolina is kind of dopey too as there is no place called Carolina... It's also used for two teams that play about 125 miles from each other. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops McCann Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I'm guessing the Atlantic Schooners would've blown up this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 fyi, no nicknames really bother me that much... MLB - Indians. If they were an expansion team, not a chance. Hypocritical to keep it. NFL - Redskins. Same thing. NHL - Blue Jackets. I don't mind any NHL nickname, this is formality. NBA - Thunder. TB Lightning have lightning & bolts identity. OKC Thunder's logo is a Lucky Charms marshmallow. re. New England Patriots, I love it. However, NBC needs to stop only flying over Boston during home games. Why can't they also fly over Providence or Hartford or Portland... embrace it. I also love Golden State though it should probably be more Bay Area specific. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, Hoops McCann said: I'm guessing the Atlantic Schooners would've blown up this thread Yeah, with Mallrats references. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Trapper John said: Carolina is kind of dopey too as there is no place called Carolina... I did not think of Carolina when I was making my list. That's a good choice. Of course it probably sounds better than "North Carolina Panthers." "Charlotte" would be the best choice. 1 hour ago, chuckymack said: How has no one mentioned the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns? Like, what the hell is a Brown or a Bill? I know they've been that way forever-- and I get that they were named after people-- but that doesn't make the names magically sensible. I thought of the Bills and then kinda forgot by the time I was done typing. I think I am so used to it that I forget how stupid it is. The Browns can get a pass since they have an old-timey name for an old-timey team...even if it would never work for a new team today. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverFan69 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 NHL: Minnesota Wild. I don't care how sharp the logo is, the name is a complete mockery of a big-league club in the State of Hockey. NBA: Oklahoma City Thunder. That's the best a relocated NBA franchise can do? MLB: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Either it's LA or Anaheim. Can't be both. NFL: Washington Redskins: Political Correctness wins here. Go with "Warriors" and keep the same colours. CFL: Ottawa RedBlacks. Should've gone with "Riverjacks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 15 minutes ago, OnWis97 said: I did not think of Carolina when I was making my list. That's a good choice. Of course it probably sounds better than "North Carolina Panthers." "Charlotte" would be the best choice. Yeah, Charlotte Panthers sounds pretty smooth. I guess it was so they didn't alienate South Carolina. In the case of the Hurricanes, I suspect it's as much about not alienating Durham, Chapel Hill, Greensboro, or Winston-Salem as it is people not knowing where Raleigh is. Still, what a stupid setup. The New South sucks. It all just sucks. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 There's "trying not to alienate" and "trying to attract." The pioneers, the Twins, quickly followed by the Vikings were clearly trying to avoid alienating St. Paul. But I'd say most are trying to "attract" fans that could be interested in other teams. Maybe South Carolina fans that could cheer for the Falcons (Carolina Panthers), Connecticut fans that could cheer for the Giants (New England Pats), or even just people throughout the state that don't like the big bad city (Arizona, Colorado, etc.). I'd be curious to know what's behind Tampa Bay. Was that about encompassing St. Pete into the nominal fan base? Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Yeah, surely. Did "Tampa Bay" as a metropolitan area have any currency before the Buccaneers started using it or did they pretty much coin it themselves? I know people referred to it all as Tampa-St. Pete for a long time. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob4671 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 hours ago, chcarlson23 said: and so does Pennsylvania Pirates A whole lot of us from SE Pennsylvania would take great offense to this name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob4671 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 56 minutes ago, the admiral said: Yeah, surely. Did "Tampa Bay" as a metropolitan area have any currency before the Buccaneers started using it or did they pretty much coin it themselves? I know people referred to it all as Tampa-St. Pete for a long time. The bay that separates Tampa and St Pete is called Tampa Bay so they named the teams after that to include the metropolitan area as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.