kw11333 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Yeah, "Lonestars" is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 People suggesting that a team will become a travelling team in serious conversation makes my head hurt. These types of teams didn't exactly work back in the day, and they certainly won't work in the 21st century. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digby Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 But it does work if "leafs" is a verb. So you can say that maple from Toronto sprouts leaves. Or even better, that maple from Toronto leafs through a book.This comment is pretty ridiculous (honestly). I don't know why you think the last sentence is "even better"... Maple's not even a noun (it's an adjective), so it can't leaf through a book. Show me a maple. Not a maple tree, not a maple shrub, not maple syrup, not a maple table...just a maple. In this proper-noun team name context, maple leafs refers to the, well, leaf of the tree. If you need help, check out the logo. It's a leaf. It's not "leafing" through a book.Maple can be used as a plural noun. You can't say you've got a maple, but you can say that you've got some maple. Could refer to the sap, or the wood. Ask any Vermonter.As an aside, I can't believe this topic has turned into a grammar debate. Fan Style ShirtsShowcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 But it does work if "leafs" is a verb. So you can say that maple from Toronto sprouts leaves. Or even better, that maple from Toronto leafs through a book.This comment is pretty ridiculous (honestly). I don't know why you think the last sentence is "even better"... Maple's not even a noun (it's an adjective), so it can't leaf through a book. Show me a maple. Not a maple tree, not a maple shrub, not maple syrup, not a maple table...just a maple. In this proper-noun team name context, maple leafs refers to the, well, leaf of the tree. If you need help, check out the logo. It's a leaf. It's not "leafing" through a book.Maple can be used as a plural noun. You can't say you've got a maple, but you can say that you've got some maple. Could refer to the sap, or the wood. Ask any Vermonter.As an aside, I can't believe this topic has turned into a grammar debate.If you're a delivery truck driver, and you say you have a truck full of maple...the question is, maple what? Furniture, syrup, sap, et al? When people say they have a couple of maples in the backyard, they're really saying "I have a couple of maple trees". I still think it's more of an adjective/descriptor than a regular noun. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 But it does work if "leafs" is a verb. So you can say that maple from Toronto sprouts leaves. Or even better, that maple from Toronto leafs through a book.This comment is pretty ridiculous (honestly). I don't know why you think the last sentence is "even better"... Maple's not even a noun (it's an adjective), so it can't leaf through a book. Show me a maple. Not a maple tree, not a maple shrub, not maple syrup, not a maple table...just a maple. In this proper-noun team name context, maple leafs refers to the, well, leaf of the tree. If you need help, check out the logo. It's a leaf. It's not "leafing" through a book.Maple can be used as a plural noun. You can't say you've got a maple, but you can say that you've got some maple. Could refer to the sap, or the wood. Ask any Vermonter.As an aside, I can't believe this topic has turned into a grammar debate.You cant? "I don't understand where you got this idea so deeply ingrained in your head (that this world) is something that you must impress, cause I couldn't care less"http://keepdcunited.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 People suggesting that a team will become a travelling team in serious conversation makes my head hurt. These types of teams didn't exactly work back in the day, and they certainly won't work in the 21st century.OITGDNHL On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docrocket Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 But it does work if "leafs" is a verb. So you can say that maple from Toronto sprouts leaves. Or even better, that maple from Toronto leafs through a book.This comment is pretty ridiculous (honestly). I don't know why you think the last sentence is "even better"... Maple's not even a noun (it's an adjective), so it can't leaf through a book. Show me a maple. Not a maple tree, not a maple shrub, not maple syrup, not a maple table...just a maple. In this proper-noun team name context, maple leafs refers to the, well, leaf of the tree. If you need help, check out the logo. It's a leaf. It's not "leafing" through a book.Maple can be used as a plural noun. You can't say you've got a maple, but you can say that you've got some maple. Could refer to the sap, or the wood. Ask any Vermonter.As an aside, I can't believe this topic has turned into a grammar debate.You cant?Ummm...you forgot the apostrophe in "can't"... I can haz sig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 But it does work if "leafs" is a verb. So you can say that maple from Toronto sprouts leaves. Or even better, that maple from Toronto leafs through a book.This comment is pretty ridiculous (honestly). I don't know why you think the last sentence is "even better"... Maple's not even a noun (it's an adjective), so it can't leaf through a book. Show me a maple. Not a maple tree, not a maple shrub, not maple syrup, not a maple table...just a maple. In this proper-noun team name context, maple leafs refers to the, well, leaf of the tree. If you need help, check out the logo. It's a leaf. It's not "leafing" through a book.Maple can be used as a plural noun. You can't say you've got a maple, but you can say that you've got some maple. Could refer to the sap, or the wood. Ask any Vermonter.As an aside, I can't believe this topic has turned into a grammar debate.You cant?Ummm...you forgot the apostrophe in "can't"... Well played. "I don't understand where you got this idea so deeply ingrained in your head (that this world) is something that you must impress, cause I couldn't care less"http://keepdcunited.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 ==BUMP==A thought crossed my mind...If this upcoming change is a not-so-major thing, could it be that Carolina is introducing a dark gray color into their scheme? I could be wrong, but I don't recall a dark, charcoal-ish gray ever being used in the NHL before. AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Maple Leafs is fine by the way. One player is a Maple Leaf. You aren't pluralising the leaf though, your pluralising the player, to make a team. So different pluralising rules apply. In short to emphasize that it's the humans that are plural, not a collection of leaves, you just add an s. It's complicated but grammatically correct. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Maple Leafs is fine by the way. One player is a Maple Leaf. You aren't pluralising the leaf though, your pluralising the player, to make a team. So different pluralising rules apply. In short to emphasize that it's the humans that are plural, not a collection of leaves, you just add an s. It's complicated but grammatically correct.You giving grammar tips is like Rex Ryan giving fitness tips. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezus_Ghoti Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Maple Leafs is fine by the way. One player is a Maple Leaf. You aren't pluralising the leaf though, your pluralising the player, to make a team.This is not correct (see: Timberwolves, not Timberwolfs). The right answer has already been posted enough times in this thread. Please don't get everyone started again with misinformation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 By this logic, Kevin Garnett was a longtime Timberwolve. We're making this harder than it needs to be. "Leafs" is a plural noun. EDIT: dammit, you! ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 So wait is Ted Williams a Red Sock? I'm more confused now than before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobbi Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 So wait is Ted Williams a Red Sock? I'm more confused now than before!Not sure, but I know he has a golden voice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 So wait is Ted Williams a Red Sock? I'm more confused now than before!Yes, because "Sox" was headline shorthand for "Socks," itself a nickname for "Stockings." You're really talking about the Boston Red Socks, you're just using proto-Vince Russo spelling conventionz. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 So wait is Ted Williams a Red Sock? I'm more confused now than before!Yes, because "Sox" was headline shorthand for "Socks," itself a nickname for "Stockings." You're really talking about the Boston Red Socks, you're just using proto-Vince Russo spelling conventionz.You are actually incorrect. If a player is a famous Dodger, or a famous Yankee, than another player with the same popularity is a famous Red Sox, not Red Sock. Weird but true. Same with the White Sox. An individual is never called a White Sock or a Red Sock, according to AP journalistic standards. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coast2CoastAM2006 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 its the carolina hurricanes. they are going to rebrand from the Hurricanes to a new name because of the sensitivity of the name Hurricanes in the wake of recent natural disasters. rebrand to include new name, logo, and color scheme. Spoilers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CS85 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 its the carolina hurricanes. they are going to rebrand from the Hurricanes to a new name because of the sensitivity of the name Hurricanes in the wake of recent natural disasters. rebrand to include new name, logo, and color scheme.That would make the most sense. I'm guessing part of their rebranding hinges on what Winnipeg is going to do. Carolina should have a name derived on flight (wright brothers), but it'd be redundant if the Jets were back, so...we'll see. Quote "You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke." twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMW79 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 So if the Hurricanes rebrand due to the "sensitivity" of their name, then I suppose Colorado will be on that bandwagon at some point in the future? The Sharks need to change too. Shark attacks are nothing to be joked about. And the Flames? Better talk to Smokey the Bear about how inappropriate that name is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.