Jump to content

Latest Rumor: NHL Team Expected to Announce Rebranding in 2012


Mac the Knife

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"... :wacko:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"... :wacko:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"... :wacko:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

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"... :wacko:

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"... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

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"... :wacko:

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"... :lol:

Well played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

==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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.