home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!demon!essence.demon.co.uk!prh
- From: prh@essence.demon.co.uk ("Peter R. Humphrey")
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: Plurals
- Message-ID: <728200875snx@essence.demon.co.uk>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 23:01:15 GMT
- References: <C1IKCv.KIq@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
- Reply-To: prh@essence.demon.co.uk
- Distribution: alt
- Organization: Organization? What organization?
- Lines: 13
- X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.30 $
-
- In article <C1IKCv.KIq@newcastle.ac.uk> G.M.Suddes@newcastle.ac.uk (Gareth Suddes) writes:
-
- > Something I noticed the other day.
- > Why is it we often refer to 'nothing' as a plural?
-
- Because it isn't singular. Only one thing can be singular, if you see
- what I mean...
-
- --
- Rgds
-
- Peter Humphrey | prh@essence.demon.co.uk | Voice 0932-343158
- Woking, UK. | unionjack@cix.compulink.co.uk | Data 0932-353948
-