Well, Valley Girl came out in 1983, and they didn’t just make it up out of thin air, so I’d guess people have been saying this at least as far back as the 1970s.
delete duplicate
Sorry, I don’t agree at all.
I was giving examples of Englis words ending in -um.
The fact that you can construct the plural only by knowing the origin of each word shows me that your system is incorrect.
There is no need to complicate English by using rules from other languages depending on where the word came from.
Latin plurals should disappear from our language, making it easier to teach and learn.
It’s often been used as a contraction of “it has”, too.
By that logic, one could come up with a word like, I don’t know, “Actrin”, meaning an African American actor, and claim that it is acceptable.
I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe that. However, it is at odds with the facts.
Of course it isn’t acceptable. The word you’re looking for is “blacktor.”
Can you give an example? This sounds British to me; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it in the US, though maybe an example would jog my memory.
It’s been my experience that “it’s” can mean “it has.” 
ETA: The post you quoted used it as “it has,” just as mine did.
See, I must’ve known this subconsciously, because I kind of knew it would make sense when I saw an example :smack:
Please add a spell-checker to your toolbar, and USE it. Please! It can’t catch correctly spelled words in the wrong usage, but it at least shows you maybe TRIED.
Definately is definitely not right and I’ve seen it in several posts just today. It irks me to no end! AARGH!
Okay. I feel better. Thanks.
There are plenty of things people say that are flat-out wrong, but I won’t go into them here because it would take all day.
Instead, I’m using today’s ration of bile on people who insist on using baroque, Edwardian spelling and/or word variants like spelt and whilst. Like it or not, folks, you’re living in McDonaldland, and saying “I saw Anthony Rapp whilst I was in line to get tickets to Rent” just makes you sound twee. They may be in the dictionary and therefore technically correct, but we all know that “the dictionary” (as if there were only one) is like a wimpy kid that will go along with anything if enough people get in his face about it. Just because “the dictionary” says you can use a word a given way doesn’t mean you should, if you don’t want people to think you’re an emo-haired effete high-school freshman who writes with a quill pen. “Spelt” is a kind of grain. Say “spelled” like a normal person.
(related) and for the love of Mike, will you all PLEASE stop saying “whinge” when you mean “whine”?
Bolding mine.
I hope this does not constitute a hijack and if it does, I apologize, but what makes you say that English is special and somehow unlike other languages in this respect?
What about irregular Germanic plurals? Why not say “childs”, “gooses”, “mans”, “mouses”, “womans”, etc.? THat would make English easier to learn, especially when you have to work out the plurals of words like “mongoose”, “shaman” and “Walkman”.
“I’m like” and “I said” are not completely equivalent. If you say “I said” you are required to accurately tell the words that you said. If you say “I’m like” you are required to accurately reproduce the words you said, with their original intonation and any pertinent body language. At least that’s my take on it.
I guess so, but it’s tough to see everything deteriorate around you and not try to preserve something yourself.
Kool-Aid. The phrase trumps the facts, as it always does in language.
Re plurals: The origin of the word is irrelevant. Some words take plurals from the Latin; others follow Germanic rules; others follow Old English, and still others follow English. It’s the speakers who decide.
The same for the King Canutes who insist that “data” is plural because the Latin is plural, but have no problem with using “agenda” as singular. “Data” is a collective noun meaning “information,” and should be treated that way, no matter where it comes from.
Every day I lose 30 to 40,000 skin cells. You’d think after 26 years I’d have fallen apart by now!
I agree with actor–after all, many female actors are members of the Screen Actors Guild.
However, anyone who calls me a “man” because “man” means “a human being” is lookng for a fight. As long as “people” and “person” are words, there is no need to use the false generic of “man.”
But that’s trying to “preserve” something that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. English isn’t Latin. It hasn’t ever had the same rules as Latin and sticking Latin rules on English doesn’t make sense. Even if it makes sense to insist on certain rules (it doesn’t), it can’t make sense to import Latin rules into the English language and then contort sentences around to fit. That’s not preserving something that’s deteriorating; that’s imposing goofy rules for the sake of goofy rules.