Talk:O' Dems
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Enough references?) |
(→Enough references?) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::::::::::::But "O' Dems" isn't just pluralized. It's said with a D and omitting the F. -[[Special:Contributions/170.223.0.54|170.223.0.54]] 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::::::But "O' Dems" isn't just pluralized. It's said with a D and omitting the F. -[[Special:Contributions/170.223.0.54|170.223.0.54]] 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::::Can you think of any context where saying "of thems" would be grammatically correct? Or even just "thems"? Firefox's spellchecker doesn't even recognize it as a word (well, okay, it also has issues with "axe" and "sequitur" and "teleport", but still...) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | :::::::::::::Can you think of any context where saying "of thems" would be grammatically correct? Or even just "thems"? Firefox's spellchecker doesn't even recognize it as a word (well, okay, it also has issues with "axe" and "sequitur" and "teleport", but still...) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::::::::::Who, me? I can't; that's why I think it's unique enough to have a page. -[[Special:Contributions/170.223.0.54|170.223.0.54]] 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 16 April 2009
Enough references?
There aren't enough references. — MichaelXX2 
21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the "thems" count. And even if not, there are 3 "dems" listed. -170.223.0.54 22:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the plural and the missing "f" make "o' thems" count. And it says that it shouldn't be a seperate article. Where else would this go? I think you have the wrong template. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- But "O' Thems" aren't what the page title is. And there are only two toons where "O' Dems" occur anyway. — MichaelXX2 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I got it!! Put japanese cartoon and other "o' thems/thems" in an "Other" category. Which is done now. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 18:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I searched "thems" and it turned up a whole lot of responses. So how about a new page, something like "Plural 'them'" or something. Similar to Singular Instead of Plural, but opposite. *lightbulb* Do we have a page for Plural Instead of Singular? There are more instances of that than "dems" and it would make more sense, making this page delete-able. What do you say? --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anything that gets this worthless page outta here is good enough for me. — MichaelXX2 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mumble grumble... I'll get on it. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, it's not complete, but it's made. A sysop can delete this now. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still think the "dems" construction is unique enough to merit its own page. The other page will have a distinct scope, with a couple of cases which overlap. -170.223.0.54 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, I agree with Michael. Besides, Plural Instead of Singular works better anyway. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree with Michael. – The Chort 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- But "O' Dems" isn't just pluralized. It's said with a D and omitting the F. -170.223.0.54 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you think of any context where saying "of thems" would be grammatically correct? Or even just "thems"? Firefox's spellchecker doesn't even recognize it as a word (well, okay, it also has issues with "axe" and "sequitur" and "teleport", but still...) --Jay (Talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Who, me? I can't; that's why I think it's unique enough to have a page. -170.223.0.54 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you think of any context where saying "of thems" would be grammatically correct? Or even just "thems"? Firefox's spellchecker doesn't even recognize it as a word (well, okay, it also has issues with "axe" and "sequitur" and "teleport", but still...) --Jay (Talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- But "O' Dems" isn't just pluralized. It's said with a D and omitting the F. -170.223.0.54 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree with Michael. – The Chort 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, I agree with Michael. Besides, Plural Instead of Singular works better anyway. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still think the "dems" construction is unique enough to merit its own page. The other page will have a distinct scope, with a couple of cases which overlap. -170.223.0.54 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, it's not complete, but it's made. A sysop can delete this now. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mumble grumble... I'll get on it. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anything that gets this worthless page outta here is good enough for me. — MichaelXX2
- Actually, I searched "thems" and it turned up a whole lot of responses. So how about a new page, something like "Plural 'them'" or something. Similar to Singular Instead of Plural, but opposite. *lightbulb* Do we have a page for Plural Instead of Singular? There are more instances of that than "dems" and it would make more sense, making this page delete-able. What do you say? --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I got it!! Put japanese cartoon and other "o' thems/thems" in an "Other" category. Which is done now. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 18:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- But "O' Thems" aren't what the page title is. And there are only two toons where "O' Dems" occur anyway. — MichaelXX2
- Yeah, the plural and the missing "f" make "o' thems" count. And it says that it shouldn't be a seperate article. Where else would this go? I think you have the wrong template. --Thy Not Dennis (t/c) 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
