The Steel Guitar Forum

"Nothng" is "No Thing" and "Thing" is singular.
"Nothings" would be plural, as in "My baby whispers in my ear, 'Sweet Nothings'".

b0b wrote:Nothing is funny.

Rick Collins wrote: It depends on what the meaning if the word is, is.
I checked with Monica on her connotation.
And, she says that in this context the verb "are" should be used, because of the implication that NOTHING would be assumed to be plural since everything in the universe is inclusive.

Okay. Nothing are funny.

No, "nothings" are funny, "nothing" is funny.
(I'm talking gramatically now. Plenty of things are funny. I don't see how the word "nothing" is funny, unless you have a strange sense of humour. )

We should commission a poll. Vote now for the pedaling pedant. No contest, Alan. No prize, Alan. No kudos, Alan. Shame on you.

Arch.

Alan Brookes wrote:No, "nothings" are funny, "nothing" is funny.
(I'm talking gramatically now. Plenty of things are funny. I don't see how the word "nothing" is funny, unless you have a strange sense of humour. )

I don't see how you can be so serious here in the humor section, unless you have a strange sense of serious.
...just kidding.

But, some things are strange about the English language:
leaf __ the plural is leaves.
I know a man, Dan Greenleaf. His family collectively are addressed 'The Greenleafs'.

There are thousands of inconsistencies in the English language. How about a young OWL being a HOWLETT ? (That's because HOWL has lost its H.)
How about a female FOX being a VIXEN ? (That's because FOX used to be pronounced VOX.) Then there's the BUTTERFLY which has nothing to do with butter; it used to be known as a FLUTTERBY. Don't forget that WENT is the past tense of WEND, not GO; (the past tense of GO used to be GOED.)

The English language is spelled/spelt as it was spoken hundreds of years ago. That's why there are silent letters, all of which used to be pronounced.

Were it not so there would be NOTHING for grammarians to teach.

Archie Nicol wrote:... Alan. Shame on you.

Alas, Archie, I am a man completely without shame; not without guilt, just without being ashamed of it.

...frightening __ in a way Alan.
How long will it be until locker-room colloq. words (indeed illicit) for the human sex act (now so frequently used on the "big screen") begin to appear in physician's text books and on radio and television.

Actually Rick, most of the four letter words referring to sex and parts of the body were in common use until the Victorian era, and not considered vulgar. What has made them vulgar over the years is their use in abusive language. Someone will hit his finger with a hammer and shout "F**k:!: ", when he's not referring to the sex act at all.
Of course, medical books usually use technical terms, which are mostly from Latin and Greek.

So there's nothing wrong with using those words as long as you use them to mean what they're supposed to mean.

Well, I must say in the years this has been going on, that nothing is still happening ........

And almost 142,000 people have read NOTHING as well ! That has to add up to something, doesn't it ?

I'm thinking the only way this NOTHING thread is ever going to conclude is for me to use some choice-four-letter-words to describe it.
But for now, I'll just say "holy chitt".
Sometimes some choice five letter words will work.

Rick Collins wrote:I'm thinking the only way this NOTHING thread is ever going to conclude is for me to use some choice-four-letter-words to describe it.
...

Try it. It doesn't work. The software changes your words to more mild words meaning the same thing. The only way you can type naughty words is to use $ or 5 instead of S, or put ** in and let people use their imagination.
But it's not worth the effort. NOTHING you can type shocks people nowadays. They've read it all before.

Any cheese, Alan.

Cheddarch.

Cheeze, Archie...I think he's all out of cheese !!NOTHING else would do ??

Well...NOTHING here !! At least it's On Topic !!

The good thing about the NOTHING thread is that it's impossible to stray off subject, because even if you talk about Hindu love goddesses they have NOTHING to do with NOTHING.

Alan Brookes wrote:The good thing about the NOTHING thread is that it's impossible to stray off subject, because even if you talk about Hindu love goddesses they have NOTHING to do with NOTHING.

Well Alan, since you put it that way I should get a few things off my chest:
At a very early age I became facinated with girls.
No more than four years old, I would pretend to be playing with a toy truck on the sidewalk in front of our home.
But, I did this for only one reason. I would try to look up-under girl's dresses when they walked by.
But, what did I actually see? NOTHING!

Soon after that, I begin to delve into Mother Goose, hoping to learn about girls and sex.
Even then, it was still discouraging; "diddle, diddle, diddle" really was something a cat played on a fiddle and I saw NOTHING!

Little Miss Muffet, I thought, was finally going to reveal something.
Printed in the book was a picture of her sitting on her tuffet __ she had her legs crossed!
And of course, I saw NOTHING!

It begin to sink-in, "until I grow up, I'm seeing absolutely NOTHING!"

Bless you, my son, for you have sinned.

If it's any consolation, every little boy wants to see what's up a little girl's dress. The problem is that society covers everything up. Cover up body parts and you create a curiosity, which the church interprets as sin. Our ancestors didn't have that problem. It came to the fore because of the puritans, who deemed seeing a woman's ankles was shameful. A thousand years ago it was not a problem. Everyone bathed nude. Unfortunately, deprivation has spawned an industry which exists to this day in portraying what our ancestors would have viewed as everyday, and uninteresting. I see the trend continuing, to the extent that, in a hundred years time, you will be free to be naked if you chose, because the fear of being looked down upon will have disappeared.

And that, of course, has a lot to do with NOTHING, inthat the wearing of NOTHING is pertinent to the thread.

I think I'll have to go back to counting again...this is getting too deep for me !! But what the heck...I'm still getting NOTHING out of it so I'm OK...Right ??

Alan Brookes wrote:Bless you, my son, for you have sinned.

Since you put it that way Alan, it seems I've been a "dirty old man" since I was four.

"Covering up" will be among the majority for a long time.
With the make up and fashions of even the most beautiful women in Hollywood they like to create an optical illusion.
Sometimes when I think I'm seeing a whole lot, I'm actually seeing NOTHING!

Now we have 112 pages about nothing. There is nothing to say about nothing other than it is nothing, yet we have a 112 pages about nothing. Is than nothing, something?

I hesitate to articulate in fear I may deviate upon the highest degree of accuracy.

Lee thanks for reminding me...I have to schedule one for next February !!I hope NOTHING comes out of it !!

Paul Graupp wrote:Lee thanks for reminding me...I have to schedule one for next February...

One what ?

Alan
I had another saying with the word colon-scopic in my post and I changed it, that is what Paul was refering to.
I hesitate to articulate my craving to transport my colon-scopic senses to the sanitary disposal area.