To: Rodebrecht
Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums Nice use of the lingo.
The British don't always handle plurals as Americans do but you're probably right.
14 posted on
08/30/2009 10:52:54 AM PDT by
decimon
To: decimon
I am unaware of
any dialect or variant of the English language, possibly excepting 'ebonics', that uses anything other than 'millennia' as the plural of 'millennium'.
Certainly not 'British' English.
61 posted on
08/30/2009 11:48:13 AM PDT by
SAJ
(q)
To: decimon
It’s a latin word. The rules of its usage haven’t change in, um, almost two millennia.
66 posted on
08/30/2009 11:53:26 AM PDT by
EDINVA
(A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul -- G. B. Shaw)
To: decimon
“Sod off you limpy git.”
/sarc
93 posted on
08/30/2009 12:42:04 PM PDT by
Secret Agent Man
(I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
To: decimon
Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums
The British don't always handle plurals as Americans do but you're probably right. Some milleniums they did; some milleniums they didn't. They couldn't make up their minds. OTOH, they ones in Southern Europe took on a golden-brown glow from the olive oil in their diets; hence, "olive complected".
The Inuit "not agerarian' excuse doesn't wash, really, unless the Lapps/Finns/Sandanavians/Vikings weren't white. From what I understand, no red blooded man would touch his veggies, unless they had been either liquified and fermented; or been pre-processed by an animal, first. Might be wrong about that, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
123 posted on
08/30/2009 9:55:05 PM PDT by
ApplegateRanch
(The Great Obamanation of Desolation, sitting in the Oval Office, where he ought not...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson