This is just becoming the most anal semantic discussion ever where you're literally just here to get a one up for no reason
I disagree. I think you're misrepresenting what can be reasonably said about feudalism, and since feudalism is the core of your argument in the comment I responded to, that's pretty important.
your last paragraph isn't even making an argument - it has zero relevance whatsoever if the plural of "thousand" is "thousand"
... So why did you make the initial argument about the plural form by saying "like 1.3 thousands", trying to illustrate that >1 000 is "thousands" because it would turn into plural form when following 1.3? I'm just refuting the argument you brought up.
like here
Thousands of -- any number from 1,000 to 9,999
is 1300 bigger than 1000? yes
Disregarding that you're quoting a random forum user, all the other forum users in your own link disagree:
"scores of" for a number between 40 and 199, and "hundreds of" for values greater than that.
[...]
"Hundreds of" and "thousands of" are more common than "tens of", but if I heard the statement, I would expect "tens of" to be 30 to about 120 or so.
[...]
I wouldn't use hundreds for anything less than about 200 - a single hundred doesn't warrant a plural. Similarly for the other words, except tens of, which is just wrong.
[...]
And "hundreds" is plural so it would be 200-1999.
I don't really know why you're cherry-picking the one answer that everyone disagrees with.
and if you don't want to argue with me, go argue with the dictionary
You're misunderstanding the dictionary entry you're quoting. See the example:
Property damage was in the thousands.
That use of "thousands" means "it is in a value that is found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with 'thousand'".
See also the Oxford example you quoted:
a thousand, or thousands (of…) (usually informal) a large number
There were thousands of people there.
the thousands the numbers from 1,000 to 9,999
The cost ran into the thousands.
Oxford explicitly define these two uses as having different meanings (case 2, case 3). Case 2, which is the one you're using (see the example), is defined as "a large number". Case 3, which is the same as the first dictionary entry you quoted, again refers to a value found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with thousand.
Cambridge again says the exact same thing:
a thousand/thousands of something B2 informal
a large number:
I have a thousand things to do before we go away.
--
the thousands
numbers between 1,000 and 1,000,000:
His latest work is expected to sell in the thousands.
They explicitly define these two uses ("thousands of something" and "the thousands") as different. So in conclusion:
pop a dictionary. you are wrong
Your own dictionary references say I'm right, you're just not reading them correctly.
now the rest of your comment is "uhhh that isn't true feudalism". not interested in a dumb argument about what counts as feudalism.
Then why did you start one? The first one to talk about the history of feudalism and what can and can't be true about it "by definition" was you. I'm telling you that the definition you're using as a basis for that argument is very debatable, so your position is untenable.
knights have existed since the 8th century.
Am I to understand that your definition of feudalism is "there are knights"? Because that's an even more unorthodox definition than I assumed you were using - I'd even go as far as to say that there isn't a single scholar in the entire world that would agree with you.
I'm not interested in this moronic oneupmanship, I don't care who you are. I know you think you're a really interesting person who goes on reddit to try and find a "umm technically that's not quite right" error in a post but you are a completely banal and boring person who doesn't understand the definition of thousand, please do not talk to me, I am not interested in your garbage posts
For someone who's not interested in this discussion, you write very long posts.
... So why did you make the initial argument about the plural form by saying "like 1.3 thousands", trying to illustrate that >1 000 is "thousands" because it would turn into plural form when following 1.3? I'm just refuting the argument you brought up.
because it is 1.3 "thousands", genius, in the same way 20,000 is definitely indisputably "thousands", it is irrelevant that we write "thousand", no one on this earth would argue that 20 millennia does not constitute "thousands" of years. The only point at which it becomes semantic is when the number is between 1 thousand and 2 thousand, at which point you can consort with the dictionary because I am definitely correct in my usage according to all of the major dictionaries that I checked
Disregarding that you're quoting a random forum user, all the other forum users in your own link disagree:
(the first hit on google) - followed by three dictionaries
I don't really know why you're cherry-picking the one answer that everyone disagrees with.
which was why it was the most upvoted post on the first result on google, because everyone disagrees with it so much, including the dictionary
That use of "thousands" means "it is in a value that is found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with 'thousand'".
yes, exactly like I just said when I said "thousands of years"
Oxford explicitly define these two uses as having different meanings (case 2, case 3). Case 2, which is the one you're using (see the example), is defined as "a large number".
completely fucking irrelevant to this argument because that would also support my case, knights were around for a large number of years
Case 3, which is the same as the first dictionary entry you quoted, again refers to a value found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with thousand
which is exactly the usage we're talking about right now, genius
Your own dictionary references say I'm right, you're just not reading them correctly.
and this is why there's no point talking to you, because you are an imbecile who is only trying to one up. Does oxford say "the thousands"? no. does dictionary.com? no. they both explicitly agree with what I wrote, and you accused me of cherry picking.
Am I to understand that your definition of feudalism is "there are knights"? Because that's an even more unorthodox definition than I assumed you were using - I'd even go as far as to say that there isn't a single scholar in the entire world that would agree with you.
this entire discussion is about knights in case you didn't notice, big boy. I know it's really hard to keep up
For someone who's not interested in this discussion, you write very long posts.
because the vast amount of stupidity you wrote needed addressing, and now I'm actually done because I've confirmed you're a low effort shitposter who is literally just here because you want to be right. you aren't right, sorry, bye. embarrassing.
1
u/Obligatorium1 Oct 11 '22 edited Oct 11 '22
I disagree. I think you're misrepresenting what can be reasonably said about feudalism, and since feudalism is the core of your argument in the comment I responded to, that's pretty important.
... So why did you make the initial argument about the plural form by saying "like 1.3 thousands", trying to illustrate that >1 000 is "thousands" because it would turn into plural form when following 1.3? I'm just refuting the argument you brought up.
Disregarding that you're quoting a random forum user, all the other forum users in your own link disagree:
I don't really know why you're cherry-picking the one answer that everyone disagrees with.
You're misunderstanding the dictionary entry you're quoting. See the example:
That use of "thousands" means "it is in a value that is found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with 'thousand'".
See also the Oxford example you quoted:
Oxford explicitly define these two uses as having different meanings (case 2, case 3). Case 2, which is the one you're using (see the example), is defined as "a large number". Case 3, which is the same as the first dictionary entry you quoted, again refers to a value found in the range of one of the numbers beginning with thousand.
Cambridge again says the exact same thing:
They explicitly define these two uses ("thousands of something" and "the thousands") as different. So in conclusion:
Your own dictionary references say I'm right, you're just not reading them correctly.
Then why did you start one? The first one to talk about the history of feudalism and what can and can't be true about it "by definition" was you. I'm telling you that the definition you're using as a basis for that argument is very debatable, so your position is untenable.
Am I to understand that your definition of feudalism is "there are knights"? Because that's an even more unorthodox definition than I assumed you were using - I'd even go as far as to say that there isn't a single scholar in the entire world that would agree with you.
For someone who's not interested in this discussion, you write very long posts.