I got t.v.'s put in my headerests

[JoshS]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Yes, they did. Colin Chapman made up the name Lotus. Colin Chapman declared that the plural of Lotus is Lotus. It seems reasonable that the guy that came up with the whole thing should get his way.

It's been discussed many times (search is your friend), there is even the text of a letter that someonee sent to the factory asking for clarification - and it confirmed that the plural is "Lotus".

And again the factory doesn't get to make the rules. And again, there are two rules for plurals, "many of one kind" fish or different ones of the same kind, fishes. Did the letter ask for both. Can you please post the letter? And, if we keep using Lotuses or Loti, and Dictionaries accept that. Guess what? It just doesn't matter what the factory states. Case in point. Shrimp (as Lotus) was the accepted Plural. So many people kept saying shrimps that now both are accepted as plural as of about 30 years ago I believe. I did search, and I did find Lotus car as an accepted Dictionary definition of Lotus. And, Lotuses as the accepted plural. So grammatically it's okay to use either. And, if you want to try to get everyone to use the Factory's position, that's okay too, but grammatically it is not wrong to use Lotuses.

Colin did not MAKE UP the name Lotus. The name was around, oh I guess a couple years before he used it, for his product. It is spelled and pronounced exactly like the flower. He made up a new usage for it, can we agree on that? Discussing it many times does not change the facts.

And, we should try to use the plural the company wants, I do. So don't get me wrong, but there are rules on how plurals are spelled by the spelling of the word, not the meaning (or in some cases long time accepted usage) or how someone would like it.

Plus the company, from everything I've read, never refers to the cars as Lotus, but always as Lotus Cars.

[njcu]

It's sad that this has turned into a grammar discussion. And... It is be Locusts Cars... that's the proper way to say it.

[necro]

Originally Posted by njcu

It's sad that this has turned into a grammar discussion. And... It is be Locusts Cars... that's the proper way to say it.

Wait... you think it's sad that we dicsuss now grammar instead of making fun of Mike's mod?

For the record I call my car "the one thing that gives me most pleasure - especially with the right rubber on".

[njcu]

Originally Posted by necro

Wait... you think it's sad that we dicsuss now grammar instead of making fun of Mike's mod?

Never said that.

[necro]

Originally Posted by njcu

Never said that.

Nope. That's why I put a ? on the end.

BTW - my typing is just awful.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by JoshS

And again the factory doesn't get to make the rules.

Again, they made up the name, they get to define the plural if they want to.

Originally Posted by JoshS

And again, there are two rules for plurals,

There are obviously more "rules" than that. Again, regular rules for regular words don't necessarily apply.

[quote=JoshS;1054036]Can you please post the letter?/[quote]Read this thread (and you may search for several of the others): Is Elise singular and plural????. Pay attention to post number 53.

Originally Posted by JoshS

And, if we keep using Lotuses or Loti, and Dictionaries accept that. Guess what? It just doesn't matter what the factory states.

Just because you say something wrong enough doesn't make it correct, even if it does get in the dictionary (and I doubt that a dictionary defines Loti or Lotuses as plural for Lotus cars)

Originally Posted by JoshS

I did search, and I did find Lotus car as an accepted Dictionary definition of Lotus. And, Lotuses as the accepted plural. So grammatically it's okay to use either.

Just because some on-line dictionary has it wrong, still doesn't make it correct.

Originally Posted by JoshS

Colin did not MAKE UP the name Lotus. The name was around, oh I guess a couple years before he used it, for his product. It is spelled and pronounced exactly like the flower. He made up a new usage for it, can we agree on that? Discussing it many times does not change the facts.

Colin did make up the word. There are several plausible legends about the origin of the word (including the "LOT Un Sold" abbreviation), but no one knows for sure as Colin refused to tell the origin (bit mischievous). He is supposed to have admitted that it had nothing at all to do with the "Lotus Flower". He did not make up a new usage of an old word, he made up a new word that just happens to be spelled the same as another word.

Originally Posted by JoshS

Plus the company, from everything I've read, never refers to the cars as Lotus, but always as Lotus Cars.

They kind of admit that it can be awkward at times and even suggest using Lotus cars if it sounds awkward to you.

[Moto44]

Tim, are you trying extra hard to win this case because you were wrong about the perspective and whether or not the shots were photoshopped?

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by JoshS

And again the factory doesn't get to make the rules. And again, there are two rules for plurals, "many of one kind" fish or different ones of the same kind, fishes. Did the letter ask for both. Can you please post the letter? And, if we keep using Lotuses or Loti, and Dictionaries accept that. Guess what? It just doesn't matter what the factory states. Case in point. Shrimp (as Lotus) was the accepted Plural. So many people kept saying shrimps that now both are accepted as plural as of about 30 years ago I believe. I did search, and I did find Lotus car as an accepted Dictionary definition of Lotus. And, Lotuses as the accepted plural. So grammatically it's okay to use either. And, if you want to try to get everyone to use the Factory's position, that's okay too, but grammatically it is not wrong to use Lotuses.

Colin did not MAKE UP the name Lotus. The name was around, oh I guess a couple years before he used it, for his product. It is spelled and pronounced exactly like the flower. He made up a new usage for it, can we agree on that? Discussing it many times does not change the facts.

And, we should try to use the plural the company wants, I do. So don't get me wrong, but there are rules on how plurals are spelled by the spelling of the word, not the meaning (or in some cases long time accepted usage) or how someone would like it.

Plus the company, from everything I've read, never refers to the cars as Lotus, but always as Lotus Cars.

Your examples are all simple words. In this case Lotus is a proper name. There are a lot of grammatical rules to which proper names are immune.

So, in that sense. Lotus the company can decide that Lotus is the plural.

[Bumnah]

I didn't read the whole thread. TV and stereo in an Elise? I don't own one and I know what you just did is blasphemy!

[UKphil]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

There are several plausible legends about the origin of the word (including the "LOT Un Sold" abbreviation)

In which case perhaps the plural should be "Lotsus"

[Eclise]

Originally Posted by Moto44

Tim, are you trying extra hard to win this case because you were wrong about the perspective and whether or not the shots were photoshopped?

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Again, they made up the name, they get to define the plural if they want to.

Uhh... Chapman didn't invent the word any more than Gore invented the Internet The only thing Chapman "made up" is the decision to use the word as the name for his company. Regardless of the reason for its choice, the plural of the noun "lotus" in the English language is already defined.

lotus - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The plural is Lotuses.

Sorry to inform you, Chapman didn't invent the English language. Yes, that also means that "simplicate" isn't a word, either.

The aforementioned is all just a part of Lotus's quirky, gimmicky branding. Chapman did it to reinforce the concept that Lotus thinks differently. Lotus continues that tradition because it appeals to their quirky followers / Chapman worhippers.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

The rules of the language transcend the rule that Colin Chapman made up.

Lotus is the noun. How it's pluralized is entirely determined by the language it's being used in, not by the person who made up the name.


Doesn't matter if it's a name.

But English has sooooooo many exceptions to the "rules" that making Lotus the plural of Lotus isn't a problem. It's just another of the English language exceptions to the rule.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Uhh... Chapman didn't invent the word any more than Gore invented the Internet The only thing Chapman "made up" is the decision to use the word as the name for his company. Regardless of the reason for its choice, the plural of the noun "lotus" in the English language is already defined.

lotus - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The plural is Lotuses.

Sorry to inform you, Chapman didn't invent the English language. Yes, that also means that "simplicate" isn't a word, either.

The aforementioned is all just a part of Lotus's quirky, gimmicky branding. Chapman did it to reinforce the concept that Lotus thinks differently. Lotus continues that tradition because it appeals to their quirky followers / Chapman worhippers.

But not a single one of the definitions that you link to refer to the car company.

1. a plant believed to be a jujube or elm, referred to in Greek legend as yielding a fruit that induced a state of dreamy and contented forgetfulness in those who ate it.
2. the fruit itself.
3. any aquatic plant of the genus Nelumbo, of the water lily family, having shieldlike leaves and showy, solitary flowers usually projecting above the water.
4. any of several water lilies of the genus Nymphaea.
5. a decorative motif derived from such a plant and used widely in ancient art, as on the capitals of Egyptian columns.
6. any shrubby plant of the genus Lotus, of the legume family, having red, pink, yellow, or white flowers.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

Your examples are all simple words. In this case Lotus is a proper name. There are a lot of grammatical rules to which proper names are immune.

So, in that sense. Lotus the company can decide that Lotus is the plural.

+1

[RoadDad]

BTW, back on topic, I'm installing monitors in my headrests this weekend so that the DVDs played in the headunit can be seen by my kids riding in the boot.

[Lancia]

I prefer Lotuseses.

The company only uses Lotus to save weight.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Uhh... Chapman didn't invent the word any more than Gore invented the Internet The only thing Chapman "made up" is the decision to use the word as the name for his company.

But if he didn't take the existing word and decide to change it's meaning, if he made up the word without even knowing the other meanings of the word existed, then he did in fact "make up" the word. There is absolutely no proof that he knew that the word existed prior to his use, and there were statements made by him that it had nothing to do with the flower (the existing word).

Colin made up the word.

As for being "wrong" on the headrests, I still haven't seen any close up views of the things. Side views that show the mountings, etc. - only light up views from behind that could easily be photo shopped. I'm still not buying that they are real - at least not based on the first photos and the later cell phone (from a distance) photos.

Want us to believe in them? Show photos taken in the daytime, up close - without them turned on. Show side views of how they are mounted, etc. Until then, I'm still a skeptic.

[Rennstore]

Yo, call it a Lo. Tus.

[Mikemo]

Originally Posted by Lancia

I prefer Lotuseses.

The company only uses Lotus to save weight.

hahahahahahahaha