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

[Shawn C]

Dumbest thread ever, and 39,000 views?????

[wantanelise]

hey, Im back to the 500th post just to let everyone know

[Bavarian Motorist]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

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.

Tim, I want you to know that I respect you very much and I think you provide a wealth of valuable knowledge to this community and contribute in many ways. Thanks a bunch.


But why are you sometimes such a naysayer? I only say this because I am friends with the person who posted the cell phone pics. You really think he would go to the lengths of photoshopping those pics to fool us? For whose benefit? Sometimes you have to give people more credit than that and stop calling bluffs on everything.


For what it's worth and as someone who knows Midashands, I really don't think Midashands would lie about this. He has nothing to gain. He was just as curious as we were.


I mean no disrespect, Tim.

[JoshS]

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.

You just hit the nail on the head! When Lotus trademarked and/or registered the name it was a proper name. It stood for a "Company" not the car they built. Over the years we've metonymized the brand names of cars (and other products) to mean the car (or product) itself. BUT, the companies never have. No one wants to be the next Thermos or Cresent wrench. We truncate Lotus cars to, "see all the Lotus (Loti, Lotuses) in the parking lot," reducing it to a noun. But, as the letter from Lotus, that Tim pointed out, Lotus does not, has not, and will not do that, that could lead them to lose their trademark.

Now, the other problem you have is that the reason we have "accepted" gramatical rules and spellings is so there isn't chaos. Here's the example for why Lotus can't decide on what plural we use. I have a Lotus flower, a Lotus matchbox car, and Lotus software on my desk. "Did you see the Lotuses on my desk." I must use some rule, so guess what? I look up the spelling (not the meaning) and see what rule I must use. There is no such thing anywhere in the English language as using a rule somewhere, but not somewhere else. So if it is proper to use it here, it's proper to use it everywhere. Now, like shrimp and shrimps, we can use Lotus as the plural if the company likes, but it's also correct to use Lotuses, but not Loti.

The reason we are having this discussion is because of the unusual situation that Lotus ends in S. Ford would never say like goose and geese, please use Ferd as the plural, they don't get to "make it up." They go by established rules. Because there is an official accepted spelling for "Lotus" (Even if Colin was unaware that dozens of restaurants, streets, companies, plus the flower and the tree used that spelling). The rule must be used because of the case above and this one. "We are aware there are other Lotus companies out there, but none of these other Lotuses are affiliated with Group Lotus." Again Lotus (the proper noun) is the company and for them the only plural would mean in comparison with other Lotus companies, so the neccessity for one encompassing rule and the reason why we must go by spellings not meanings, or who runs what company.

[Bavarian Motorist]

Proper nouns are not exempt from the rules of pluralization. Johnson becomes Johnsons. Ferrari becomes Ferraris. Lotus becomes Lotuses. It's really not debatable.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

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

That's only because Lotus as a car company isn't significant enough to make it into a dictionary.

Ford made it into the dictionary. And the pluralization of the vehicles with that moniker would be the same as the pluralization of the name Ford, which would be based on its etymology, which likely has its roots in the word "ford" meaning "a river bed".

Originally Posted by TimMullen

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).

Statements that the name had nothing to do with the flower are proof that he was aware of the word.

Even if not, the word follows the roots of its origins.

My last name is Moseley. The derivation of that is "Moss on the River Ley" - a river in England. My family is not English... we're Lebanese/Syrian. When my grandfather came to the US, his name was something like Mosulli... they changed it to Moseley, and that's our new family name.

Doesn't matter that my roots differ from the "Moseley" roots... my name adopts the meaning of the "Moseley" name, and I have to pluralize it "Moseleys".

Originally Posted by JoshS

The reason we are having this discussion is because of the unusual situation that Lotus ends in S. Ford would never say like goose and geese, please use Ferd as the plural, they don't get to "make it up." They go by established rules. Because there is an official accepted spelling for "Lotus" (Even if Colin was unaware that dozens of restaurants, streets, companies, plus the flower and the tree used that spelling). The rule must be used because of the case above and this one. "We are aware there are other Lotus companies out there, but none of these other Lotuses are affiliated with Group Lotus." Again Lotus (the proper noun) is the company and for them the only plural would mean in comparison with other Lotus companies, so the neccessity for one encompassing rule and the reason why we must go by spellings not meanings, or who runs what company.

How a word is pluralized is not only based upon its suffix/ending, but also on its etymology / origin.

For whatever reason, Chapman named his company "Lotus" - the name then adopts the language rules of the existing word.

Why? Because that's how language works... we establish a set of rules for words based on their derivation and construction, and then we apply them uniformly to all. When people try to make up their own rules, they F- up the language and communication breaks down.

So I'm going to continue to say "Lotuses." You guys do whatever you want though.

[JoshS]

Originally Posted by smoseley

How a word is pluralized is not only based upon its suffix/ending, but also on its etymology / origin.

For whatever reason, Chapman named his company "Lotus" - the name then adopts the language rules of the existing word.

Why? Because that's how language works... we establish a set of rules for words based on their derivation and construction, and then we apply them uniformly to all. When people try to make up their own rules, they F- up the language and communication breaks down.

So I'm going to continue to say "Lotuses." You guys do whatever you want though.

Never thought I'd see myself agreeing with Steve. Tim we are absolutely right about all this, I hope you can get past years of your war on the plural of Lotus. There would be chaos if we didn't standardize spellings and plurals.

[smoseley]

Yeah!!!! Oh, and Tim, you're wrong about the monitors, too... so there!

[delise]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qJQwHwP0ojI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qJQwHwP0ojI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Statements that the name had nothing to do with the flower are proof that he was aware of the word.

No, that only means that years later when people were asking him the origins and if it had to do with the flower, he indicated at that time that it had nothing to do with the flower.

Originally Posted by smoseley

For whatever reason, Chapman named his company "Lotus" - the name then adopts the language rules of the existing word.

No, it does not. Which language? Which rules? Different languages have different rules. Different countries have different rules. It goes on.

Colin and the factory have both indicated that the plural of Lotus is Lotus. That's pretty simple. As the letter from the factory indicates, if it sounds awkward, say "Lotus cars" and it will flow properly.



As for the videos in the headrests, I still don't think the cell phone photos don't show any detail, but I'll bow to the people that know/trust that it's for real.

But I'll continue to think it's stupid.

[Eclise]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Colin and the factory have both indicated that the plural of Lotus is Lotus.

Do you have any links to where Chapman used the singular form of the word to indicate pleural? I started looking up Colin Chapman quotes, and I found a few good ones...I read where he once said:

"The secret of a successful marriage is not to be at home too much."

GENIUS!

[apk919]

Originally Posted by delise

...

This... is an EX-thread!

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by Eclise

Do you have any links to where Chapman used the singular form of the word to indicate pleural? I started looking up Colin Chapman quotes, and I found a few good ones...I read where he once said:

"The secret of a successful marriage is not to be at home too much."

GENIUS!

Links no. 30 year old books, yes...

[Eclise]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Links no. 30 year old books, yes...

Scan 'em, or at least type up some quotes. There really aren't many sources of quotes of him out there on the interweb. I saw one website which claimed that the saying, "simplify, and add lightness" wasn't originally made by Chapman. That really bummed me out.

[Nugget9k]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K80CIQPwruU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K80CIQPwruU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[wantanelise]

bump... because i can

[JoshS]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

No, it does not. Which language? Which rules? Different languages have different rules. Different countries have different rules. It goes on.

:

You've got it right there, different countries have different rules. Like color is spelled colour, there. A letter from an English factory is absolutely 100% meaningless here. Proper name you say? How do the French spell Paris. The Italians, Venice? SO a letter from the Italian president gets us to change the name.

please explain. I have a Lotus car, a lotus flower, and Lotus software on my desk. I have three lotuses on my desk. Is that correct or not?

[Bavarian Motorist]

Originally Posted by JoshS

You've got it right there, different countries have different rules. Like color is spelled colour, there. A letter from an English factory is absolutely 100% meaningless here. Proper name you say? How do the French spell Paris. The Italians, Venice? SO a letter from the Italian president gets us to change the name.

please explain. I have a Lotus car, a lotus flower, and Lotus software on my desk. I have three lotuses on my desk. Is that correct or not?

Let it GO!!!!!!!

[JoshS]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

Let it GO!!!!!!!

For 2 years I've been watching this argument from the sidelines and stayed out of it. But, this guy is a moderator. This is a black and white issue on so many levels. I've disagreed with Tim on several issues that were argumentitive, but to think that he really believes a piece of paper from someone at Lotus changes the rules of the English language frightens me to think he should actually deal with issues on this board.

Tim, I've written to Merriam Webster on an issue before (for a TV show I was working on) and they will make a ruling. Will you accept that the authority for spelling, that is the accepted arbiter for the patent and trademark office, the gov't, and for every school system in the US is the final arbiter on this issue? I will send them the letter and your comments. I'll accept their verdict will you? Or do you honestly believe anyone gets to make their own rules for the spelling of a word that is already in existence and accepted rules be damned?

[smoseley]

Josh, DO IT!!! I wanna see what they reply!!! Probably something on the order of "The plural of 'Lotus' is hereby deemed to be 'Lotuses'... and the plural of 'Lotus owner' is hereby deemed to be 'nutjobs'!!!"