CrushOfVeils80 Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 should be 'Sox'. FYI I was wondering about that but doesnt Sox mean multiple? Like Harold Baines, Warren Newson, and Ron Karkovice played for the White Sox.......and doesnt Sock mean one guy? Like Dan Pasqua was a White Sock....the phrase "I'm a Chicago White Sox" just sounds funny I would say this is the definition of splitting hairs but to each their own Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Those red tops Boston had were not that great looking, but better than those hideous Pirates ones. Not really a fan of solid red for baseball uniforms. I don't like the thought of screwing with the "B." Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 A front-office official for a team on the outside looking in at the Mark Teixeira chase said he expects the first baseman to sign with Boston."I think he Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 should be 'Sox'. FYI No. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Sox is plural, like Yankees is plural. You don't call A Rod a Yankees. You call him a dick. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 So> That's supposed to be like half an x. Best I could do. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 Sox is plural, like Yankees is plural. You don't call A Rod a Yankees. You call him a dick.Red Sox is used to refer to both the team and an individual player. It doesn't sound right but it is, regardless of A Rod's phallic resemblance. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Red Sox is used to refer to both the team and an individual player. Link? Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Oh, it's like moose or salmon. I still think it sounds wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 Link?I'm just going on how I've seen the Globe and the Herald use the word.... It's easier just to say "He played for the Red Sox" rather than "He was a Red Sox (-ck)." Neither sounds right to me and it's always bugged me. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 In print it's easy to get a away with - but on talk radio I hear 'Red Sock' all the time. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I was wondering about that but doesnt Sox mean multiple? Like Harold Baines, Warren Newson, and Ron Karkovice played for the White Sox.......and doesnt Sock mean one guy? Like Dan Pasqua was a White Sock....the phrase "I'm a Chicago White Sox" just sounds funny I would say this is the definition of splitting hairs but to each their ownNot splitting hairs when one is wrong and one is correct. No.Yes. Sox is plural, like Yankees is plural. You don't call A Rod a Yankees. You call him a dick.No. Red Sox is used to refer to both the team and an individual player. It doesn't sound right but it is, regardless of A Rod's phallic resemblance.Yes. Oh, it's like moose or salmon. I still think it sounds wrong.It does sound wrong; doesn't mean it is. In print it's easy to get a away with - but on talk radio I hear 'Red Sock' all the time.Well, they're idiots. What can I say? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 In print it's easy to get a away with - but on talk radio I hear 'Red Sock' all the time. I'd say it's harder to get away with in print. On air you can slur the ending. Anyway, don't think I won't cut you.... Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 You two have revealed yourselves as true dix. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 If it was White Socks and Red Socks, then "Sock" would be acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 If it was White Socks and Red Socks, then "Sock" would be acceptable.Your logic makes no sense. So because Ludacris doesn't spell his name Ludicrous I can't say/write "Ludacris' new song is crazy"? I'd have to say/write "Ludacris new song is crazy"? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Your logic makes no sense. So because Ludacris doesn't spell his name Ludicrous I can't say/write "Ludacris' new song is crazy"? I'd have to say/write "Ludacris new song is crazy"?It's not logic. It's right and wrong. As for your Ludacris question, I don't care what you call him. Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I like that "You's a Ho" song. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Your logic makes no sense. So because Ludacris doesn't spell his name Ludicrous I can't say/write "Ludacris' new song is crazy"? I'd have to say/write "Ludacris new song is crazy"?There's no parallel. The parallel would be if he cloned himself. Then you would say there are two Ludacrises, not two Ludicrouses. Or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 There's no parallel. The parallel would be if he cloned himself. Then you would say there are two Ludacrises, not two Ludicrouses. It's a simple spelling issue - there's your parallel. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Any simple spelling issue will do? Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Yeah sure. When do pitchers and catchers report? Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 9 o'clox Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 But o'clocks is a non-existent term. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts