On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Dik T. Winter wrote:
Phil Clark writes:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:54:57 +0100, "Richard M Willis"

Is panini already a plural word ?
Yes, the singular is panino.

As well as "salame" is the singular of "salami" ...

.... as native italian improper usage of the plural form sounds to me at
least funny when not irritating ...

I tend to disagree. What is plural in one language can very well become
singular in another language. Whether it was plural in the original
lanuage does not matter very much.

I tend to disagree with the latter statement as a matter of principle,
although it might be correct as an observation of actual usage.

In italian we have the rule that foreign words are invariable, so one
should always use the singular form even at the plural (we have singular
and plural articles ... and genders too). But there are some curious
practical (not codified) exceptions : the spanish word "murales" is
common for "wall paintings", and the other spanish word "peones" is
common to indicate "unqualified" members of parliament (not party
leaders, not chairmen of committees etc.) ... both are plural forms, but
commonly used also at the singular.

I guess a spaniard will feel like me when I hear "one panini"

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:02:18 +0200, Giovanni Drogo
wrote:

Is panini already a plural word ?
Yes, the singular is panino.

As well as "salame" is the singular of "salami" ...

... as native italian improper usage of the plural form sounds to me at
least funny when not irritating ...

I tend to disagree. What is plural in one language can very well become
singular in another language. Whether it was plural in the original
lanuage does not matter very much.

I tend to disagree with the latter statement as a matter of principle,
although it might be correct as an observation of actual usage.

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers. So
one panini, two panini.

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309739.html
(43 090 at London Kings Cross, 29 Nov 1980)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:08:25 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?

Adjectival form.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:08:25 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?

Adjectival form.

Pardon? If you are saying that trouser is an adjective, then I'm
beginning to wonder what it means, and if it is part of the sequence:
trous, trouser, trousest.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589947.html
(37 092 at London Liverpool Street, 13 Apr 1980)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:41:52 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:08:25 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?

Adjectival form.

Pardon? If you are saying that trouser is an adjective, then I'm
beginning to wonder what it means, and if it is part of the sequence:
trous, trouser, trousest.

Sure it's an adjective. It modifies the word "press", telling you what
kind of a press it is.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:41:52 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:08:25 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?

Adjectival form.

Pardon? If you are saying that trouser is an adjective, then I'm
beginning to wonder what it means, and if it is part of the sequence:
trous, trouser, trousest.

Sure it's an adjective. It modifies the word "press", telling you what
kind of a press it is.

Such an idea gives me an ache. The adjective "head" tells you what kind
of an ache.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683667.html
(50001 (Class 114) at Sheffield Midland, Dec 1979)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:42:17 GMT, Phil Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:02:18 +0200, Giovanni Drogo
wrote:

Is panini already a plural word ?
Yes, the singular is panino.

As well as "salame" is the singular of "salami" ...

... as native italian improper usage of the plural form sounds to me at
least funny when not irritating ...

I tend to disagree. What is plural in one language can very well become
singular in another language. Whether it was plural in the original
lanuage does not matter very much.

I tend to disagree with the latter statement as a matter of principle,
although it might be correct as an observation of actual usage.

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

"One pair of trousers" "two pairs of trousers".

So one panini, two panini.

Not really the same thing.

Sheep, maybe.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On 8/7/06 13:42, "Phil Clark" wrote:

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers. So
one panini, two panini.

I went to the shop today and bought a trousers? :-)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:56:20 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

On 8/7/06 13:42, "Phil Clark" wrote:

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers. So
one panini, two panini.

I went to the shop today and bought a trousers? :-)

OK then, gallows.