- 15,856

- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
Yeah, whoever made that one is a freaking idiot.
As little sense as it makes, they managed to decently construct a sentence that grammatically ends in five uses of the word "toast", which made me laugh.
Grammatically, it should end toast toasts toast.
As little sense as it makes, they managed to decently construct a sentence that grammatically ends in five uses of the word "toast", which made me laugh.
Not if toast is plural.
Toast isn't plural.
Toast isn't plural.
Would you like some toast? That works right?
Wrong. Toast (as in the bread variety) isn't countable.
I got an ad blocker, what's it say?
Omnis is correct. It's a play on the old English favourite "Dogs dogs dogs dog dog dog dogs dogs dog" (or, more recently, "Badgers badgers badgers badger badger badger badgers badgers badger").
Odd language.
Sure it is a play on that - but Omnis is not correct. Toast is plural.
I'm lost now.
I was taking Omnis's post as "The sentence isn't correct, because the plural of toast is toast, and one instance of toast in the sentence ought to be "toasts" as the verb form".
I'm lost now.
I was taking Omnis's post as "The sentence isn't correct, because the plural of toast is toast, and one instance of toast in the sentence ought to be "toasts" as the verb form".
Your first clue should've been having typed Omnis and correct in the same sentence.
I'm lost now.
I was taking Omnis's post as "The sentence isn't correct, because the plural of toast is toast, and one instance of toast in the sentence ought to be "toasts" as the verb form".
That's exactly what I meant. Still, the analogy isn't even correct. Toast doesn't toast toast, people toast toast.
![]()
Are you threatening my reputation, master jedi?
![]()
People toast bread, not toast