A grammar question

So I was reading a book this evening that mentioned a Canadian hockey team, the Toronto Maple Leafs. Yes, I know that team, and always thought the name sounded curious, but then I thought, “Why isn’t it Maple Leaves?” After all, the plural of “leaf” is “leaves”.

Now you might say that the word “Leafs” is not a plural, but simply the name of the team. But that doesn’t make sense either, as there is no noun “leafs.” And suppose the team was named after an appropriate waterfowl, the Canada Goose. Would they call the team “The Canada Gooses”? No, they’d call it the “Canada Geese“.

Now I’m sure there’s an explanation for this, and that a Canadian reader will school me. But I’m still puzzled.

This is not right

118 Comments

  1. Cicely berglund
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Poetic licence

    • Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      But it is not poetic. It is dissonant!

      • sshort
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

        It is poetic. It is calling to their individuality as players, whilst they are obviously a team. It redounds to the fans, individuals, all, but united in their support,

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:55 am | Permalink

        Perfect for hockey games

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted February 27, 2019 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        One man’s dissonance is another man’s meta-poetry.

    • Deac
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      No, it has to do with how language is structured. I remember I read about this in one of Pinker’s books, but I cannot remember the details now.

      • sshort
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        I will stand to the poetic, but defer to your Pinker, argued well below.

  2. craiglgood
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    You could consider “Toronto Maple Leaf” a proper noun, as with the Nissan Leaf, where you might find two Leafs in the parking lot.

    Some writers have used leafs in odd plural situations, such as leafs of kale. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/leafs)

    But I strongly suspect that this professional entertainment organization was more interested in marketing than grammar, and didn’t want the obvious jokes about when the Toronto Maple leaves.

    • sshort
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

      oh… good

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:31 am | Permalink

      As you note, it’s become a proper noun. As such, I think it does not necessarily follow the same (irregular) rule of pluralisation as the word it derives from; instead, in this case it just adds an ‘s’ in the normal way.

      As someone noted below, ‘Mickey Mouses’ is analogous.

      cr

    • eric
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

      I think it’s poetic license that coincidentally in this case acts as if it’s a certain type of proper noun. If sports teams names acted consistently as as proper nouns like you say, then two guys from that Boston Baseball team would be Red Soxes, and they aren’t.

      Similarly with AFG’s example of Bob Leaf. I might go to Bob Leaf’s house and refer to him and is wife as the Leafs, but I go to the Red Sox dugout, not the Red Sox’s dugout. Likewise if two of the players had me over for a bbq, I’d go to the Red Sox bbq, not the Red Soxes bbq.

      Soooo….I’m thinking it’s better just to call Maple Leafs an irregular grammar choice and leaf it at that. 🙂 Beware of seeking patterns that aren’t there…

  3. Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    As a Canadian, I now tend to say leafs instead of leaves when I’m not being careful.

  4. Afg
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Suppose you had a friend named Bob Leaf and you are going to visit him and his family. Are you going to the home of the “Leafs” or the “Leaves”?

    • bristow
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      Perfect answer AFG!

    • grasshopper
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      I’d as lief leave the Leafs alone.

      • Taz
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        So you’d remain aloof?

      • merilee
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

        +1 grasshopper!
        On a similar note, I find it strange how Montreal Canadiens is pronounced, sort of half English half French. Sort of the way you’d pronounce Canadian in English, but ending -enne.

        • Posted February 25, 2019 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

          It isn’t pronounced “-enne” (in either language), actually. But the idea is the same as the parent topic – namely that “Le club de hockey canadien” is a proper noun and in this case doesn’t translate, exactly.

          • phoffman56
            Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

            And the ‘..ad..’ is more like ‘add’ than like ‘aid’.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          We pronounce that “The Habs” from Les Habitants.

      • Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:50 am | Permalink

        What happens in autumn? Are their naughty bits left exposed?! or is there a fig leaf to hand?!

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted February 27, 2019 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

          Do figs drop their leaves in autumn?
          OK – tropical tree, so a bit moot. When you grow one in temperate zones.

  5. Nick
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    I’m at work, so I don’t have access to my bookshelf, but didn’t Steven Pinker discuss this in The Language Instinct?

    IIRC, it has something to do with the fact that because we don’t recognise a hockey team as a collection of leaves, our brain just invokes the “add an ‘s’ to a plural” rule.

    I might be misremembering it, though. It’s been a long time since I read the book.

    • Deac
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      In Words and Rules I think

      “This phenomenon isn’t unusual in English, as Pinker observed in “Words and Rules.” A baseball player may fly out, but an announcer says the player “flied out,” not “flew out.” You have one “silly goose” and multiple “silly gooses.” When the Walkman debuted, stores advertised that they sold “Walkmans.” And get two people in Mickey Mouse costumes together, and you have Mickey Mouses, not Mickey Mice.”

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-02-15-0602150192-story.html

    • Col
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

      Right… Compared it to artists painting ‘still lifes’ versus ‘still lives’.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:15 am | Permalink

        I think in that case, ‘still life’ is effectively one word, meaning a style of painting. Therefore it does not necessarily follow the same rule for pluraling as if ‘still’ was the adjective and ‘lives’ was the noun.

        cr

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:50 am | Permalink

          In fact, I think ‘still life’ is a contraction of ‘still life painting’, therefore the plural is a contraction of ‘still life paintings’.

          In the same way ‘automatic’ is short for ‘automatic pistol’, so you can refer to ‘automatics’ (plural) which makes no sense otherwise as it’s an adjective and I don’t think adjectives take plural forms?

          cr

          • Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:22 am | Permalink

            Why does ‘automatic’ have to be allied to guns? In the UK, the first relationship to
            automatic would be with that of a car transmission.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

              OK, but same argument applies.

              “I wanted a manual but all their rentals are automatics” – it is understood that ‘manual’ and ‘automatic’ – which are actually adjectives – are in fact standing in for the nouns ‘manual car’ and ‘automatic car’. (And so is ‘rental’, come to think of it).

              cr

  6. Col
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    I was told they were named after the Maple Leaf regiment. Each member was a Maple Leaf – a proper noun – so correct plural is Leafs not Leaves… Google seems to back that up but my grammar-Fu is poor!

    • sshort
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      I think you have it. Well-played.

  7. George Manitowabi
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    I suspect this is one of those “depends on who you ask” kind of things. I grew up watching the Leafs and I’m not even sure. My understanding is one of the early owners, Conn Smythe, renamed the team after his WWI unit, the Maple Leaf Regiment, the members of which were called “Leafs”. But I’m sure Leafs fans feel the franchise was bestowed from on high by the Almighty, so such questions are lost to the ages.

  8. Øystein Kapperud
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Pinker has a section on this in The Language Instinct where he mentions this very example. The reason for the odd plural is that names are conjugated as regular nouns, regardless of whether the words making up the name are ordinarily irregular. For example, the plural of walkman is walkmans, not walkmen. Maple Leafs (writes Pinker) is a pluralization of the name Maple Leaf, Canada’s national symbol. Hence, the plural is Maple Leafs, not Maple Leaves. This is common to all variants of English, and not specifically a Canadian thing.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:43 am | Permalink

      Oh, bingo! That’s what I was groping towards in my comments above.

      I haven’t read Pinker’s book but it sounds like an interesting read. I must try it.

      cr

  9. Michael Fisher
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    An expert says this:

    “It follows the simple rule that nouns used as proper nouns take regular (productive) plurals even if their common noun counterparts have irregular plurals”

    That verbiage [foliage?] is unpacked at the WaPo HERE

  10. sshort
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Solved. To all the above.

    Jerry, what do you say?

    • Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      It’s STILL WRONG BECAUSE IT SOUNDS WRONG.

      Like “Canada Gooses”.

      • sshort
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

        Excellent! Admirable conviction. The table is still open…

        • John Dentinger
          Posted February 24, 2019 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

          OMG, for the first time ever, I have to disagree with PCC: sorry–it’s RIGHT because it SOUNDS RIGHT. It’s the Leafs, as in, “Go, Leafs, go!” However, because PCC is not a Leafs fan (sorry again that you’re not part of Leafs Nation) he may feel better with the team’s affectionate nickname: The Buds.
          BTW, it’s true that Conn Smythe did name the team after the Maple Leafs.

          • Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:44 am | Permalink

            The difference has to do with one being a common noun (leaf, referring to the foliage) and the other being a proper noun (the team name – one player would a “LEAF” and a group of players skating out onto the ice “LEAFS”). In English, at least, the common and the proper nouns follow different rules when making plurals. This is Pinker’s explanation. He’s right because this phenomenon is very consistent, for example when the five sons and daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Child come walking past, we call them the “CHILDS”.

      • Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        Canada Goose is the brand name of outerwear made in Canada. If you saw a bunch of Canada Goose clothing, would you say “Look at all those Canada Geese” or “Look at all those Canada Gooses”?

      • Posted February 24, 2019 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        It only sounds wrong if you are not Canadian

      • Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

        To riff on Afg’s post above, when talking about my friends Alice and Bob Goose (and their children Pat and Sandy Goose), we refer to the Gooses, not the Geese.

  11. CR
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    So, why are they the Boston “Seltics” not the “Keltics?”

    • rickflick
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      You mean Celtics? It really should be Celts, I think. Celtic is the adjective. The Celts were an early European people. Come to think of it they were very short people, so it’s unclear why they would be recruited to play in the NBA.

      • CR
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        Asking about the pronunciation, soft “C” vs. hard “C”.

      • CR
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

        Gee, thought I put in a name…
        Asking about why the team is pronounced with soft “C”, while generally the term is used with hard “C”.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

        CR is asking about the pronunciation being “Seltik” rather than “Keltik”

        There’s a well known Scot’s football team called The Celtic FC or simply Celtic – pronounced Seltik

        • Mike Anderson
          Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

          I think they just do that to piss off the Irish.

          • Pierluigi Ballabeni
            Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:43 am | Permalink

            I am not sure since Celtic Glasgow was traditionally the city’s catholic team, founded by Irish immigrants.

      • rickflick
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        OK, I took it wrnog. But isn’t Celtics wrnog too?

    • Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      Pronouncement of words change over time. Celtic is one of those words

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:23 am | Permalink

      Boston “Cheltics”

      -Ryan

      • Pierluigi Ballabeni
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:45 am | Permalink

        This is the way you would pronounce “ce” in italian. 🙂

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      I pronounce it with the hard C. That’s how the Celtic languages work.

      • Cicely Berglund
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        I grew up in edinburgh and it definitively and forever is ‘seltic’.(catholic from Glasgow) We also had the Hearts- the heart of midlothian (a protestant soccer team).
        There are two varieties of Celtic languages in Britain if not more-p and q. And the Celts are more cultural than than any particular ethnic type. Long journey from the Caucasus -many stops along the way-some coming thru Spain and up the West Coast and some coming from across Europe. Hence the odd propensity in the Irish to have dark hair, blue eyes, pale skin and hooked noses. All mixed in with a little Norse from later centuries

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

          The Catholic Church has a fetish for soft C’s They can’t speak Latin either.

  12. Andrew
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    “Leafs manager and hockey icon Conn Smythe decided to change Toronto’s NHL team’s name from the St. Patricks late in the 1926-27 season. He chose the name Maple Leafs because the grand majority of Canadian military regiments in World War I wore a maple leaf badge”
    https://www.nhl.com/mapleleafs/news/deep-ties-between-the-maple-leafs-and-canadian-armed-forces/c-869660

  13. Charles Kinsley
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Guess is merely that the original official team name was something like The Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club and when fans talked about them they just shortened it to Leafs. And that we’re a weird country with sports teams. We used to have two football teams in the same league both with the nickname Roughriders.

  14. Phillip Brookes
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    First, the history.

    ‘Leaves’ comes from the strong masculine declension in Anglo-Saxon (Old English. For instance, cnif, cnifas (modern English knife, knives – there was no ‘k’ in AS/OE)- an ‘f’ in the middle of a word was voiced in AS/OE, so it sounded ‘v’. Our modern letter -f- represents a voiceless labial-dental fricative whereas -v- represents a voiced labial-dental fricative. But, of course we still pronounce ‘f’ in two different ways – as I have done in this sentence (‘of’ and ‘different’).

    Now, history has left us with a confusing situation in which the unvoiced f’ is always ‘f’, but the voiced is spelt either ‘f’ or ‘v’. Some words, such as hoofs/hooves can be spelt either way. (Note: in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien used ‘dwarves’, while including a note that ‘dwarves’ is wrong in normal usage – it should be dwarfs.)

    So it’s all rather arbitrary.

    As to the main question, I think the answer is that the team’s name is an entity in itself, and that the -s is nothing more than an idiom used to assert the collective (and plural) nature of a single team. To alter Leaf to Leaves would be to alter the name of the team (and, perhaps, to imply that each member was a Canadian Maple Leaf).

  15. DFMGV
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    I am not an expert–but there is cartoon precedence for very strange plurals from when I was a kid— From the old cartoon
    PIXIE AND DIXIE
    AND MR JINKS THE ORANGE CAT WHO clearly stated “I hate meeces to pieces” I wonder what he would have said if he only dis-liked one meece?

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      Computer mouses

      • Posted February 25, 2019 at 1:58 am | Permalink

        Oxford Dictionaries says:

        Is the plural of mouse in the computing sense mice or mouses? People often feel that this sense needs its own distinctive plural, but in fact the ordinary plural mice is commoner, and the first recorded use of the term in the plural (1984) is mice.

        /@

    • merilee
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

      I hadn’t heard that “meeses to pieces” in eons!

  16. Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    https://www.mapleleavesforever.com/maple-leafs-not-leaves/ gives some theories and possible explanations.

  17. Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    This is sort of a waste of time. Who cares?
    Oh… did you know the proper pronunciation of the word/ team Celtics is with a hard “C” ( as in cow, not cent)?
    I repeat…who cares?

    • Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

      I sare.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        😀

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

      You fish.
      Case closed.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        I think you mean sase slosed.

        • merilee
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          You sloshed?🤓

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

            I think you mean “kloshed”.

            • merilee
              Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

              😝

    • John Dentinger
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

      Who cares? The millions of fans of the greatest team in the long history of the known universe! That’s who!
      Especially those of us who watched a certain game in 1967.

      • Rod
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

        ….. some of us were in Nathan Philips Square in April 67 and saw George Armstrong hoist the cup in front of an adoring crowd, with Bower, Kelly, Shack, Keon, Maholavich et al ….. finest moment in sports history!

      • Pierluigi Ballabeni
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:32 am | Permalink

        Can I deduce that the team has not won much since 1967?

        • dabertini
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

          Bulls-eye.

      • Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:40 am | Permalink

        This certainly lends more weight to the theory of multiverses.

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:10 am | Permalink

      Thank you for your comment, Mr. Davis, which of course is completely superfluous as well as rude. And I no longer care about whether you comment on this site.

      I notice you’ve made rude “I don’t care” comments like this before. Apparently you care enough to tell us that, and clearly enough readers care to join in the discussion.

      Bye!

  18. Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    You are not pluralizing leaf. You are pluralizing (Toronto Maple Leaf) or (Toronto Maple Leaf)s.

    • Dominic
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 5:01 am | Permalink

      YES!

  19. Otternaut
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Would you collect pretty maple leafs to make a collection of maple leaves? Dunno

  20. Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Mongoose airplanes.

    There was only one spruce goose made so we don’t have to deal eith that one.

  21. merilee
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Good point. When I taught programming I sometimes had to yell at the kids to stop fooling with the mouses, or worse, the mouse balls.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

      Same thing they yell at the kids about in biology lab.

  22. Posted February 25, 2019 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    If you think that’s weird, I remember the first time I asked someone why they always refer to the Montreal Canadiens as (wait for it…) The Habs. That’s right, they don’t call them anything close to what the team name is.

    Why? because Habs is short for ‘habitants'(in English, that would be ‘inhabitants’, or ‘residents’.

    #stuffyouhavetolearntobeCanadian

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Yes, it took me a while to figure that one out 🙂

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      People mistook (supposedly) the “H” in the logo as referring that way. I am skeptical, but …

  23. Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    Jerry: You asked the same question two years ago!

    /@

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 4:48 am | Permalink

      He does that… but we still love him!

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:15 am | Permalink

      So I forgot. Shoot me.

      • dabertini
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:48 am | Permalink

        Don’t worry. I am still trying to figure out why, if the plural of goose is geese then why is the plural of moose not meese? English is a funny language.

        • Doug
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:21 am | Permalink

          When I was a kid, I asked my father What the plural of “mongoose” was: do you say “mongooses” or “mongeese”?” He said “You say ‘There’s a mongoose. There’s another one.'”

          • dabertini
            Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

            That otta keep me busy for a couple of days.

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      And, probably, we all made the same comments. None of us has free will.

      • rickflick
        Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        I, for one, am beginning to forget events two months ago let alone two years ago. So, nothing is lost, really, in reviewing issues. It’s all brand new to me. At some point many of us will relive the past 5 minutes as if it had never happened. 😎

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted February 25, 2019 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

          I remember once Jerry posted something he had posted before and I made the exact same stupid joke as I had on the original post. We are probably all stuck on ground hog day but don’t remember.

  24. Roger
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    If you had two Leaf Eriksons you wouldn’t say you had two Leaves, you would say you had two Leafs.

  25. Posted February 25, 2019 at 2:27 am | Permalink

    There is actually a shirt you can buy listing why Vancouver is the best place to live in Canada. One of the items comments on Vancouver’s hockey team not being that great, but “…at least we can spell Toronto Maple LEAVES”

  26. Posted February 25, 2019 at 3:25 am | Permalink

    I’ll insist that the plural of moose is meese.

    -Ryan

    • Posted February 25, 2019 at 5:00 am | Permalink

      OK how DO we address a team – as a collection of individuals or as a collective unit?
      Do we say “Liverpool [collective] has a chance to win” or “Liverpool [individuals] have a chance to win”? English is uncomfortable with both.

      I would say “Toronto Maple Leafs” exhibits ellipsis – “Toronto Maple Leaf’s [team]”… Ultimately you cannot rationalise it as English is still accommodating its loss of inflection.

      • Posted February 25, 2019 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

        Your question about Liverpool is actually variable – in American and usually (but not always) Canadian English, it is one way; in British English the other.

  27. freiner
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    I’m late to this discussion but I will put in that I’m glad for the distinction. I have a couple of Acer rubrum (pl.?) in my front yard and every fall I’m happy to see all those bright maple leaves. I’d feel differently if I had to put up with a bunch of Maple Leafs filling up my yard.

  28. Javier Penalosa
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Steven Pinker explains this in his language book.

  29. Ken Pidcock
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    If you listen to Joni Mitchell’s Raised on Robbery, she sure seems to say that. (A little money riding on the Maple Leaves/ Along comes a lady in lacy sleeves)

  30. Paul Monné
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    When the Chicago Blackkettle come to town, they will play against the ‘Leaves. Until then, it is The Leafs.

    Either way: Habs! Habs! Habs! Habs! Habs!

    Also: Bruins in ruins!

    • merilee
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      And it’s Habs with an aspirated “haitch”, unlike the French habitants🤓

  31. phoffman56
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    With apologies to the over-sensitive, there is a verb ‘to goose’. As such, it devolves into a noun ‘goose’. And so, if some jerk actually twice gives you a ‘whack up the nuts’ (you’re male in this scenario, and to confuse things a bit maybe this happens while playing in the NHL but without a jock), surely you do not say you were the recipient of two geese (so it should be a 4-minute penalty). Thus the analogy is maybe imperfect in that sense. Or at least, I could not resist the temptation to thuswise remark.

  32. Posted February 25, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Some things are just beyond the reach of science. Even religion has no answers here!

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted February 25, 2019 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      Comment of the year


%d bloggers like this: