[BigMike]

I'm pretty sure a FORK with two LEGS goes on my bike. Some other people have FORKS on their bike. Which one is it?

I don't think it would make sense to have forks on your bike, because it is one piece. If there were two seperate pieces, like if the legs attached by themselves, then I think it would make sense to have "forks," but the way it is now, I think its just one fork.

 

[dexterq20]

Fork.

Unless you're in England. Then it's "forks". But last time I checked, I wasn't in England, so I'm sticking with "fork".

 

[-dustin]

"forks" is about as annoying as...i don't know. it's just really annoying.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hey, good thinking guys. Im going to put on a pant.

 

[-dustin]

i was wondering how long it'd take for someone to say "pant."

 

[dhmtbj]

A bike has a fork...the only use for "forks" is if one is talking about a line or model in general like shermans. you could say those forks are cool.

 

[ZEDMAN]

i enjoy "front forks" cuz well last time i checked i and no one i know has "rear forks"

 

[CreeP]

FORK. full stop! it forks once, it is a unit, it even has less appendages than he kind of fork you eat with so it can't possibly be plural!

 

[DHS]

FORK!

stupid gromms

 

[Rik]

Shockies bro!

 

[BurlyShirley]

hey, I have a splinter. I wish I had a tweezer.

 

[Tashi]

I can't believe this topic has returned. Jeebuz.

 

[JTVW]

Hey, good thinking guys. Im going to put on a pant.

...yeah, and my shoes.

 

[valve bouncer]

Who cares. Everyone knows what you mean.

 

[erikkellison]

I am saddened too that this topic has resurfaced, but it must have resurfaced because there are ill-informed people that still call them forks. As said above quite well by creeP, it forks once (fork is a verb in this sense), so it is singular. You might be able to make a case for a fork that we eat (with 3 or more tines) being "forks" in the singular, but certainly not a fork. I should probably be glad that I can't remember, but I was on some company's web page, and I saw the front suspension of a bike referred to in the singular as "forks." It made me sad that a real company had made such an error.
Beware of some Canadians too, as the lesser-educated ones still refer to them as forks in the singular.

 

[jeremyb]

I'll say "I'm getting a new pair of forks" or "I'm getting a new fork" or "Nice forks man"... who really cares tho'?

 

[Funky Monk]

I thought this had been discussed already. Lame.

There's simply no practical or logical reason whatsoever to call a fork "forks". "A pair of forks" is even more annoying. I'll be using the american version.

 

[c2001]

i'm gonna eat my salad with a forks and my soup with a spoons.

 

[spookydave]

I have a friend that always says, "I'm just sitting here hitting some bongs"
My reply is "you only have on bong you boob!"

The way I see it that it's one fork that has two legs. It has three if you count the one in the middle but that's not a good thought.
Have a nice day.

 

[dhmtbj]

i am ammending my statements...its definitely "shox"

 

[Kntr]

A headtube badge

FORK!

 

[Hans]

So when one of you guys go; "I'm putting on a pair of pants (or jeans for that matter)" you're ACTUALLY putting on two pairs!? Really, If you want to know the proper way to speak english, why not ask your prez!?

 

[Racer-X]

oh my god.


why do i even visit this site anymore? this is ridiculous.

i feel like napoleon dynamite. "uuggghhhh....GOD"

 

[Lexx D]

Who cares? I'll call them squishy sliding jammies if I feel like it. "hey man did you know i got the new rock shox squishy sliding jammies, yeah they rock"

 

[binary visions]

What I can't believe is the number of people who actually deride the use of the term "forks", calling it stupid, uneducated, or useless.

What's actually stupid and uneducated is deriding a term that simply falls outside of your language's common usage.

"Forks" seems to be a more European term that has made its way into many peoples' common usage, European or not.

What's even MORE rediculous is that it's actually thought that since the item only "forks" once, that reason alone is why it should be "fork", not "forks" - and hence, people who call it otherwise are uneducated. It's a frickin' noun, not an adjective. If it were an adjective, there would be a case for that, but it's not. You could make the case that a double crown doesn't "fork" at all, so what should we call those?

Language is defined by common usage. Hence, "pants" when there is only one "unit". Hell, technically, pants "fork" - so I'm going to start calling my jeans, "forks", and since forks have legs, I'll start calling my Sherman, "pants"! :eviltongu

 

[biggins]

fork..

 

[binary visions]

fork..

biggins, your signature makes baby Jesus cry...

 

[El Jefe]

What I can't believe is the number of people who actually deride the use of the term "forks", calling it stupid, uneducated, or useless.

What's actually stupid and uneducated is deriding a term that simply falls outside of your language's common usage.

"Forks" seems to be a more European term that has made its way into many peoples' common usage, European or not.

What's even MORE rediculous is that it's actually thought that since the item only "forks" once, that reason alone is why it should be "fork", not "forks" - and hence, people who call it otherwise are uneducated. It's a frickin' noun, not an adjective. If it were an adjective, there would be a case for that, but it's not. You could make the case that a double crown doesn't "fork" at all, so what should we call those?

Language is defined by common usage. Hence, "pants" when there is only one "unit". Hell, technically, pants "fork" - so I'm going to start calling my jeans, "forks", and since forks have legs, I'll start calling my Sherman, "pants"! :eviltongu

Does this open-minded approach to grammar also include mis-spelling the word "ridiculous"?

 

[binary visions]

Does this open-minded approach to grammar also include mis-spelling the word "ridiculous"?

Hmm.. I don't think that I'll ever, no matter how many times I see myself spell it wrong, and no matter how many times I'm corrected, figure out that ridiculous is spelled with an "i" instead of an "e".

 

[OGRipper]

I have lefty forks on my cannondale. It's great forks.

But I could care less.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I had a pair of Answer Pro Forx once.......



I find it amazing people have nothing better to do than argue over fork or forks when if you have ever used a swear word you are much worse offender....\

"F- - - You As-wh-le!" ~ Now really what are YOU trying to say?

Get over yourselves. What is equally amazing is that you have chosen this word as what sets you off......apperantly you still understood what the other person was trying to say and now you have to come off like a grade school little cry baby and make it a big deal....

I agree with other people ..... Who cares? Only the anal kids with no friends.....(see MMike ) j/k MMike jsut seeing if you are checking in every now and then....I hope you search by your name so you can kind of sort though the trash on here sometimes.

 

[OGRipper]

Oh go fork yourself, you forking fork.

 

[erikkellison]

BV,
I agree that common usage defines language, that's a given. But the fact that a fork "forks" (the word being used as an adjective) is why we call it a "fork"; because it does. So basically, the adjective has become an noun in this case. "Fat," "bottle," "crank," "roll," "drop" and "read" also come to mind. What would we call a fork if it didn't do just that? Probably front shocks, or front suspension. But it forks, so it is a fork (singular).

 

[HippieKai]

Who cares? I'll call them squishy sliding jammies if I feel like it. "hey man did you know i got the new rock shox squishy sliding jammies, yeah they rock"

i'm with you.
i love my Z150 squishy sliding jammie.

now everyone get over it and ride your freaking bikes!
kai-

 

[binary visions]

BV,
I agree that common usage defines language, that's a given. But the fact that a fork "forks" (the word being used as an adjective) is why we call it a "fork"; because it does. So basically, the adjective has become an noun in this case. "Fat," "bottle," "crank," "roll," "drop" and "read" also come to mind. What would we call a fork if it didn't do just that? Probably front shocks, or front suspension. But it forks, so it is a fork (singular).

The origin of a word doesn't define its usage. It's simply of academic interest to know where it came from.

If you want to argue semantics, one could actually say that a double crown forks twice (above and below the crown), or not at all - depending on how you want to look at it. You can't hold people to the rigid standard of what something was once called, otherwise language wouldn't evolve.

Why would you call someone ignorant or ill informed simply because a word has come into local acceptance?

 

[OGRipper]

BV, you've said before that "usage defines language" and I agree, but only to a point. Common usage often includes improper use of language. True, people are saying something as a means of communication, so it is "language," but that doesn't mean it's "correct" language in the sense of conforming to the rules of grammar, etc. I'm not saying everything should conform to the rigid standards of old english, but just because people use words one way doesn't mean it's "correct."

Anyway, this thread is forking rEdiculous...

 

[erikkellison]

The origin of a word doesn't define its usage. It's simply of academic interest to know where it came from.
If you want to argue semantics, one could actually say that a double crown forks twice (above and below the crown), or not at all - depending on how you want to look at it. You can't hold people to the rigid standard of what something was once called, otherwise language wouldn't evolve.
Why would you call someone ignorant or ill informed simply because a word has come into local acceptance?

Not that this is a debate, but is that really a response? Of course the origin of a word has a very large part in defining its usage. If etymology didn't play a part, then words would mean whatever we wanted them to, and as such, there would be no standard, and communication itself would be very difficult. This website is based in the US, and I think it right to delineate the fact that here in the US, we call them forks, or if talking about one, a fork. That's not to say that Canadians, United Kingdomers and all others aren't welcome, just so say that we shouldn't change the way we say things in order for someone else to understand (and no, that doesn't refer to alternate explanations, but solely to word definitions). Thankfully I don't see too many people saying "mum" around here, but regardless, I would still know what they were talking about. The same applies to this thread topic. Here, it is a fork, regardless of what it is elsewhere. However, it is perfectly okay for foreigners to continue with their own word usage, as long as there is understanding and communication is continued.
Now, I never called anyone ignorant or ill informed. And I have seen your bit about the DC forks not actually forking or possibly forking twice two times now. Just becasue we modified the wheel, as it were, does not mean that it's no longer a wheel.
I just wanted to clear you up on your confusion of what I said, and give my $.03 on the origins and meanings of words.

 

[Tashi]

I love my forks, but not as much as I love my mum.

I'm a Canadian from American parents. How's my grammer?

 

[CreeP]

actually the proper use of pants is the singular, 'pant'. The pluralisation probably came from the term 'pulling down your pants' which in just about any instance would imply pulling down both your underwear and your outer pant.

The 'forks' as a singular most definitely came from the fact that the earliest suspension forks all used a pair of forks connected by a single spring. These forks have been far more popular with motorcyclists who seem to be a far more influential social force unfortunately. I'm quite certain that the original term for the component that connected the front wheel to the rest of the bike was 'fork' in the singular. It would make no sense other wise.

 

[CreeP]

ok actually i'm wrong on the first count, it comes from pantaloons, which comes initially from St. Pantaleon who lived in italy around the 4th century.