Talk:Armors is not a word it is Armor

Under the items page it should read Armor not Armors. More than one Armor is still Armor. Not trying to be rude I just noticed the mistake.→ 68.53.41.170 11:12, January 21, 2010 (EST)

Said the Brit, without signing his post. The only "mistake", I suggest, is yours. "Armors" is like fish/fishes, and is a perfectly valid and accepted American usage. A lot of tanks are armor, a pile of chainmail is armor, but different types of armor is armors - or can be in the USA, anyway. I don't personally care which way this Wiki leans, but if you're going to post try to be aware of cultural/regional linguistic biases, and not be quite so dismissive of others'. C-Dog

First of all, considering the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says otherwise. Secondly as an American, there is no such word. Except in redneck country. >.> Thirdly, the British pronunciation/spelling is Armour, from the Middle English spelling Armure (know what, enough history...), reverting all edits pertaining to Armor. Yawgmoth 22:41, January 5, 2012 (EST)

Well, this http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armor (among others) says otherwise. I've heard of its usage - just because you haven't doesn't mean it's "redneck", and certainly doesn't mean it's "wrong", as the OP stated. There are two types of linguists - prescriptionists, who "prescribe" how language should be used, and descriptionists, who "describe" how language is used. I prefer to be the latter. (And I don't see how etymology or British spelling is relevant to this discussion of modern dialect, sorry.) C-Dog

Considering that a dictionary in the form of a wiki, is about as reliable as Urban Dictionary when describing... a cat. There are two dictionary's that are accepted as being the standard for English. Websters-Merriam, and The Encyclopedia Britannica. Neither of which recognize Armors as being a word, or even a form. You would not refer to something as a "Pile of Armors", or "10 sets of Armors", or like you said, "Different types of Armors". Use those on any English Professor's (I'm talking College level) assignment, and it would be a red-mark. Use them in a sentence to a father who retired after 32 years, he's going to hit you. Ergo, case closed, this is rapidly straying into the Off Topic section Yawgmoth 00:02, January 6, 2012 (EST)

If you check the wiktionary page linked to for "armors" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armors), you'll see that it's listed solely as "Third-person singular simple present indicative form of armor". For those of us that aren't English professors, that apparently refers to the verb form, eg. "The A-Team armors the truck". Personally, I find the use of "armors" as a plural noun awkward, at best. "Fishes" is also heresy. :) Raumkraut 05:05, January 6, 2012 (EST)

Are we talking about armors as plural or are we talking about whether or not armors exists? Though it was a debate on whether it was appropriate as a plural variation for armor.. As far as "Fishes" goes, other than being totally off-topic, it is only heresy is you're not the one sleeping with them. ShoeMaker 09:38, January 6, 2012 (EST)