shouldn't the plural name for Fangtooth be Fangteeth, it would make sense, or Fangtooths, but saying "I'm sending an army of Fangtooth to destroy this guy," that would be implying that you're sending one Fangtooth, right??
shouldn't the plural name for Fangtooth be Fangteeth, it would make sense, or Fangtooths, but saying "I'm sending an army of Fangtooth to destroy this guy," that would be implying that you're sending one Fangtooth, right??
I say "fangteeth", and you are correct, "an army of fangtooth" indicates it's actually just one.
Plural of deer is deer, moose is moose, so we leave fangtooth as fangtooth because it is easier and not that big of a deal.
"An army" in itself suggests that it is more than one; therefore, "an army of fangtooth" would be at least 2.
Gramatically speaking, Lurker is correct. There are words whose singular and plural forms are the same. In your sentence, 'army' is a compound noun and used as the direct object in the sentence. As a coumpound noun it can be singular or plural. 'Of Fangtooth' is the prepositional phrase used as an adjective that describes what kind of army. The object of the preposition (Fangtooth) has no effect on the singularity or plurality of the compound noun. The sentence in its present form is rather vague and could be interpreted either way but most people would say it was plural since the word 'army' usually means a large group of people.
true enough; an army of Fangtooth - an army of moose lol
ok at contributer 108, we're getting too sciency lol
I agree lol
Because the Interwebz is homeland of the Grammar Police.