[Beatrix]

incredible. susan, how do you explain it?

[mesmark]

Quote Beatrix

incredible. susan, how do you explain it?

I'd explain it by saying 'use' is the rule. Grammar is an attempt to find the patterns of a language and explain it. Grammar isn't a rule that language obeys. So, if we see such usage you can define it as OK (descriptive) or shun such usage (prescriptivist), but it's not going to stop the change.

200,000 friends of mine and me think you should just tell them it's OK.

Just tell them that some people say it that way, and some people don't. So, it's not a big deal. 'Equipments' is used by some and it's understandable. I'd say let it fly.

[susan53]

I agree 100% with Mark. That's why I always go to Google or a concordancer before I discuss language. We need to know how people are using language - which may change not only from region to region but also from year to year. I recently picked up Chomsky's Aspects and reread it. That's only from 1965 but there were one or two phrases that sounded absolutely archaic to me. Or think of listening to news reports from the 40s and 50s and compare them with current reports. There's a huge difference.

My surprise over equipments was not that I should argue that it shouldn't be used countably, but that I really didn't think it was. But yet again, Google proved me wrong ....