Timeline for Use of the word "beeves"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2016 at 3:05 | comment | added | Hot Licks | It should be noted that when "beef" is used in the sense of "complaint", the plural is "beefs". | |
| Nov 26, 2016 at 2:50 | answer | added | davef | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 4:06 | history | edited | ermanen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 86 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2015 at 4:02 | answer | added | ermanen | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 3:22 | comment | added | Hot Licks | I do recall hearing "beeves" used on the old Rawhide TV western series (1959-1965), when referring to a herd of cattle. Don't recall hearing it anywhere else. I have no idea whether that term was actually used in the time period represented (late 1800s), or whether Hollywood writers simply thought it sounded good. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 16:06 | answer | added | Vian | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 4, 2014 at 11:59 | comment | added | Mitch | @tchrist Yes, I agree (I was wrong as I was referring to multiple cow meats). All that is to emphasize that the '-ves' construction does not exist except humorously in modern standard English (whatever the past may have been). | |
| Aug 4, 2014 at 8:21 | answer | added | Sven Yargs | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 4, 2014 at 5:20 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | @Mitch Yes to the first part (“beef a mass noun”) but no to the second (“sometimes you can say beefs”). It is only possible to have several “beefs” when beef has the sense of a quarrel, which is necessarily a count noun. When you have several types of dead-cow beef, then it is just as it is with sheep: you have several types of beef or sheep, not several beefs or sheeps. In other words, you use a partitive construction on the mass noun. | |
| Aug 4, 2014 at 4:45 | comment | added | Mitch | For anybody who is a language learner, 'beef' is a mass noun in Modern English. 'beeves' is only a joke. In the rare occasion that more than one beef needs to be referred to, 'beefs' is appropriate. | |
| Aug 4, 2014 at 4:45 | answer | added | Michael Lorton | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 3, 2014 at 18:39 | history | edited | tchrist♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fmt
|
| Aug 3, 2014 at 18:38 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | If you are an English-language learner, you might enjoy our sister-site for English Language Learners. That’s because our sister-site is a Q&A site especially made for learners, in contrast to the current English Language and Usage site, which is instead “a Q&A site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts”. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 17:19 | comment | added | Fattie | Every single mass noun can also be used for the category, is commonly used in plural, and this is very commonplace. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 17:16 | answer | added | Fattie | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:40 | answer | added | fuandon | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 | answer | added | Rohith | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23 | history | edited | bib | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18 | answer | added | Dan Bron | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:14 | comment | added | Dan Bron | In short, in modern English, we wouldn't. Nowadays, "beef" is used as a mass noun, which can't take a plural. If we want to distinguish a particular piece of beef, we'd do just that: say "a piece of beef", whose plural would be "pieces of beef". Other quantifiers are possible (e.g., cuts, slices, chunks, etc). | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:12 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | "Sense 1" without a reference is not helpful. But beef can also mean cattle, as in "a hundred head of beef"; beeves is a (largely archaic or dialect) extension of this. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:11 | answer | added | Ronan | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 31, 2014 at 13:21 | |||||
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 | history | asked | Zara Butters | CC BY-SA 3.0 |