Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?This is a thing not to worry aboutUsage Of The Determiner “This”“x thinks it's people”--why “people” and not “a human”?'Such volume' or 'such a volume'?a state nationalism — why do we need an article?can't understand : WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTIONIs this sentence grammatically complete?Can I use “to bring it”?How to ‘guess’ if a noun is countable or uncountable?Why can not a verb of “To gulp the glass of water with such thirst” be seen?
Would people understand me speaking German all over Europe?
Can machine learning learn a function like finding maximum from a list?
What are the cons of stateless password generators?
How to litter train a cat if both my husband and I work away from home all day?
Why didn't General Martok receive discommendation in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?
A conjectural trigonometric identity
Numerically Stable IIR filter
How to calculate points under the curve?
How do discovery writers hibernate?
Why does Latex make a small adjustment when I change section color
Typesetting numbers above, below, left, and right of a symbol
Gold Battle KoTH
How to innovate in OR
Just how much information should you share with a former client?
Introduction to the Sicilian
Can square roots be negative?
Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?
Prepare a user to perform an action before proceeding to the next step
Planting Trees in Outer Space
Was Donald Trump at ground zero helping out on 9-11?
Adding a (stair/baby) gate without facing walls
How to remove rebar passing through an inaccessible pipe
Academic progression in Germany, what happens after a postdoc? What is the next step?
What does 「ちんちんかいかい」 mean?
Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?
This is a thing not to worry aboutUsage Of The Determiner “This”“x thinks it's people”--why “people” and not “a human”?'Such volume' or 'such a volume'?a state nationalism — why do we need an article?can't understand : WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTIONIs this sentence grammatically complete?Can I use “to bring it”?How to ‘guess’ if a noun is countable or uncountable?Why can not a verb of “To gulp the glass of water with such thirst” be seen?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I mean, if damage is countable, it should be
Deal 6 damages.
If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.
Such as saying something like
I drank 5 water.
So... am I missing something here?
grammar countability
add a comment |
I mean, if damage is countable, it should be
Deal 6 damages.
If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.
Such as saying something like
I drank 5 water.
So... am I missing something here?
grammar countability
add a comment |
I mean, if damage is countable, it should be
Deal 6 damages.
If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.
Such as saying something like
I drank 5 water.
So... am I missing something here?
grammar countability
I mean, if damage is countable, it should be
Deal 6 damages.
If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.
Such as saying something like
I drank 5 water.
So... am I missing something here?
grammar countability
grammar countability
edited 8 mins ago
Hao Wu
asked 20 hours ago
Hao WuHao Wu
2891 gold badge2 silver badges9 bronze badges
2891 gold badge2 silver badges9 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.
It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:
Deal 6 points of damage.
(And damage here is a mass noun.)
In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.
In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.
In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property]
is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.
So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.
That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).
As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).
add a comment |
Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:
6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)
These games say:
6 damage
It depends on how the word is defined.
New contributor
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f219984%2fwhy-is-deal-6-damage-a-legit-phrase%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.
It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:
Deal 6 points of damage.
(And damage here is a mass noun.)
In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.
It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:
Deal 6 points of damage.
(And damage here is a mass noun.)
In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.
It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:
Deal 6 points of damage.
(And damage here is a mass noun.)
In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)
It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.
It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:
Deal 6 points of damage.
(And damage here is a mass noun.)
In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)
answered 20 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
24.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges52 bronze badges
24.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges52 bronze badges
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
2
2
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?
– Hao Wu
20 hours ago
3
3
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.
– Jason Bassford
19 hours ago
6
6
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 hours ago
5
5
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
@Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".
– stellatedHexahedron
10 hours ago
2
2
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.
In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.
In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property]
is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.
So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.
That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).
As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).
add a comment |
Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.
In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.
In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property]
is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.
So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.
That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).
As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).
add a comment |
Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.
In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.
In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property]
is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.
So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.
That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).
As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).
Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.
In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.
In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property]
is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.
So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.
That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).
As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).
answered 9 hours ago
Austin HemmelgarnAustin Hemmelgarn
3751 silver badge5 bronze badges
3751 silver badge5 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:
6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)
These games say:
6 damage
It depends on how the word is defined.
New contributor
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:
6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)
These games say:
6 damage
It depends on how the word is defined.
New contributor
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:
6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)
These games say:
6 damage
It depends on how the word is defined.
New contributor
Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:
6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)
These games say:
6 damage
It depends on how the word is defined.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 11 hours ago
Simon BaarsSimon Baars
1174 bronze badges
1174 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
13
13
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.
– alephzero
10 hours ago
6
6
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.
– David Richerby
10 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.
– Rich
4 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
@Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.
– Blorgbeard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f219984%2fwhy-is-deal-6-damage-a-legit-phrase%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown