A torn bicep

[nq:1]Olympic gymnast Blaine Wilson had a torn bicep. It's the new singular. They said so on TV so it must be true. \\P. Schultz[/nq]
I would only have ever said "torn bicep". You imply that "biceps" is the correct singular, I can't be bothered looking it up; but I don't see anything wrong with it. Would you care for more peas?

Andrew Gw.

[nq:2]Olympic gymnast Blaine Wilson had a torn bicep. It's the new singular. They said so on TV so it must be true. \\P. Schultz[/nq]
[nq:1]I would only have ever said "torn bicep". You imply that "biceps" is the correct singular, I can't be bothered looking it up; but I don't see anything wrong with it. Would you care for more peas?[/nq]
If you can't be bothered with looking it up, why sh

$21757$(Email Removed):
[nq:1]Olympic gymnast Blaine Wilson had a torn bicep. It's the new singular. They said so on TV so it must be true.[/nq]
The Random House Webster's CD dictionary says it's been true, for a little while, at least:
bi·cep (b#Æsep), n.
a biceps muscle, esp. the one at the front of the upper arm. (1955?60; back formation fr. biceps)

rzed

[nq:2]Olympic gymnast Blaine Wilson had a torn bicep. It's the new singular. They said so on TV so it must be true.[/nq]
[nq:1]The Random House Webster's CD dictionary says it's been true, for a little while, at least: bi·cep (b#Æsep), n. a biceps muscle, esp. the one at the front of the upper arm. (1955-60; back formation fr. biceps)[/nq]
M-W claims that it is in their Unabridged dictiona

[nq:2]The Random House Webster's CD dictionary says it's been true, ... front of the upper arm. (1955-60; back formation fr. biceps)[/nq]
[nq:1]M-W claims that it is in their Unabridged dictionary. I have no idea what it says there.[/nq]
You don't need their unabridged dictionary. The Collegiate (MW11CD) dates it 16 years before the ULB of RHD:
Main Entry: bi·cep
Pronunciation: 'bï

[nq:2]I would only have ever said "torn bicep". You imply ... anything wrong with it. Would you care for more peas?[/nq]
[nq:1]If you can't be bothered with looking it up, why should we bother reading your opinions about it? As is ... spot on with his observation. If you shun dictionaries your popularity here will suffer. So, in my opinion, will you.[/nq]
Since when is a native speaker of

[nq:2]If you can't be bothered with looking it up, why ... popularity here will suffer. So, in my opinion, will you.[/nq]
[nq:1]Since when is a native speaker of a language incapable of assessing whether a usage is acceptable or not without ... bicep." I don't have a problem with "biceps" being singular. But I bet you don't use "bicipites" as the plural.[/nq]
****** ****, it's done it to m

[nq:2]Since when is a native speaker of a language incapable ... But I bet you don't use "bicipites" as the plural.[/nq]
[nq:1]****** ****, it's done it to me again. Thunderbird appears to attach posts to the end of a thread, regardless of where the post actually belongs. This needs further investigation...[/nq]
Everything looks fine to me, as far as the above and its place in the (middle

[nq:2]****** ****, it's done it to me again. Thunderbird appears ... of where the post actually belongs. This needs further investigation...[/nq]
[nq:1]Everything looks fine to me, as far as the above and its place in the (middle of the) thread are concerned.[/nq]
Yes, I worked out what happened when I posted in another thread. Thunderbird displays a recent post out of sequence; when one n

[nq:1]Since when is a native speaker of a language incapable of assessing whether a usage is acceptable or not without reference to a book? [/nq]
He can assess whether it's acceptable to himself. So much for navel-gazing.
If he wants to know whether it's actually acceptable, he might want to break down and resort to a book, if he knows how to do that.

\\P. Schultz