Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase “We went to the movies last night.”?
I found this sentence:
We went to the movies last night.
at the following URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/movies
Why do they use the plural "movies", why not use the singular "movie"?
american-english singular-vs-plural
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
add a comment |
I found this sentence:
We went to the movies last night.
at the following URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/movies
Why do they use the plural "movies", why not use the singular "movie"?
american-english singular-vs-plural
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
2
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
add a comment |
I found this sentence:
We went to the movies last night.
at the following URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/movies
Why do they use the plural "movies", why not use the singular "movie"?
american-english singular-vs-plural
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
I found this sentence:
We went to the movies last night.
at the following URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/movies
Why do they use the plural "movies", why not use the singular "movie"?
american-english singular-vs-plural
american-english singular-vs-plural
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
edited Mar 29 at 10:33
Draken
1174
1174
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
asked Mar 28 at 19:21
b2okb2ok
322314
322314
2
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
add a comment |
2
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
2
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
In the very early days, movies were very short (about 10-15 minutes), so people watched several movies in a row. Even when feature films were developed, there was typically a newsreel, a short and the feature.
Also, they were originally called 'moving pictures', which quite naturally became 'movies'. 'A movie' came slightly later. (I think people referred to 'a film' before they referred to 'a movie'.)
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
add a comment |
Because, as that definition explained, "movies" in that context refers to the movie theater, which typically has several showings for a movie. If you want to refer to the showing you specifically attended, you would say "we went to a movie last night."
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
add a comment |
Do you want to go to the movies tonight?
Do you want to go to the cinema tonight?
Both the movies (AmE) or the cinema (BrE) refer to a place where you can watch a movie (AmE) or a film (BrE). It is usually a movie theater (AmE) or a cinema (BrE).
Would you like to go and see a film tonight?
I thought we might get something to eat and then go to see a movie.
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
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%2f202874%2fwhy-do-we-use-the-plural-of-movies-in-this-phrase-we-went-to-the-movies-last-ni%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
In the very early days, movies were very short (about 10-15 minutes), so people watched several movies in a row. Even when feature films were developed, there was typically a newsreel, a short and the feature.
Also, they were originally called 'moving pictures', which quite naturally became 'movies'. 'A movie' came slightly later. (I think people referred to 'a film' before they referred to 'a movie'.)
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
add a comment |
In the very early days, movies were very short (about 10-15 minutes), so people watched several movies in a row. Even when feature films were developed, there was typically a newsreel, a short and the feature.
Also, they were originally called 'moving pictures', which quite naturally became 'movies'. 'A movie' came slightly later. (I think people referred to 'a film' before they referred to 'a movie'.)
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
add a comment |
In the very early days, movies were very short (about 10-15 minutes), so people watched several movies in a row. Even when feature films were developed, there was typically a newsreel, a short and the feature.
Also, they were originally called 'moving pictures', which quite naturally became 'movies'. 'A movie' came slightly later. (I think people referred to 'a film' before they referred to 'a movie'.)
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
In the very early days, movies were very short (about 10-15 minutes), so people watched several movies in a row. Even when feature films were developed, there was typically a newsreel, a short and the feature.
Also, they were originally called 'moving pictures', which quite naturally became 'movies'. 'A movie' came slightly later. (I think people referred to 'a film' before they referred to 'a movie'.)
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
edited Mar 28 at 20:16
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
answered Mar 28 at 20:00
SydneySydney
5,0522816
5,0522816
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
add a comment |
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
5
5
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
Do you have a source for that? Just curious, as it's not the reason given in the Answer in this identical question which uses MacMillan as a source.
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34
2
2
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
@BruceWayne From my own knowledge of history and language, I believe this answer to be entirely accurate, but you're right- sources are always appreciated. It should be noted, however, your linked answer essentially says "the dictionary definition is thus" whereas this answer says "the reason the word means this is thus". The two are complimentary, not contradictory. The MacMillian definition for "movie" even references the relation to "moving pictures' though it stops short of claiming it to be a contraction of the phrase.
– jmbpiano
Mar 29 at 6:12
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
The OED has a citation for "movie" from 1913, which is sufficiently close to the earliest for "movies" (1909) that I'm not sure we can really say that the singular came later. At that time, the word seems to have been always written in quotes, suggesting that it was felt to be a very informal term that might be common in spoken English but was rarely written down, again making it hard to determine the relative age.
– David Richerby
Mar 29 at 15:23
1
1
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
The first section in particular feels like a meaning added in retrospect. It definitely needs to be referenced if it's being stated as a true factor in the etymology. If no reference can be found, it may be best to move it second and make it clear that it's an interesting additional bit of trivia. There is currently no evidence that it influenced the plurality of the term "Movies".
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:07
add a comment |
Because, as that definition explained, "movies" in that context refers to the movie theater, which typically has several showings for a movie. If you want to refer to the showing you specifically attended, you would say "we went to a movie last night."
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
add a comment |
Because, as that definition explained, "movies" in that context refers to the movie theater, which typically has several showings for a movie. If you want to refer to the showing you specifically attended, you would say "we went to a movie last night."
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
add a comment |
Because, as that definition explained, "movies" in that context refers to the movie theater, which typically has several showings for a movie. If you want to refer to the showing you specifically attended, you would say "we went to a movie last night."
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
Because, as that definition explained, "movies" in that context refers to the movie theater, which typically has several showings for a movie. If you want to refer to the showing you specifically attended, you would say "we went to a movie last night."
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
answered Mar 28 at 19:47
pboss3010pboss3010
91415
91415
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
add a comment |
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
2
2
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
Could you include a reference for this please?
– Bilkokuya
Mar 29 at 16:11
add a comment |
Do you want to go to the movies tonight?
Do you want to go to the cinema tonight?
Both the movies (AmE) or the cinema (BrE) refer to a place where you can watch a movie (AmE) or a film (BrE). It is usually a movie theater (AmE) or a cinema (BrE).
Would you like to go and see a film tonight?
I thought we might get something to eat and then go to see a movie.
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
add a comment |
Do you want to go to the movies tonight?
Do you want to go to the cinema tonight?
Both the movies (AmE) or the cinema (BrE) refer to a place where you can watch a movie (AmE) or a film (BrE). It is usually a movie theater (AmE) or a cinema (BrE).
Would you like to go and see a film tonight?
I thought we might get something to eat and then go to see a movie.
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
add a comment |
Do you want to go to the movies tonight?
Do you want to go to the cinema tonight?
Both the movies (AmE) or the cinema (BrE) refer to a place where you can watch a movie (AmE) or a film (BrE). It is usually a movie theater (AmE) or a cinema (BrE).
Would you like to go and see a film tonight?
I thought we might get something to eat and then go to see a movie.
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
Do you want to go to the movies tonight?
Do you want to go to the cinema tonight?
Both the movies (AmE) or the cinema (BrE) refer to a place where you can watch a movie (AmE) or a film (BrE). It is usually a movie theater (AmE) or a cinema (BrE).
Would you like to go and see a film tonight?
I thought we might get something to eat and then go to see a movie.
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
edited Mar 28 at 20:00
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
answered Mar 28 at 19:55
Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko
2,339624
2,339624
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
add a comment |
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
7
7
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
"The cinema" and "a film" are certainly valid in AmE, they're just a bit formal for casual conversation.
– Kevin
Mar 29 at 1:15
3
3
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
You can also say "the pictures" in BrE although it may sound a bit old-fashioned.
– Richard
Mar 29 at 12:50
5
5
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
@Kevin Ya, this answer is a bit weird in how hard of a distinction it makes between AmE and BrE. AmE speakers use "cinema" too. One of the largest theater chains is called Regal Cinemas. And "film" is extremely common to hear in AmE. It's interchangeable with "movie", although a bit less common. It's not like they call it "movie school".
– only_pro
Mar 29 at 15:07
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%2f202874%2fwhy-do-we-use-the-plural-of-movies-in-this-phrase-we-went-to-the-movies-last-ni%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
2
Related/Duplicate question on English SE
– BruceWayne
Mar 28 at 21:34