It's funny, but doesn't strike me as logical.
How about these?
|--: childhood --> childrenhoods
|--: foothold --> feetholds
|--: handkerchief --> handskerchiefs
|--: lipstick --> lipssticks
|--: mouthwash --> mouthswashes
|--: toenail --> toesnails (ick!)
2007-03-08 07:28:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Joe S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, not really. It would acually be more logical to say teethbrush for one, then teethbrushes for two. You brush more than one tooth with your toothbrush (I hope). So should be teethbrush. Then to be more than one brush, would be brushes, or teethbrushes.
2007-03-08 12:59:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by watanake 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
my twins asked the same question last week and brought this to my attention that it should be teethbrushes because your brushing your teeth not your tooth!!!! i kinda of agree with the previous answer it sounds funny,,,,but i like it.....teethbrushes say it over and over teethbrushes,,,,,ha he ha he it does sound funny...enjoy kat
2007-03-08 13:03:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by kat 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's called a toothbrush because it was invented in Arkansas :-)
2007-03-08 13:05:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Pretending To Work 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, because your not pluralizing the tooth, your making plural the brush.
2007-03-08 13:00:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by zebj25 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe more logical but it just sounds too funny to be a real word.
2007-03-08 13:01:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Semi-charmed 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
hmm... I don't know... Sounds funny. Toothbrushes make more sense.
2007-03-08 12:55:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by adelaideskye 2
·
0⤊
0⤋