A flush wouldn't beat four of a kind. A flush implies that all the cards are of the same suit (ie a hand of only hearts). A straight flush implies that the cards also must be in order (ie 5 of hearts, 6 of hearts, 7 of hearts, 8 of hearts, 9 of hearts). A full house would beat a flush but not a 4 of a kind or straight flush.
Though the article says it's equivalent to a Straight Flush it's not a correct answer. Running flush seems to refer to a game called three-card brag which is - you might have guessed it - played with 3 cards only. So there can't be a 4 of a kind to beat.
Would you be able to accept "En" as well as Yen? In Japanese, the YE sound doesn't exist anymore, so in Japanese, the name of their currency is just "en".
Since it's an English word, no matter which language it originated from, its plural form follows the rules of the English grammar.
Else-wise, the plural of the word 'metaphor' would be, as in Greek, 'metaphorai'. But that's not the case, because that way we would have to find every time the origin language of every word and form the plural based on that language's grammar rules. But that's not the case in any language. Much less in English.
I am not an English Native but I never saw the term "quantums" either in scientific or day-to-day English. Have you ever seen this term prior to your nitpicking try here? And please do not explain us that there are a lot of bacteriums and childs out there!
but English does sometimes follow the original language's grammar rules?
Ex. the plural of goose isn't gooses, it's geese. The plural of mouse isn't mouses, it's mice. (on the other hand, the plural of house is houses, not hice).
English plurals are a weird bunch, and saying they follow the "rules of English grammar" is very much incorrect
My new tactic in these quizzes if if they ask for an actress I just guess Marilyn Monroe. This is the second time the tactic has worked for me already.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/running_flush
The plural of quantum in Latin is quanta.
Since it's an English word, no matter which language it originated from, its plural form follows the rules of the English grammar.
Else-wise, the plural of the word 'metaphor' would be, as in Greek, 'metaphorai'. But that's not the case, because that way we would have to find every time the origin language of every word and form the plural based on that language's grammar rules. But that's not the case in any language. Much less in English.
Ex. the plural of goose isn't gooses, it's geese. The plural of mouse isn't mouses, it's mice. (on the other hand, the plural of house is houses, not hice).
English plurals are a weird bunch, and saying they follow the "rules of English grammar" is very much incorrect