Nothing "COSTS" x dollars, an item "COST" x dollars. Costs is plural as in there are costs involved, not this costs 10 dollars! —This comment was unsigned.
I think this is false logic here. 'costs' is used as a verb in this case. Costs is probably ungrammatical, but is widely used. 18.104.22.168 08:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
1974, John McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy:
- A graphite crucible costs three dollars. Hydrofluoric acid costs seven dollars a quart, and magnesium oxide costs twenty-one dollars a pound
- costs is perfectly grammatical in the usage. It is the third-person singular present indicative of cost#Verb. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible missing sense
Three etymologies or fewer?
For English, I see three etymology sections, but none of them cites sources and I'm not convinced that they are really different. Perhaps they are just one or maybe two? --LA2 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it is even more interesting : two different roots ended up in the same word with the same meaning ! --Fsojic (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"At all costs" supposedly meaning "by all means" is a bunch of chain-mail baloney. "At' is an ancient English preposition, over 1,000 years old, and has never meant "by." (See any dictionary.) "At all costs" means "at any price;' 'by' nothing. This very idiom ('at all costs') is cited by the AHD under the entry for 'cost'; their etymological entries are well-respected and the unabridged print edition contains a full PIE appendix. Other dictionaries and Etymonline list only one derivation, and, as for many English noun/verb pairs, refer the noun to the verb's etymological entry. I'm moving the first entry to #3 as a compromise (almost certainly too far). It needs full citations and if it is part of a composite derivation it must remain no higher than #3 according to standard practice as that derivation (i.e. 'word') - if it even has any kind of legitimacy - is archaic/obsolete.