| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > Okay, if attorneys general, courts martial and Rolls Royce are plural forms,
> > shouldn't the plural of AFOL be AF'sOL? Or are the rules different for
> > acronyms?
> Rolls-Royce isn't a plural. The company is named Rolls-Royce, after the
> founders, not 'Roll-Royce'. Foreigners.
You raise an interesting etymological point--who determines the "proper"
pluralization? We're all well aware of the LEGO/Legos issue; while a
manufacturer may wish a certain plural form to be used, what happens if no
one uses it (or if enough people use a different form?) To wit, what *is*
the plural of Rolls-Royce? And sez who? 8^)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
| (...) What I had meant to say was that Rolls-Royce is the plural of Rolls-Royce (as opposed to Rolls-Royces). I can't recall where I heard/read this (probably from some snooty old guy like Edith Sedgwick's grandfather-- the one who would be (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
| (...) The colloquial singular saying is "Roller"; therefore in this case one could possess many Rollers, if one was very affluent. I've never really heard anyone seriously refer to a collection of Rollers as "Rolls-Royce's"; what is perhaps more (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
| (...) I have a colleague who wrote a rather good book about the survey of India, where he specifically addressed the issue with respect to the plural of "Surveyor General." According to orthodoxy plural should be "Surveyors General," but he (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
