Subject:
|
Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:30:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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^)
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 disgusted to hear anyone say the word "exquisite" without the accent on the
first syllable). I suppose the easy way around this one is simply to refer to
them as Rolls-Royce automobiles.
As for what is proper in grammar, usage, pronunciation, etc., I think it is
determined by whether the form is embraced by those in power, therefore falling
into the category of what would be the equivalent (in our society) of Standard
English. It appears that "doable" ("do-able"?) is rapidly approaching the
threshhold of acceptance.
Maggie C.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
85 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
