Subject:
|
Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:05:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
425 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?
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 justified his decision
to call them "Surveyor Generals." Of course, had he chosen the
former, no justification would have been necessary!
> > Rolls-Royce isn't a plural. The company is named Rolls-Royce, after the
> > founders, not 'Roll-Royce'. Foreigners.
The difference between (or betwixt, if you prefer) "Rolls-Royce"
and "AFOL" or "Attorney General" is that the latter two include
other parts of speech in the title--for example, "General" is a
modifier of the noun "Attorney"; "Adult" and "of Lego" modify
"Fan." Rolls-Royce, on the other hand, is a single noun and must
be pluralised at the end and *only* at the end (Rolls-Royces, or
preferably Rolls-Royce Motorcars). The subject noun in the
construction--Fans, Attorneys (or Attornies of you prefer),
Surveyors, or Poets (in Poets Laureate)--is the part that
becomes plural according to prevailing grammatical rules.
Does that help?
> 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^)
See above. The collective plural of LEGO is, after all,
"LEGO brand bricks and toys" according to the company; thus,
it may be that Rolls-Royce doesn't *have* a proper plural,
only the colloquial ones. A lot of the standards we know today
only ossified around 1920, however--even in languages other
than English--so who's to say it won't float again, especially
with all the new non-native speakers having an influence on
our language?
The tyranny of the majority, however, can change almost anything.
How many of us make Xeroxes or receive Fedexes? (Federals Express?)
*Man*, is the English language ever fun! I love it.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
| (...) But it's only at its best wiv a PROpper INGlish accent mate, nartymean?. (Coming to Gosport btw?) Anyway, I've got to hoover the floor... And another thing, it's "attendees" that really winds me up. It's not a word, and it's the wrong way (...) (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
|
|
|
|
