I was just reading an article on a Marine drill sergeant facing abuse charges. The article states that two other drill sergeants could face special courts-martial. Is that pluralization of court-martial correct? It doesn't sound right to me, but it does follow other words like brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. Can you think of other cases of the pluralization of a hyphenated word/phrase?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Plurals of hyphenated words 1
- Thread starter rjoubert
- Start date
-
1
- #2
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Forming the plural of a compound noun is very easy - you add the 's' to the primary noun, regardless of its location within the compound.
The hard part is usually trying to figure out which is the primary noun. In the above case, is 'court' the important noun or is 'martial'. I would lean towards court being the primary noun, so I would agree that courts-martial is correct.
How about a cupful? Is the plural cupsful or cupfuls?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
The hard part is usually trying to figure out which is the primary noun. In the above case, is 'court' the important noun or is 'martial'. I would lean towards court being the primary noun, so I would agree that courts-martial is correct.
How about a cupful? Is the plural cupsful or cupfuls?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
- Thread starter
- #3
From wikipedia...
Plurals of compound nouns
The majority of English compound nouns have one basic term, or head, with which they end, and are pluralized in typical fashion:
able seaman able seamen
headbanger headbangers
yellow-dog contract yellow-dog contracts
A compound that has one head, with which it begins, usually pluralizes its head:
attorney general attorneys general
bill of attainder bills of attainder
court martial courts martial
governor-general governors-general
passerby passersby
ship of the line ships of the line
son-in-law sons-in-law
minister-president ministers-president
knight-errant knights-errant
procurator fiscal (in Scotland) procurators fiscal
It is common in informal speech to instead pluralize the last word in the manner typical of most English nouns, but in edited prose, the forms given above are preferred.
If a compound can be thought to have two heads, both of them tend to be pluralized when the first head has an irregular plural form:
man-child men-children
manservant menservants
woman doctor women doctors
Two-headed compounds in which the first head has a standard plural form, however, tend to pluralize only the final head:
city-state city-states
nurse-practitioner nurse-practitioners
scholar-poet scholar-poets
In military usage, the term general, as part of an officer's title, is etymologically an adjective, but it has been adopted as a noun and thus a head, so compound titles employing it are pluralized at the end:
brigadier general brigadier generals
major general major generals
For compounds of three or more words that have a head (or a term functioning as a head) with an irregular plural form, only that term is pluralized:
man-about-town men-about-town
man-of-war men-of-war
woman of the street women of the street
For many other compounds of three or more words with a head at the front—especially in cases where the compound is ad hoc and/or the head is metaphorical—it is generally regarded as acceptable to pluralize either the first major term or the last (if open when singular, such compounds tend to take hyphens when plural in the latter case):
ham on rye hams on rye/ham-on-ryes
jack-in-the-box jacks-in-the-box/jack-in-the-boxes
jack-in-the-pulpit jacks-in-the-pulpit/jack-in-the-pulpits
With a few extended compounds, both terms may be pluralized—again, with an alternative (which may be more prevalent, e.g., heads of state):
head of state heads of states/heads of state
With extended compounds constructed around o', only the last term is pluralized (or left unchanged if it is already plural):
cat-o'-nine-tails cat-o'-nine-tails
jack-o'-lantern jack-o'-lanterns
will-o'-the-wisp will-o'-the-wisps
Plurals of compound nouns
The majority of English compound nouns have one basic term, or head, with which they end, and are pluralized in typical fashion:
able seaman able seamen
headbanger headbangers
yellow-dog contract yellow-dog contracts
A compound that has one head, with which it begins, usually pluralizes its head:
attorney general attorneys general
bill of attainder bills of attainder
court martial courts martial
governor-general governors-general
passerby passersby
ship of the line ships of the line
son-in-law sons-in-law
minister-president ministers-president
knight-errant knights-errant
procurator fiscal (in Scotland) procurators fiscal
It is common in informal speech to instead pluralize the last word in the manner typical of most English nouns, but in edited prose, the forms given above are preferred.
If a compound can be thought to have two heads, both of them tend to be pluralized when the first head has an irregular plural form:
man-child men-children
manservant menservants
woman doctor women doctors
Two-headed compounds in which the first head has a standard plural form, however, tend to pluralize only the final head:
city-state city-states
nurse-practitioner nurse-practitioners
scholar-poet scholar-poets
In military usage, the term general, as part of an officer's title, is etymologically an adjective, but it has been adopted as a noun and thus a head, so compound titles employing it are pluralized at the end:
brigadier general brigadier generals
major general major generals
For compounds of three or more words that have a head (or a term functioning as a head) with an irregular plural form, only that term is pluralized:
man-about-town men-about-town
man-of-war men-of-war
woman of the street women of the street
For many other compounds of three or more words with a head at the front—especially in cases where the compound is ad hoc and/or the head is metaphorical—it is generally regarded as acceptable to pluralize either the first major term or the last (if open when singular, such compounds tend to take hyphens when plural in the latter case):
ham on rye hams on rye/ham-on-ryes
jack-in-the-box jacks-in-the-box/jack-in-the-boxes
jack-in-the-pulpit jacks-in-the-pulpit/jack-in-the-pulpits
With a few extended compounds, both terms may be pluralized—again, with an alternative (which may be more prevalent, e.g., heads of state):
head of state heads of states/heads of state
With extended compounds constructed around o', only the last term is pluralized (or left unchanged if it is already plural):
cat-o'-nine-tails cat-o'-nine-tails
jack-o'-lantern jack-o'-lanterns
will-o'-the-wisp will-o'-the-wisps
RodKnowlton
MIS
- Apr 26, 2000
- 1,005
![[thumbsup2]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup2.gif "[thumbsup2] [thumbsup2]")
Courts-martial is correct usage, if a little strange to people who haven't been in the military.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
- Thread starter
- #7
It comes down to familiarity with the term and the meaning of the individual words. "court martial" is a phrase many think of as a single blob with small relation to regular courts. But it is actually a martial court. A war court, to use a related though incorrect term. A court of law for the military, a "court, war" or "court of war" if you like.
Once you have that understanding, you won't pluralize as "court of wars" you'll say "courts of war." And back to the actual words, you won't say "court martials" either becuse it sounds just as bad to your ear as "court of wars."
And I object to some parts of the wikipedia article.
>>man-child men-children << I have never seen this pluralized before. What actually does the singular mean? I have a feeling that it doesn't translate to plural well.
>>manservant menservants << no, they're still manservants
>>woman doctor women doctors << Maybe. But "woman doctors" is still okay.
And I start to see some possible confusion with an alternate construction ala "eye doctor" a doctor who treats eyes. "women doctors" leaves ambiguity, though admittedly very nonstandard, about whether the doctors themselves are women or if the doctors (male or female, it is unknown) are doctors who treat women.
And also:
I also see that the two heads are not of equal weight in each case. To me, state-city evokes something very different than a city-state. English plays heavily on order to convey primacy. Think of "blue green" and "green blue". Is the former more green and the latter more blue? Or am I thinking of "blueish green" and "greenish blue?" But even these show the 'slots' we have for adjective preceeding noun.
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
Once you have that understanding, you won't pluralize as "court of wars" you'll say "courts of war." And back to the actual words, you won't say "court martials" either becuse it sounds just as bad to your ear as "court of wars."
And I object to some parts of the wikipedia article.
>>man-child men-children << I have never seen this pluralized before. What actually does the singular mean? I have a feeling that it doesn't translate to plural well.
>>manservant menservants << no, they're still manservants
>>woman doctor women doctors << Maybe. But "woman doctors" is still okay.
And I start to see some possible confusion with an alternate construction ala "eye doctor" a doctor who treats eyes. "women doctors" leaves ambiguity, though admittedly very nonstandard, about whether the doctors themselves are women or if the doctors (male or female, it is unknown) are doctors who treat women.
And also:
I don't see "the standard plural form of the first head" in any of these having anything to do with how these were pluralized.
I also see that the two heads are not of equal weight in each case. To me, state-city evokes something very different than a city-state. English plays heavily on order to convey primacy. Think of "blue green" and "green blue". Is the former more green and the latter more blue? Or am I thinking of "blueish green" and "greenish blue?" But even these show the 'slots' we have for adjective preceeding noun.
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
Note to self: stay away from theonion.com. Laugh.
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
your recommendation for it only firms my resolve. 
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
[COLOR=black #e0e0e0]For SQL and technical ideas, visit my blog, Squared Thoughts.[/color]
traingamer
Programmer
Let's not forget the plural form for the omnipresent pains in the a**.
Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill
Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill
So according to this, the plural of baby boy or boy baby is babies boys or boys babies? Those are nouns where either can be forced into an adjective, so I'd equate it with a hyphenated phrase, but refuse to say babies boys.
[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I think there are two issues with the above quoted rule (which I also disagree with, but that's another matter) and the provided examples. Firstly, neither baby nor boy have irregular plural forms, and secondly, I wouldn't consider either baby boy or boy baby to be compound nouns. In both those cases, I think you have an adjective followed by a noun, and it's the noun that gets the plural.
Baby boy ==> baby boys
Boy baby ==> boy babies
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Baby boy ==> baby boys
Boy baby ==> boy babies
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
baby - babies isn't irregular? I'm not versed on my rules, but I thought "s" was regular, and anything else was irregular. Been a long time. Can you think of other situations where a noun is made an adjective, and it is still proper grammar? The Boy-baby Baby-boy switch makes me think both those words are remaining nouns and are just compounded, even though it appears one should be an adjective.
[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]
[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]
Stella740pl
Programmer
The Boy-baby Baby-boy switch makes me think both those words are remaining nouns and are just compounded, even though it appears one should be an adjective.
They are adjectives.
"Baby boy" is nearly equivalent to "little boy", and "boy baby" is same as "male baby", and you probably don't question whether "little" and "male" are objectives, right?
pinkgecko said:
No, this link highlights the differences:
CajunCenturion
Programmer
==> Can you think of other situations where a noun is made an adjective, and it is still proper grammar?
That's a good question since nouns are frequently used as adjectives, e.g. school bus, blueberry cheesecake, and football game. In the case of 'ice cream cone', you have the noun 'ice' functioning as a adjective to the noun 'cream' which forms noun phase 'ice cream'. That in turn functions as an adjective to the main noun 'cone', and when the plural is formed, only the main noun in affected - ice cream cones.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That's a good question since nouns are frequently used as adjectives, e.g. school bus, blueberry cheesecake, and football game. In the case of 'ice cream cone', you have the noun 'ice' functioning as a adjective to the noun 'cream' which forms noun phase 'ice cream'. That in turn functions as an adjective to the main noun 'cone', and when the plural is formed, only the main noun in affected - ice cream cones.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
As for Greg's contribution, would the following not be correct:
pain in the a** = One person bugging one person
pains in the a** = Multiple people bugging one person
pain in the a**es = One person bugging multiple people
pains in the a**es = Multiple people bugging multiple people
Cheers,
Roel
pain in the a** = One person bugging one person
pains in the a** = Multiple people bugging one person
pain in the a**es = One person bugging multiple people
pains in the a**es = Multiple people bugging multiple people
Cheers,
Roel
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question