why can't something or somebody be FORLORNED?

[bosod...@gmail.com]

what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?

what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

[Ross]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 11:48:22 AM UTC+13, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

"forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed forms.
(We don't have "miserabled" or "lonelied".) Why would you expect
"forlorn" to have one?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ec4bb9f6-f778-40d4...@googlegroups.com>,

Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not
>being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

>"forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed forms.
>(We don't have "miserabled" or "lonelied".) Why would you expect
>"forlorn" to have one?

If you want to delve into the etymology, it was once the past
participle of "forlese" meaning "lose". So it's already got the
equivalent of -ed.

-- Richard

[Iain Archer]

There was a verb, according to OED, with various meanings, including:
lose, destroy, bring to ruin, confound, cut off, come to nought, perish,
abandon, forsake.

" inf.OE forléosan, ME forleosen, ME forlosen, forlesen, ME forlese,"

of which "forlorn" is a modern form of the past participle.

"After 15th cent. only in past participle, and (rarely) in the new
forms, infinitive (Scots) forleir, past tense forlore (Scots forloir)."
--
Iain Archer

[Ross]

Yes. I was trying to keep things simple. If the OP had mentioned the
fact that it was historically a past participle, he might have felt
that as a reason to add an -ed. Although strictly unnecessary, such
redundant markings are not unknown in the history of languages. But I
have the feeling this may be one of those OPs who never follows up the
discussion.

[bosod...@gmail.com]

cuz when your dissn somebody for being forlorned it sounds better

[bosod...@gmail.com]

Who/what's an OP?

[James Hogg]

That doesn't prevent us from having forms like "separated" alongside the
original past participle "separate".

--
James

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

bosod...@gmail.com skrev:

> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than
> it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it
> isn't?

"Forlorn" is originally a past participle of a verb. That verb
was "forlese" (I can see from the thread). "Forlese" could have
formed past participle in several ways, but "forlorned" is not
one of them, because the n does not belong to the verb. It is
part of the participle form. A form with -ed would have been
"forlesed".

I might add that we in Danish have a regular participle form with
-(e)t, but with certain verbs an -n-form is also possible. There
is no simple rule to specify which verbs can have the -n-form or
when it is used.

In such cases the only explanation is "That's how the language
has developed".

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

bosod...@gmail.com skrev:

> cuz when your dissn somebody for being forlorned it sounds better

I appreciate the fact that you want your language to be correct
when you are dissing someone. I don't think that you share that
feeling with the majority.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Ross]

Huh? "Separated" is a normal past participle from the still-existing verb
"separate" /-eit/. "Separate" /-@t/, the adjective, may come from a Latin
past participle, but it's never been one in English.
Or have I been whooshed?

[Ross]

Original Poster. In this thread, that's you. Glad to see you're still here.

[Ross]

Can you explain what "forlorn(ed)" means to you, and why you would
want to diss somebody for being that way?

Anyway, the word is out there -- I see there's a horror movie called
The Forlorned in the works, based on a novel of the same title by
one Angela J.Townsend. Can't be too long before the dictionaries pick it up.

[bosod...@gmail.com]

well what "forlorn(ed)" means to me is apparently the same thing as forlorn but for me it injects a certain intuitive resonance to the sentence and its intention whether or not the definition of 'forlorn' is for certain known by the reader or not

[CDB]

On 03/03/2015 6:18 AM, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> , Ross wrote:
>> bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Ross wrote:
>>>> bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other
>>>>> than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how
>>>>> come it isn't? what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

>>>> "forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed
>>>> forms. (We don't have "miserabled" or "lonelied".) Why would
>>>> you expect "forlorn" to have one?

>>> cuz when your dissn somebody for being forlorned it sounds
>>> better

>> Can you explain what "forlorn(ed)" means to you, and why you would
>> want to diss somebody for being that way?

>> Anyway, the word is out there -- I see there's a horror movie
>> called The Forlorned in the works, based on a novel of the same
>> title by one Angela J.Townsend. Can't be too long before the
>> dictionaries pick it up.

> well what "forlorn(ed)" means to me is apparently the same thing as
> forlorn but for me it injects a certain intuitive resonance to the
> sentence and its intention whether or not the definition of 'forlorn'
> is for certain known by the reader or not

One interesting thing about the author is that her handful of books in
print (I think), have not deserved an entry in WP.

To do her all possible credit, she may have used "forlorned" as the past
participle of a verbed adjective, to mean "made (or 'deliberately left')
forlorn".

https://twitter.com/AngelaJTownsend

[James Hogg]

A quote from the OED:
1555 Pendleton in Bonner's Homilies 33 b, Those, that haue seperate
from the catholyke church.

--
James

[bosod...@gmail.com]

Hear, Hear -- she took the words uh i mean word right outta my mouth -- and i think maybe she owes me -- and btw what the heck is WP -- you people of the word have to start defining your acronyms

[Dr Nick]

To be it suggests actively abandoned rather than by happenstance.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 3:48:22 PM UTC-7, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>
> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

The problem with "forlorned" is that the very word is like a belled.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Joe Fineman]

Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> writes:

> Yes. I was trying to keep things simple. If the OP had mentioned the
> fact that it was historically a past participle, he might have felt
> that as a reason to add an -ed. Although strictly unnecessary, such
> redundant markings are not unknown in the history of languages.

Indeed, "borned" exists in some dialects.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: They demand patience -- right now! :||

[Ross]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 11:20:52 AM UTC+13, Joe Fineman wrote:
> Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>
> > Yes. I was trying to keep things simple. If the OP had mentioned the
> > fact that it was historically a past participle, he might have felt
> > that as a reason to add an -ed. Although strictly unnecessary, such
> > redundant markings are not unknown in the history of languages.
>
> Indeed, "borned" exists in some dialects.

Yes! "You ain't got the sense you was borned with!" -- Uncle-Remus-vintage
AAVE from tales my mother used to read to me.

[Robert Bannister]

On 3/03/2015 7:25 am, Ross wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 11:48:22 AM UTC+13, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense
>
> "forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed forms.

A bit sweeping: a huge number of -ed past participles are used as
adjectives. However, I do think the OP's question is a bit strange.
Isn't "forlorn" a past participle of an obsolete verb? -- It can't be
coincidence that German "verloren" (which sounds quite similar) means
"lost".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Ross]

Interesting. But apart from this, and one more in the following century,
all their "As past participle" citations seem equally compatible with
the adjectival use. And of course in these texts we can't distinguish
the two pronunciations which now differentiate verb and adjective,
so we have no evidence that "separated" was formed from anything other
than the verb in the normal manner.

[Robert Bannister]

That makes no sense at all. Do you know what "forlorn" means?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Robert Bannister skrev:

> A bit sweeping: a huge number of -ed past participles are used as
> adjectives. However, I do think the OP's question is a bit strange.
> Isn't "forlorn" a past participle of an obsolete verb? -- It can't be
> coincidence that German "verloren" (which sounds quite similar) means
> "lost".

It's not:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forlorn?s=t

Old English forloren (past participle of forlēosan);
cognate with Old High German firliosan (German verlieren)

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Ross]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 12:16:22 PM UTC+13, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 3/03/2015 7:25 am, Ross wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 11:48:22 AM UTC+13, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
> >> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense
> >
> > "forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed forms.
>
> A bit sweeping: a huge number of -ed past participles are used as
> adjectives.

Sure, but those have -ed as an intrinsic part of the adjective, and
they do not usually get an extra -ed added to them.

Still, you never know what will crop up in non-standard English.
Joe has already mentioned "borned", and I just thought of

Pharaoh's army got drownded

in "Oh Mary, Don't You Weep".
Actually I think "drownded" is fairly common. So even apparently
working past participles can be treated this way.

[Iain Archer]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote on Wed, 4 Mar 2015 at
07:16:16:

There's a striking OED entry on "forlorn hope", which was new to me.
"From Dutch verloren hoop (in Kilian 1598), lit. ‘lost troop’ ... In
early use, a picked body of men, detached to the front to begin the
attack".
--
Iain Archer

[R H Draney]

Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:18bf88e1-27a4-47b4...@googlegroups.com:

And "All babies wants to get borned!" (chanted with little indication of
understanding by the Asian classmate of the lead character of "Juno" in her
solo march outside an abortion clinic)....r

[James Hogg]

I think that people who used word like this back then were aware that
"separate" was originally a past participle in Latin and would have found
it very odd to add another past participle ending.

--
James

[bosod...@gmail.com]

Well apparently not. But for sake of argument it means "abandoned and hopelessly lonely" ... cuz nobody unnerstands me when i say stuff like forlorned eh?

[jo...@bellsouth.net]

Ross wrote:

> (We don't have "miserabled" or "lonelied".) Why would you expect
> "forlorn" to have one?

I like using adjectives and nouns as verbs. You said we don't use 'lonelied'. True, I've never heard it, but it sounds cool. "I was lonelied by her death." Lonelied out might be better, like weirded out. Sounds good. I am all for using words and even non words, whatever it takes to get my point across. Now all I need is a point and I'm good to go. In the meantime I'm like so losted and aloned it's crazing me out.

TJ

TJ

TJ

[CDB]

On 03/03/2015 12:55 PM, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> CDB wrote:

[Angela J Townsend and that neglected feeling]

>> One interesting thing about the author is that her handful of books
>> in print (I think), have not deserved an entry in WP.

>> To do her all possible credit, she may have used "forlorned" as the
>> past participle of a verbed adjective, to mean "made (or
>> 'deliberately left') forlorn".

>> https://twitter.com/AngelaJTownsend

> Hear, Hear -- she took the words uh i mean word right outta my mouth
> -- and i think maybe she owes me -- and btw what the heck is WP --
> you people of the word have to start defining your acronyms

WikiPedia. Not even stock jargon. Sorry.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

"abandoned and hopelessly lonely" is in line with dictionary
definitions. So the new word "forlorned" would mean "put into an
abandoned and hopelessly lonely state".

Why would you diss someone who has been forlorned?


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Robert Bannister]

Well, I wouldn't easily understand "abandoneded" either, but either way,
I don't see that's dissing anybody.

[Robert Bannister]

Thank you. You are telling me I am correct: "verlieren, verlor, hat
verloren" - lose, lost, has lost.

[micky]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:49:43 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <ec4bb9f6-f778-40d4...@googlegroups.com>,

>Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not
>>being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>>> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense
>
>>"forlorn" is an adjective. Adjectives don't normally have -ed forms.
>>(We don't have "miserabled" or "lonelied".) Why would you expect
>>"forlorn" to have one?
>

>If you want to delve into the etymology, it was once the past
>participle of "forlese" meaning "lose". So it's already got the
>equivalent of -ed.
>

>-- Richard

So the question is settleded.

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

[celticm...@gmail.com]

This is Angela J. Townsend Author of The Forlorned and the motion picture. It is a word in the dictionary that I used in reference to the subject matter--because it was uncommon. I also trademarked it for my motion picture.

So for my 'handful' of traditionally published books-and yes they are in print and audio as well--its called artistic freedom. :)

Angela Townsend

[Don Phillipson]

<celticm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33020de5-dd3a-4472...@googlegroups.com...

> This is Angela J. Townsend Author of The Forlorned and the motion picture.
> It is a word in the dictionary that I used in reference to the subject
> matter--
> because it was uncommon. I also trademarked it for my motion picture.

"Forlorn" includes the verb "lorn" which is an archaic variant of lose/
lost: so the construction "forlorned" is equivalent to "losted."

We can read at https://www.quora.com/Can-you-trademark-a-films-title
"The title of a film is only legally protectable as part of a film itself.
You can't just
trademark the title "DINOSAURS vs. ALIENS" and then wait for someone to
make a movie with that title and sue them. . . ." This confirms that titles
can
be protected by (US) trademark law, but not individual words (whether in
some dictionary or not.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:18:22 AM UTC+5:30, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>
> what am i missing? -- doesn't make sense

If you're FORlorn, then, FORsooth, you're missing something/ someone.

You can be missing, FORlorn and ALONE from being PURloined.

but must FORswear saying FORLORNed.

like you wouldn't say ALONEd.

To discover why you wouldn't be FORLORNed,

try to explain why you wouldn't be ALONEd.


P.S. If you can find me a poet who approves of the above verse, I'd be tickled pick.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-09-21 20:18:51 +0000, celticm...@gmail.com said:

> This is Angela J. Townsend Author of The Forlorned and the motion
> picture. It is a word in the dictionary that I used in reference to
> the subject matter--because it was uncommon. I also trademarked it for
> my motion picture.
>
> So for my 'handful' of traditionally published books-and yes they are
> in print and audio as well--its called artistic freedom. :)

That's an odd definition of "artistic freedom": having one's books in print!?

--
athel

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 11:56:10 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-09-21 20:18:51 +0000, celticm...@gmail.com said:
>
> > This is Angela J. Townsend Author of The Forlorned and the motion
> > picture. It is a word in the dictionary that I used in reference to
> > the subject matter--because it was uncommon. I also trademarked it for
> > my motion picture.
> >
> > So for my 'handful' of traditionally published books-and yes they are
> > in print and audio as well--its called artistic freedom. :)
>
> That's an odd definition of "artistic freedom": having one's books in print!?
>

I don't think AJT is offering a definition of artistic freedom.
She is using artistic freedom to explain the choice of "forlorned",
and noting that her traditionally published books are in print.

/dps

[Whiskers]

I'd've said 'artistic licence' in that context. Writers are allowed to
invent words for their own purposes.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Robert Bannister]

Yes, but when there is no point to it or no gain, readers are allowed to
cast a certain amount of scorn.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[celticm...@gmail.com]

Yes I agree. :) So Sorn away LOL. Authors and filmmakers should also be allowed to title a book as they see fit. I fought to keep the title of my book against a convicted child molester who sued me all the way to the US Supreme Court --and I'd do it again for myself and for the benefit of all other authors and creative persons.

[celticm...@gmail.com]

*scorn sorry

[CDB]

On 6/12/2019 1:25 PM, celticm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> snide...@gmail.com <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> celticm...@gmail.com said:

>>>>>> This is Angela J. Townsend Author of The Forlorned and the
>>>>>> motion picture. It is a word in the dictionary that I
>>>>>> used in reference to the subject matter--because it was
>>>>>> uncommon. I also trademarked it for my motion picture.

>>>>>> So for my 'handful' of traditionally published books-and
>>>>>> yes they are in print and audio as well--its called
>>>>>> artistic freedom. :)

>>>>> That's an odd definition of "artistic freedom": having one's
>>>>> books in print!?

>>>> I don't think AJT is offering a definition of artistic
>>>> freedom. She is using artistic freedom to explain the choice
>>>> of "forlorned", and noting that her traditionally published
>>>> books are in print.

>>> I'd've said 'artistic licence' in that context. Writers are
>>> allowed to invent words for their own purposes.

>> Yes, but when there is no point to it or no gain, readers are
>> allowed to cast a certain amount of scorn.

> Yes I agree. :) So Sorn away LOL. Authors and filmmakers should
> also be allowed to title a book as they see fit. I fought to keep
> the title of my book against a convicted child molester who sued me
> all the way to the US Supreme Court --and I'd do it again for myself
> and for the benefit of all other authors and creative persons.

What legal objection did this convict raise? Surely not the one based
on usage that people here would think of first.

[bebe...@aol.com]

I'd bet it had more to do with defamation.

[CDB]

On 6/13/2019 9:09 AM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> CDB a écrit :

Maybe, but how would that prevent the use of "The Forlorned" as a title?
I have looked the book up in GooBoo; from the description offered ("no
preview") it seems to be horror fiction.

"When Tom Doherty first laid eyes on the lighthouse he knew it was
damned. An advertisement lured him to the island, offering a job
renovating the old lighthouse and ramshackle buildings. What he didn't
know was that he was the only applicant. None of the locals wanted the
job...no one dared. Isolated and alone, Tom soon discovers why. Messages
from disembodied voices; ghostly visitations and escalating horrors draw
Tom deeper into the island's evil past...a darkness that forces Tom to
unbury the truth and bring demons of his own into the light."

<https://books.google.ca/books?id=au6xtgEACAAJ&dq=the+forlorned&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDoKOG3-biAhVErVkKHb9QAGAQ6AEIKDAA>

I hope Ms Townsend will be able to explain a little further.

Obwear&tear: I also found a great many uses of "forlorned" in published
works, so the world may have moved on while I was napping.

--
Only the pillowcase -- can't afford ginger.

[Dingbat]

> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?

If the word you seek existed, it could
be 'forlost', IMHO.

'For lost' exists as 2 words though,
as in 'given up for lost.'

[celticm...@gmail.com]

Hello everyone! I hope this will help answer your questions.

In short--I was a struggle single mother with a blind child when my novel The Forlorned became a motion picture. I thought my life had turned around for the better until a child molester sued me for Trademark Infringement over a SINGLE word in my title--Forlorned. The US Supreme Court sided with me. Even though I won, I had HUGE legal fees to pay-- while the ex-convict had all his fees covered by American Tax Dollars (he filed in Forma Pauperis-ex-prisoner to poor to pay) . The Case number is 17-6553.

I somehow hope that my struggle will help others beware of predators and stranger stalking. I fought for the right to name my book as I saw fit and I keep fighting to this very day. As for the defamation comment--the only one defamed was me. I do not mention the monster's name or give him any spotlight. That is what he wants. I am not his only victim. He has filed dozens of phony lawsuits with over 300 plus defendants. Being hunted, and sued constantly has taken its toll. The project that I believed would be a great benefit not only to myself but to others (I have donated hundreds of books to the Ronald McDonald Houses of America and to children across the globe with cancer) has truly turned into a horror story.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-06-13 15:46:23 +0000, Dingbat said:

>>
>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it not
>> being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?
>
> If the word you seek existed, it could
> be 'forlost', IMHO.

Nonsense.

>
> 'For lost' exists as 2 words though,
> as in 'given up for lost.'

--
athel

[bebe...@aol.com]

Sorry to hear that, so my guess was wrong. But on what grounds exactly
could he claim any title to such trademark in the first place?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The case number is sufficient to find him! He seems to be an awful
person, and I feel very sorry for your ordeal.

> or give him any spotlight. That is what he wants. I am not his only
> victim. He has filed dozens of phony lawsuits with over 300 plus
> defendants. Being hunted, and sued constantly has taken its toll. The
> project that I believed would be a great benefit not only to myself but
> to others (I have donated hundreds of books to the Ronald McDonald
> Houses of America and to children across the globe with cancer) has
> truly turned into a horror story.

--
athel

[CDB]

On 6/13/2019 11:47 AM, celticm...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you for the clarification. You seem to have been the victim of a
mass litigator with no other outlet for his truculence. I'm sorry to
hear it, and I hope he will stop soon.

--
However you like to interpret "stop".

[CDB]

On 6/13/2019 11:49 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Dingbat said:

>>> what's the difference between forlorn and forlorned other than it
>>> not being recognized as a word -- and if not, how come it isn't?

>> If the word you seek existed, it could be 'forlost', IMHO.

> Nonsense.

>> 'For lost' exists as 2 words though, as in 'given up for lost.'

Dingbat is referring to the etymology of the word, in which "forlorn" is
the past participle of the verb "forlese" (in different forms; OE
"forleosan"), all forms obsolete except "forlorn". "Lorn", in the Mrs
Gummidge sense, is a participle of "lose" built to the same plan:
modernE "lost".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-06-13 17:01:58 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2019-06-13 15:47:08 +0000, celticm...@gmail.com said:
>
> The case number is sufficient to find him! He seems to be an awful
> person, and I feel very sorry for your ordeal.

Cross-thread alert. We were discussing the order of adjectives in
another thread. I had a look at The Forlorned at Amazon. I was struck
by the phrase "the Royal British Navy", and it occurred to me that the
order of adjectives doesn't apply when we have one adjective qualifying
a fixed noun phrase, rather than two adjectives qualifying one noun, so
we can't put "British" between "Royal" and "Navy". On the other hand,
"Royal Canadian Mounted Police" sounds just fine, because "Royal
Mounted Police" is not a fixed phrase. "Royal Australian Navy"
("Serving Australia with Pride") is also OK because here we do have two
adjectives qualifying one noun. The only word that can separate the
components of a fixed phrase in ordinary use is "fucking", so "Royal
fucking Navy" is idiomatic. Maybe also "bloody" and "goddamn".


--
athel

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Agreed.

The official names of the UK armed forces are the "Royal Navy", the
"British Army", and the "Royal Air Force". Any descriptive adjective
should come before the official name.

It is not unusual for the army to be referred to as just the "Army". In
fact the websites of those three services are named

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/
http://www.army.mod.uk/
http://www.raf.mod.uk/

(mod stands for Ministry of Defence)

"Royal Canadian Mounted Police" is the official name of that
organisation.
Similarly with "Royal Canadian Air Force", "Royal Canadian Navy", etc,
and "Royal Australian Air Force", "Royal Australian Navy", etc

[Mark Brader]

Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> I was struck
> by the phrase "the Royal British Navy", and it occurred to me that the
> order of adjectives doesn't apply when we have one adjective qualifying
> a fixed noun phrase, rather than two adjectives qualifying one noun, so
> we can't put "British" between "Royal" and "Navy". On the other hand,
> "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" sounds just fine, because "Royal
> Mounted Police" is not a fixed phrase. "Royal Australian Navy"

> ("Serving Australia with Pride") is also OK...

I suggest that "Royal Canadian" and "Royal Australian" are fixed phrases
in such names, while "Royal British" is not, and this for the same reason
that British postage stamps don't show the name of the country.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "She gave me the look she gives me."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares