Plural of porte-cochere

[HVS]

Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or "portes-cocheres"?

My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
General"), or both elements of the word.

Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte cocheres",
which surely can't be right... (They also drop the hyphen, which isn't
the case for Collins or my architectural/building dictionaries, but
that may be a pondial thing.)

--
Cheers, Harvey

[Jerry Friedman]

The OED says, and I copy, "Plural /porte-cochères, portes-cochères./"

If you don't like the one with the "s" only at the end, I think your choice is
clear. (But how do you pronounce it?)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:43:22 AM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:28:26 AM UTC-6, HVS wrote:
> > Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or "portes-cocheres"?
> >
> > My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
> > practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
> > General"), or both elements of the word.
> >
> > Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte cocheres",
> > which surely can't be right... (They also drop the hyphen, which isn't
> > the case for Collins or my architectural/building dictionaries, but
> > that may be a pondial thing.)

> The OED says, and I copy, "Plural /porte-cochères, portes-cochères./"

...

Maybe I should add that as far as I know, "portes-cochère" isn't correct in
French, so I don't see any reason to use it in English.

--
Jerry Friedman could be wrong.

[Bebercito]

Arguably, since "cochère" is an adjective in French, it could be invariable
in English. (Either way, there's no hyphen in the French spelling.)

Incidentally, the name is deceptive as a "porte cochère" could be thought
of as a door with a mezuzah.

[J. J. Lodder]

Originally most portes cochères actually were doors.
You wouldn't want the rabble to walk into your courtyard, eh?
And of course you would have a lackey on horseback to ride ahead
to tell them to open the portes for your coach,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

A more troubling point, at least to me: if it has no hyphen in French,
why would it have one in English?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Jerry Friedman]

*groan*

--
Jerry Friedman

[occam]

I think there is a hint of an explanation here:

http://www.french-linguistics.co.uk/grammar/french_spelling_reform_hyphen.shtml

Namely:

"In other cases, the hyphen is used in words where the two elements no
longer have any individual sense in French or are not perceived as
individual units, or in loanwords. For example, the word chausse-trappe
(a "trap" used to hunt animals) derives from an older meaning of the
word chausser which used to mean "to trip up", but now is only used in
the meaning of "to put shoes on". "

This is clearly not the case for porte cochère, where both porte (door)
and 'cochère' (coach) have their original meanings.

As regards the OP (originally posed) question: 'portes-cochère' or
porte-cochères, I vote for 'door-knobs', not 'doors-knobs'. Simples.

[HVS]

On 09 Apr 2021, occam wrote

Thanks; good point.

Cheers, Harvey

[Lewis]

The obvious answer is because English is not French?



--
The way I see it, the longer I put it off, the better it'll end up
being. Heck, school doesn't start for another 43 minutes.

[Jerry Friedman]

That's interesting, and it explains why it doesn't have a hyphen in
French, but not why it got one in English. And in English, a
porte-cochère is not necessarily a door. It's typically a porch.

https://beckiowens.com/trend-the-porte-cochere/

> As regards the OP (originally posed) question: 'portes-cochère' or
> porte-cochères, I vote for 'door-knobs', not 'doors-knobs'. Simples.

If you mean "portes-cochère", dictionaries say you're outvoted, and
they're right.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=portes-cochere%2Cportes-cocheres%2Cporte-cocheres&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=29&smoothing=3

shorturl.at/opwzY

"Portes-cochere" does actually show up in the American English results,
in a distant third.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 4/9/21 8:02 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <s4oam1$f0g$2...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 09/04/21 02:28, HVS wrote:
>
>>> Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or
>>> "portes-cocheres"?
>>>
>>> My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
>>> practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
>>> General"), or both elements of the word.
>>>
>>> Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte
>>> cocheres", which surely can't be right... (They also drop the
>>> hyphen, which isn't the case for Collins or my architectural/building
>>> dictionaries, but that may be a pondial thing.)
>
>> A more troubling point, at least to me: if it has no hyphen in French,
>> why would it have one in English?
>
> The obvious answer is because English is not French?

That's an answer to "How could it happen?" not "Why did it happen?"
When English adopts a noun-adjective phrase from French, such as "art
nouveau", "carte blanche", and "film noir", it usually doesn't add a
hyphen. "Papier-mâché" seems to be another exception, though, at least
in American English (hyphenated in AHD but not OED).

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bebercito]

Le jeudi 8 avril 2021 à 23:22:49 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
> Bebercito <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 8 avril 2021 à 17:46:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:43:22 AM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:28:26 AM UTC-6, HVS wrote:
> > > > > Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or "portes-cocheres"?
> > > > >
> > > > > My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
> > > > > practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
> > > > > General"), or both elements of the word.
> > > > >
> > > > > Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte cocheres",
> > > > > which surely can't be right... (They also drop the hyphen, which isn't
> > > > > the case for Collins or my architectural/building dictionaries, but
> > > > > that may be a pondial thing.)
> > >
> > > > The OED says, and I copy, "Plural /porte-cochères, portes-cochères./"
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Maybe I should add that as far as I know, "portes-cochère" isn't correct in
> > > French, so I don't see any reason to use it in English.
> >
> > Arguably, since "cochère" is an adjective in French, it could be invariable
> > in English. (Either way, there's no hyphen in the French spelling.)
> >
> > Incidentally, the name is deceptive as a "porte cochère" could be thought
> > of as a door with a mezuzah.
> Originally most portes cochères actually were doors.

They still are. The same passageway without a door is a porch.

> You wouldn't want the rabble to walk into your courtyard, eh?
> And of course you would have a lackey on horseback to ride ahead
> to tell them to open the portes for your coach,

And today, motorcars drive through them into the courtyards of
some Parisian buildings.

>
> Jan

[occam]

In English, the word only makes sense as a hyphenated word, being an
import. Neither of its constituents are English words. You say a porch,
I say an archway.

>
> https://beckiowens.com/trend-the-porte-cochere/
>
>> As regards the OP (originally posed) question:  'portes-cochère' or
>> porte-cochères, I vote for  'door-knobs', not 'doors-knobs'. Simples.
>
> If you mean "portes-cochère", dictionaries say you're outvoted, and
> they're right.

The other way around. In English, porte-cochère would be (an imported)
single word. Hence the plural would be porte-cocheres.

[Jerry Friedman]

OK. You said above, "both porte (door) and 'cochère' (coach) have their
original meanings," which is true in French, but we agree that it's not true
in English.

> > https://beckiowens.com/trend-the-porte-cochere/
> >
> >> As regards the OP (originally posed) question: 'portes-cochère' or
> >> porte-cochères, I vote for 'door-knobs', not 'doors-knobs'. Simples.
> >
> > If you mean "portes-cochère", dictionaries say you're outvoted, and
> > they're right.

> The other way around. In English, porte-cochère would be (an imported)
> single word. Hence the plural would be porte-cocheres.

...

Ah, I thought you meant that the "s" would go on the head noun.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Lewis]

In message <s4pp2f$1ckc$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/21 8:02 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <s4oam1$f0g$2...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 09/04/21 02:28, HVS wrote:
>>
>>>> Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or
>>>> "portes-cocheres"?
>>>>
>>>> My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
>>>> practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
>>>> General"), or both elements of the word.
>>>>
>>>> Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte
>>>> cocheres", which surely can't be right... (They also drop the
>>>> hyphen, which isn't the case for Collins or my architectural/building
>>>> dictionaries, but that may be a pondial thing.)
>>
>>> A more troubling point, at least to me: if it has no hyphen in French,
>>> why would it have one in English?
>>
>> The obvious answer is because English is not French?

> That's an answer to "How could it happen?" not "Why did it happen?"
> When English adopts a noun-adjective phrase from French, such as "art
> nouveau", "carte blanche", and "film noir", it usually doesn't add a
> hyphen.

All of those examples include french words that are used in english in
ways other than the [hrase examples you gave.

neuvo riche
a la carte
noir

> "Papier-mâché"

And that one does not, although if you took art class you might have
come across papier collé, but that's a bit esoteric and I doubt many
people know it and suspect most people think a collage is always paper.

Might be why?

> seems to be another exception, though, at least
> in American English (hyphenated in AHD but not OED).

Not given a hyphen in NOAD or ODE here and AH Dictionary online list
both hyphenated and not.

--
Howard: Woah. No. We're not--we shackle people of all races and colors here.
Penny: Not better, Howard.

[Bebercito]

Le vendredi 9 avril 2021 à 19:10:32 UTC+2, Lewis a écrit :
> In message <s4pp2f$1ckc$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 4/9/21 8:02 AM, Lewis wrote:
> >> In message <s4oam1$f0g$2...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 09/04/21 02:28, HVS wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or
> >>>> "portes-cocheres"?
> >>>>
> >>>> My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
> >>>> practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
> >>>> General"), or both elements of the word.
> >>>>
> >>>> Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte
> >>>> cocheres", which surely can't be right... (They also drop the
> >>>> hyphen, which isn't the case for Collins or my architectural/building
> >>>> dictionaries, but that may be a pondial thing.)
> >>
> >>> A more troubling point, at least to me: if it has no hyphen in French,
> >>> why would it have one in English?
> >>
> >> The obvious answer is because English is not French?
>
> > That's an answer to "How could it happen?" not "Why did it happen?"
> > When English adopts a noun-adjective phrase from French, such as "art
> > nouveau", "carte blanche", and "film noir", it usually doesn't add a
> > hyphen.
> All of those examples include french words that are used in english in
> ways other than the [hrase examples you gave.
>
> neuvo

Correct is "nouveau" - or did you mean "nuevo"?

> riche

If so, "rico" should follow, but it's no longer French.

[J. J. Lodder]

I bow to your superior knowledge,
but I have often found that modern French
has become more Americanised than I would have expected,

Jan

[Joy Beeson]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:29:37 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> A more troubling point, at least to me: if it has no hyphen in French,
> why would it have one in English?

Because in French it's a modified noun, in English it's a single term
which may or may not have the same meaning as the French phrase it
came from.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.

[Dingbat]

If it were neuve, would it be French, perhaps with a change in meaning?

[Bebercito]

"neuve riche" is gobbledygook, though the two words are French.

[Bebercito]

Not to the point of embracing the American meaning of French words
themselves though, heaven forbid.

>
> Jan

[Quinn C]

* Bebercito:

Maybe "neuves riches". if some francophone country was controlled by
nine female oligarchs?

Oligomatriarchs?

--
They spend so much time fussing about my identity
that I really shouldn't have to bother with it
myself at all.
-- Margaret Atwood, The Edible Woman, p.223

[Peter Moylan]

Nor the American pronunciation.

Just this morning I learnt that Icelandic people speak English with an
Australian accent. Apparently they learn their English from "Home and
Away" and "Neighbours".

[J. J. Lodder]

Possibly, but I would expect more effects
from the American occupation during WWII,

Jan

[charles]

In article <1p7ipfv.1nq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

some 40 years ago, we had a Japaneze au-pair. She'd come here to learn
English - she realised she had learned American back home.


> Jan

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[J. J. Lodder]

But why would she want to? Back home again
she would just have a quaint accent.

She wanted to found a 'real English' school for the culturally aspiring?

Jan

PS The Japanese can be very precise about it.
I happened to see a Japanese performance of Beethoven's 9th (on TV),
with a huge choir.
I could actually hear the German text being sung!
(I don't know it by heart beyond 'Gotterfunken' being in it)
They must have put an enormous amount of practice into it.
Normally speaking you can't hear what a choir is singing
unless you already know the text.

[charles]

In article <1p7is7a.xqp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > In article <1p7ipfv.1nq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 12/04/21 05:00, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le vendredi 9 avril 2021 à 23:07:36 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > >> I bow to your superior knowledge, but I have often found that
> > > > >> modern French has become more Americanised than I would have
> > > > >> expected,
> > > > >
> > > > > Not to the point of embracing the American meaning of French words
> > > > > themselves though, heaven forbid.
> > > >
> > > > Nor the American pronunciation.
> > > >
> > > > Just this morning I learnt that Icelandic people speak English with
> > > > an Australian accent. Apparently they learn their English from
> > > > "Home and Away" and "Neighbours".
> >
> > > Possibly, but I would expect more effects
> > > from the American occupation during WWII,
> >
> > some 40 years ago, we had a Japaneze au-pair. She'd come here to learn
> > English - she realised she had learned American back home.

> But why would she want to? Back home again

no, she never went home. As an unmarried woman over 30, she'd be stuck at
home looking after her mother.

> she would just have a quaint accent.

> She wanted to found a 'real English' school for the culturally aspiring?

> Jan

> PS The Japanese can be very precise about it.
> I happened to see a Japanese performance of Beethoven's 9th (on TV),
> with a huge choir.
> I could actually hear the German text being sung!
> (I don't know it by heart beyond 'Gotterfunken' being in it)
> They must have put an enormous amount of practice into it.
> Normally speaking you can't hear what a choir is singing
> unless you already know the text.

[CDB]

On 4/11/2021 7:14 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Bebercito:
>> Dingbat a écrit :

>>> Bebercito wrote:
>>>> Lewis a écrit :

>>>>> All of those examples include french words that are used in
>>>>> english in ways other than the [hrase examples you gave.

>>>>> neuvo
>>>> Correct is "nouveau" - or did you mean "nuevo"?

>>>>> riche

>>>> If so, "rico" should follow, but it's no longer French.
>>> If it were neuve, would it be French, perhaps with a change in
>>> meaning?

>> "neuve riche" is gobbledygook, though the two words are French.

> Maybe "neuves riches". if some francophone country was controlled by
> nine female oligarchs?

"Neuf", the number, is invariable. "Neuve" is the feminine form of
"neuf", new, as in "Pont Neuf" or "maitresse neuve du Pape".

i mention this mostly because, after all, you live in Montréal.

> Oligomatriarchs?

Ennea tas Mousas phasin tines.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Four generations ago?

I just saw an episode of a British series "My Grandfather's War," in which
Mark Rylance, no spring chicken, investigates his grandfather's experiences
in Hong Kong beginning in the early 1930s.

The next episode is on Kristin Scott Thomas, who appears to be younger.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 5:20:08 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> PS The Japanese can be very precise about it.
> I happened to see a Japanese performance of Beethoven's 9th (on TV),
> with a huge choir.
> I could actually hear the German text being sung!
> (I don't know it by heart beyond 'Gotterfunken' being in it)
> They must have put an enormous amount of practice into it.
> Normally speaking you can't hear what a choir is singing
> unless you already know the text.

You must have only heard inferior choruses in your lifetime.

Masaaki Suzuki's recordings of the complete choral music of J. S.
Bach with the Japan Bach Collegium (its chorus almost entirely
Japanese, as are some of the soloists) are fully understandable.

You didn't see Suzuki's Beethoven's Ninth, because he respects
the performance traditions of the composer's time. I didn't buy
that recording because his Mozart and earlier Beethoven attempts
(Mass in C and Missa Solemnis) are less than persuasive.

[Krandall Kraus]

On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 8:43:22 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:28:26 AM UTC-6, HVS wrote:
> > Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or "portes-cocheres"?
> >
> > My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
> > practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
> > General"), or both elements of the word.
> >
> > Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte cocheres",
> > which surely can't be right... (They also drop the hyphen, which isn't
> > the case for Collins or my architectural/building dictionaries, but
> > that may be a pondial thing.)
> The OED says, and I copy, "Plural /porte-cochères, portes-cochères./"
>

> If you don't like the one with the "s" only at the end, I think your choice is
> clear. (But how do you pronounce it?)
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman
The "s" is silent in both.

[Krandall Kraus]

AT LAST:
My French friend (I do have more than one, by the way; I'm not a hermit. Well, almost, but not totally) tells me that either is correct: portes-cocheres, or porte-cocheres.
The "S" is silent, as usual in most French words ending in S.
Just like fleurs.

[CDB]

On 7/6/2021 9:01 PM, Krandall Kraus wrote:
> Krandall Kraus wrote:

>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> HVS wrote:

>>>> Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or
>>>> "portes-cocheres"?

>>>> My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard
>>>> French practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of
>>>> "Attorneys- General"), or both elements of the word.

>>>> Online searching didn't help. Merriam Webster gives "porte
>>>> cocheres", which surely can't be right... (They also drop the
>>>> hyphen, which isn't the case for Collins or my
>>>> architectural/building dictionaries, but that may be a pondial
>>>> thing.)
>>> The OED says, and I copy, "Plural /porte-cochères,
>>> portes-cochères.

>>> If you don't like the one with the "s" only at the end, I think
>>> your choice is clear. (But how do you pronounce it?)

>> The "s" is silent in both.

> AT LAST: My French friend (I do have more than one, by the way; I'm
> not a hermit. Well, almost, but not totally) tells me that either is
> correct: portes-cocheres, or porte-cocheres. The "S" is silent, as
> usual in most French words ending in S. Just like fleurs.

The dictionary at atilf agrees with the first spelling. It doesn't say,
but I will, that "porte-cochères" looks like something you carry your
"cochères" in, on the pattern of "portefeuille" or "porte-monnaie".

I think the pronunciation question related to English. I vote for a
pronounced "s" at the end of the phrase.

--
But not too pronounced.

[Tak To]

On 4/8/2021 11:28 AM, HVS wrote:
> Is the plural of "porte-cochere" "portes-cochere" or "portes-cocheres"?
>
> My written French is very rusty, so I'm not sure if standard French
> practice is to pluralise just the noun (on the model of "Attorneys-
> General"), or both elements of the word.

The French convention for French compound nouns is to pluralize
every element that has a distinct plural form. This include
most adjectives as well as nouns.

The English spelling varies depending on how nativized the
compound noun has become.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Tak To]

The "porte" in both "portefeuille" or "porte-monnaie" are verbs
(second person singular imperative); thus invariable.

The "porte" in "porte-cochère" is a countable noun. It must be
in its plural form as is the following adjective.

I was talking about compound nouns in French. The spelling in
English might switch to the English convention as it becomes
more and more nativized.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

They sometimes do it with words that are not obviously compounds (not
obvious to English speakers, anyway), like "plateforme", which makes
"platesformes".

>
> I was talking about compound nouns in French. The spelling in
> English might switch to the English convention as it becomes
> more and more nativized.


--

Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Peter Moylan]

That one surprised me, so I checked atilf. It gives only the spelling
plate-forme. The hyphen makes it easier to guess the plural.

I can easily imagine the hyphen disappearing in regional dialects, though.

My memory of Paris railway stations suggests that the word is always
"quai" there, with plate-forme reserved for things like a political
platform.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes. "Plateforme" does not translate to "platform".