surname plural question
Kalmia
many times as the Lynches. Correct? If so, is there a rule about
this?
By the way, I keep seeing Joneses frequently too e.g. "The Joneses car
was stolen." I was taught "The Jones' car was stolen."
Thanks.
James Hogg
> A newspaper article about a couple named Lynch referred to them
>many times as the Lynches. Correct? If so, is there a rule about
>this?
It's correct. The plural of "church" is "churches", and the
plural of Lynch is Lynches.
>By the way, I keep seeing Joneses frequently too e.g. "The Joneses car
>was stolen." I was taught "The Jones' car was stolen."
You are complicating things here by moving to the possessive
form. Let's make it easier by saying: "The Joneses have gone on
holiday." Or you can think of the expression "keeping up with the
Joneses". It works just like singular "lens", plural "lenses".
To make a possessive from the plural form you just add an
apostrophe as you would to any plural word ending in -s:
"The Joneses' car was stolen."
--
James
Jens Brix Christiansen
> A newspaper article about a couple named Lynch referred to them
> many times as the Lynches. Correct?
Yes, indeed.
> If so, is there a rule about
> this?
The rules for forming plurals of surnames are the same as the rules for
forming plurals of other nouns.
> By the way, I keep seeing Joneses frequently too e.g. "The Joneses car
> was stolen." I was taught "The Jones' car was stolen."
You should have been taught "The Joneses' car was stolen."
Singular: Jones
Singular possessive: Jones's
Plural: Joneses
Plural possesive: Joneses'
--
Jens Brix Christiansen
Robert Lieblich
Well said, JH. Just in case any doubt lingers, the form Jones' is
incorrect unless the family surname is Jone. The plural of Jone is
Jones, and the plural possessive adds an apostrophe: Jones'. But
again, if the name is Jones, Jones' is not the plural possessive.
More broadly, the plural of any proper noun is formed by adding either
"s" or "es". If the last name is "Child" (as was that of the French
Chef), the plural is "Childs", not "Children". (The plural of
"Childs" is "Childses".) The plural of "Mann" is "Manns." I have
occasionally pointed out the name "Susan Thomases." (That's the name,
with no suffix added; you can confirm this on Google.) The plural of
"Thomases" is "Thomaseses". The plural possessive is "Thomaseses'".
Anything else would be not only wrong but misleading.
Plenty of people seem to think that the plural of "Jones" is also
"Jones" or even "Jones'". Some of them try to teach such things to
other people. Then they plunk down apostrophes in weird places, e.g.
"Jone's." They are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Spelling is
conventional, and they are flouting convention.
--
Bob Lieblich
When is that next convention anyway?
Maria Conlon
>
> I predict such problems as these will soon be deemed moot. As we grow
> more entangled in the web of electronic communications, any
> difficulties
> in the way of "how do ya spell that" will be disappear with attached
> wav
> files, or whatever form sound-producing files will take. Should you
> have
> the misfortune of being hard of hearing, you will be fucked.
I'm a little hard of hearing, Murray, but I think the consequence you
mention "ain't gonna happen."
Not saying whether that's good or bad,
Maria Conlon
Jeffrey Turner
If you read that last one aloud, people will think you've fallen asleep.
--Jeff
--
Money to get power,
Power to protect money.
--Motto of the Medicis
anal...@hotmail.com
How about Susan Thomases (a pooh-bah in the Cinton era) and her
family, would they be the Thomaseses?
Ildhund
> Quoth Kalmia, and I quote:
In certain circumstances, you could probably say "The Jones car," in
a manner analogous to "the Beaufort scale" or "the Beaudesert bus."
--
Noel
James Hogg
what words he spake:
That conjures up "the Bouquet residence".
--
James
LFS
Ah, now I shall have Stuck Sitcom Syndrome...
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle
> James Hogg wrote:
[...]
>>
>> That conjures up "the Bouquet residence".
>>
>
> Ah, now I shall have Stuck Sitcom Syndrome...
A quick blast of Krod Mandoon ought to clear that up. It may not have
worked for you, but I'm happy to have KM stuck for a while.
--
Mike.
Maria Conlon
When posting the above, I think I must have been under the control of
some Unknown Force. I'd blame my silly comment on Drambuie, but I
haven't had any of that wonderful liqueur for quite a while. (But I'll
get more for Christmas.)
Wondering why I go all stupid occasionally,
Maria Conlon
Amethyst Deceiver
KM was marvellous. I think knowing what they were making fun of helps,
and they really knew their cliches.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
LFS
I laughed quite a bit but an hour of it was a bit too much - I see the
next episode is only 30 minutes. It's certainly streets ahead (Obaue:
odd expression?) of Mumbai Calling, which I switched off.
I was pleased to discover that Outnumbered bears a second viewing.
the Omrud
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> LFS wrote:
>>> James Hogg wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> That conjures up "the Bouquet residence".
>>>>
>>> Ah, now I shall have Stuck Sitcom Syndrome...
>>
>> A quick blast of Krod Mandoon ought to clear that up. It may not have
>> worked for you, but I'm happy to have KM stuck for a while.
>
> I laughed quite a bit but an hour of it was a bit too much - I see the
> next episode is only 30 minutes. It's certainly streets ahead (Obaue:
> odd expression?) of Mumbai Calling, which I switched off.
I'm convinced that we were given two 30-minute episodes run together -
there was a clear story break half way through.
Ah, yes, I see that the first two episodes were broadcast in the US on
the same day (in April).
--
David
Mike Lyle
They often --usually?-- kick off a series with a double-length first
episode. I can easily believe it gets viewers more committed to seeing
what happens next.
--
Mike.
Amethyst Deceiver
mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
Often? Usually? I'm not sure I can think of another series recently
(which I've watched, obviously) that has opened with a double-length
episode.
Mike Lyle
I suppose there's a way of testing the statement, but I'm not about to
bother! But I feel as though double-length pilots of half-hour shows are
as unremarkable as repeats of /Coast/ (of which I've lost count).
--
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
It's pretty common around here. The most recent season of _Lost_, for
example started with episodes 1 and 2 shown back-to-back on January
21st, and ended with episodes 16 and 17 shown back-to-back on May
13th. _Heroes_ similarly started with two episodes on September
22nd. _24_'s most recent season started with two episodes on January
11th and another two on January 12th, and it ended with two episodes
on May 18th.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Amethyst Deceiver
Ah, I don't consider two episodes back-to-back as being the same as
having a double-length episode. Krod started in the UK with an hour-long
episode (a double-length episode) but started in the US as two back-to-
back episodes.
Amethyst Deceiver
mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
>
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> > In article <h16dsp$nkj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
> >> They often --usually?-- kick off a series with a double-length first
> >> episode. I can easily believe it gets viewers more committed to
> >> seeing what happens next.
> >
> > Often? Usually? I'm not sure I can think of another series recently
> > (which I've watched, obviously) that has opened with a double-length
> > episode.
>
> I suppose there's a way of testing the statement, but I'm not about to
> bother! But I feel as though double-length pilots of half-hour shows are
> as unremarkable as repeats of /Coast/ (of which I've lost count).
If you're going to make the statement, it's only fair you should be able
to back it up! However, I'm still pushed to think of anything that's
started recently that opened with a double-length pilot. Reggie Perrin
certainly didn't.
Evan Kirshenbaum
I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making. I'm presuming that
your "double-length episode" had the same content as our "two back-to-
back episodes", so aside from skipping the credits on the first and
the opening on the second (which is typically done when a two-part
episode is shown back-to-back), what's the difference? I don't think
I've seen it done when there were two completely different
storylines. Typically, the commercials will tell you to tune in for
the "two-hour season premier" (or "finale") of the show, but it's shot
as two episodes so that when it's rerun the parts can air on different
days.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
> In article <h18vep$m8e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>> In article <h16dsp$nkj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
>
>>>> They often --usually?-- kick off a series with a double-length
>>>> first episode. I can easily believe it gets viewers more committed
>>>> to seeing what happens next.
>>>
>>> Often? Usually? I'm not sure I can think of another series recently
>>> (which I've watched, obviously) that has opened with a double-length
>>> episode.
>>
>> I suppose there's a way of testing the statement, but I'm not about
>> to bother! But I feel as though double-length pilots of half-hour
>> shows are as unremarkable as repeats of /Coast/ (of which I've lost
>> count).
>
> If you're going to make the statement, it's only fair you should be
> able to back it up! However, I'm still pushed to think of anything
> that's started recently that opened with a double-length pilot.
> Reggie Perrin certainly didn't.
Well, since you insist, I will amend the statement to "I believe that
they ...", which requires no back-up (but do pop in with a polygraph if
you like: there's mango sorbet for pudding if you hurry). I do feel
supported by Evan's post, though, and I'm as puzzled as he by the
distinction you make.
--
Mike.
Amethyst Deceiver
That's the point, that Krod Mandoon was shown as a single one-hour
episode. Back-to-back episodes, in my experience, have the closing
credits from the first episode, adverts, trailers, whatever, then the
opening credits for the second episode. Krod Mandoon ran straight
through - it was billed as a single episode, it was in the listings as
one slot and one episode, there was no break between the two episodes
except for a scene change. In the UK, to the best of my memory, we don't
usually run two episodes of something together. While shows such as
Lost, or 24, or ER or Bones have started a series with two episodes,
they've been /billed/ as two episodes episodes and /shown/ as two
separate episodes, with all the closing and opening credits.
Amethyst Deceiver
>
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> > In article <h18vep$m8e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
> >>
> >> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> >>> In article <h16dsp$nkj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
> >
> >>>> They often --usually?-- kick off a series with a double-length
> >>>> first episode. I can easily believe it gets viewers more committed
> >>>> to seeing what happens next.
> >>>
> >>> Often? Usually? I'm not sure I can think of another series recently
> >>> (which I've watched, obviously) that has opened with a double-length
> >>> episode.
> >>
> >> I suppose there's a way of testing the statement, but I'm not about
> >> to bother! But I feel as though double-length pilots of half-hour
> >> shows are as unremarkable as repeats of /Coast/ (of which I've lost
> >> count).
> >
> > If you're going to make the statement, it's only fair you should be
> > able to back it up! However, I'm still pushed to think of anything
> > that's started recently that opened with a double-length pilot.
> > Reggie Perrin certainly didn't.
>
> Well, since you insist, I will amend the statement to "I believe that
> they ...", which requires no back-up (but do pop in with a polygraph if
> you like: there's mango sorbet for pudding if you hurry). I do feel
I bet I'm too late.
> supported by Evan's post, though, and I'm as puzzled as he by the
> distinction you make.
I just can't recall a single other UK show that started off with two
episodes run together in the way the Krod Mandoon was. Two episodes back
to back, yes, but mostly for hour-long US productions. Not two episodes
physically shown as a single episode. I honestly don't see that has
happening usually, or often.
Dan McGrath
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >By the way, I keep seeing Joneses frequently too e.g. "The Joneses car
>> >was stolen." I was taught "The Jones' car was stolen."
>>
>> You are complicating things here by moving to the possessive
>> form. Let's make it easier by saying: "The Joneses have gone on
>> holiday." Or you can think of the expression "keeping up with the
>> Joneses". It works just like singular "lens", plural "lenses".
>>
>> To make a possessive from the plural form you just add an
>> apostrophe as you would to any plural word ending in -s:
>> "The Joneses' car was stolen."
>
>Well said, JH. Just in case any doubt lingers, the form Jones' is
>incorrect unless the family surname is Jone. The plural of Jone is
>Jones, and the plural possessive adds an apostrophe: Jones'. But
>again, if the name is Jones, Jones' is not the plural possessive.
>
>More broadly, the plural of any proper noun is formed by adding either
>"s" or "es". If the last name is "Child" (as was that of the French
>Chef), the plural is "Childs", not "Children". (The plural of
>"Childs" is "Childses".) The plural of "Mann" is "Manns." I have
>occasionally pointed out the name "Susan Thomases." (That's the name,
>with no suffix added; you can confirm this on Google.) The plural of
>"Thomases" is "Thomaseses". The plural possessive is "Thomaseses'".
>Anything else would be not only wrong but misleading.
>
What I have never exactly understood is this: In forming the plurals
of proper names, we do away with most of the "exceptions" that we must
adhere to with common nouns. Not only does "Child" pluralize to
"Childs" (not "Children"), but also "Murphy" pluralizes to "Murphys"
(not "Murphies"). Why, then, do we even keep the double form of the
suffix -- i.e., both "-s" and "-es" -- when it comes to proper names?
Why doesn't "Jones" pluralize rather to "Joness" (though of course
still pronounced as Joneses)? Sure, that spelling might look as
though it should nearly rhyme with "bonus", but, given the way English
spelling is, I don't think I would have been completely surprised if
names like "Jones" *did* pluralize in that manner. I can accept the
spelling conventions as they are, but to me it sometimes must seem a
bit illogical or inconsistent that they call for "Murphys" (not
Murphies) but "Joneses" (not Joness).
Moreover, do you realize that "Joneses" would also be the plural of
"Jonese"? All right, so "Jonese" seems quite unlikely for a name.
But it is certainly possible to find instances of this ambiguous "-es"
using well-established first names: "Denises" is one example. The
name is masculine when that penultimate "e" is interpreted as
belonging to the suffix, but feminine if the "e" is taken to be an
actual part of the name, in which case the suffix is merely "-s". If
you think the masculine form is usually spelled "Dennis" in
English-speaking countries, you can try "Louises" instead. Now, I've
sometimes seen the existence of "Marie" as a first name in its own
right given as an argument against pluralizing "Mary" as "Maries".
However, if we used that logic, we'd have to say that the plurals of
"Denis" and "Louis" could not be "Denises" and "Louises"! (They might
rather be "Deniss" and "Louiss".) When I was trying to do research on
this matter a while back, I found an online message board on which
someone had asked how to make the name "Denis" plural without having
it look like the plural of "Denise". (The only suggestion that anyone
had come up with -- perhaps as a joke -- was "Denii", presumably
created on the analogy of things like "radii". Of course it makes no
sense in Latin to pluralize "-is" as "-ii". The person could have
suggested "Denes" instead.)
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com
R H Draney
>
>...I found an online message board on which
>someone had asked how to make the name "Denis" plural without having
>it look like the plural of "Denise". (The only suggestion that anyone
>had come up with -- perhaps as a joke -- was "Denii", presumably
>created on the analogy of things like "radii". Of course it makes no
>sense in Latin to pluralize "-is" as "-ii". The person could have
>suggested "Denes" instead.)
There's certainly no shortage of people referring to "a group of Elvii"....
Closer to your original point, I used to work with a woman whose surname was
"Daves"...in a certain frame of mind, this could be the plural of either "Dave"
or "Davis", no?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?