Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Shenanigan - plural or singular?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

halcombe

unread,
Apr 19, 2002, 2:35:18 AM4/19/02
to
I had always thought of the word as used in the plural - by attraction
to 'he's up to his old tricks', and the like.

The flavour of the word being the concatenation of deals and passing
of information by which the canny Irishman running rings around his
supposed WASP betters (as in the Somerville and Ross 'Irish RM'
stories). And, when the Irish take power in the American cities at the
turn of the 20th century - shenanigans become a whole system of
government!

But US usage does seem to contemplate the single shenanigan. (That
Über-Irishman Thomas Mitchell uses the word in the singular in 'Mr
Smith Goes to Washington' to describe the last of the fine messes Jean
Arthur gets poor James Stewart into.)

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 19, 2002, 9:30:54 AM4/19/02
to

I think I've generally only heard "shenanigans" (plural), not
"shenanigan".

shenanigan 9000
shenanigans 97100


CyberCypher

unread,
Apr 19, 2002, 10:17:42 AM4/19/02
to
Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> burbled
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020419...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu:

> On 18 Apr 2002, halcombe wrote:
>
>> I had always thought of the word as used in the plural - by
>> attraction to 'he's up to his old tricks', and the like.

[...]


>
> I think I've generally only heard "shenanigans" (plural), not
> "shenanigan".
>
> shenanigan 9000
> shenanigans 97100

Me too, but W3NID has both singular and plural forms. It is perfectly
acceptable to use it in the singular.


--
Franke

R H Draney

unread,
Apr 19, 2002, 12:18:45 PM4/19/02
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:30:54 -0400, Richard Fontana
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>I think I've generally only heard "shenanigans" (plural), not
>"shenanigan".
>
>shenanigan 9000
>shenanigans 97100

I wonder how many of those singular usages are referring to George
Carlin's bit concerning the word...George (an American of Irish
descent) is apparently only familiar with the plural, and wonders what
*one* shenanigan would be...he posits a fellow who has developed a
single silly gesture and uses it for all occasions, whence people say
"he's up to his old shenanigan"....r

Charles Riggs

unread,
Apr 20, 2002, 2:53:14 AM4/20/02
to

I started to write that you are full of beans, until I figured I'd
better look it up in the OED first. It is clear from the citations
there, and there are many, that the usage of the word has changed over
the years. All the citations before 1969 cite "shenanigan"; all after
cite "shenanigans".

It appears it is *not* perfectly acceptable to use it today, in the
singular.
--

Charles Riggs

CyberCypher

unread,
Apr 20, 2002, 8:46:46 AM4/20/02
to
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> burbled
news:em32cuku847mtajv4...@4ax.com:

Well, Charles, while I have the utmost respect for the OED and what it
does best, I do not agree that the presence or absence of a citation
there is sufficient for me to determine what is or is not acceptable
usage today. Unless, of course, one is writing for the masses incapable
of divining that the singular usage just might refer to a singular bit
of mischief instead of a repertoire.
--
Franke

Henry Churchyard

unread,
Apr 20, 2002, 4:07:24 PM4/20/02
to
Reminds me of the usage example for "smithereens" given in Ambrose
Bierrce's "Devil's Dictionary": "Yesterday I paid a call on Mrs. Smith
and all the young Smithereens." [from memory]

--
Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/

Charles Riggs

unread,
Apr 21, 2002, 4:18:54 AM4/21/02
to

I'm afraid you can't wiggle out of your minor faux pas that easily.
The word was often used, in the past, in the singular to speak of
acts of mischief, and the word today is always used in the plural
whether one is speaking of one or of more that one such acts.
--

Charles Riggs

dcw

unread,
Apr 22, 2002, 4:38:31 AM4/22/02
to
In article <em32cuku847mtajv4...@4ax.com>,
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:

>I started to write that you are full of beans, until I figured I'd
>better look it up in the OED first. It is clear from the citations
>there, and there are many, that the usage of the word has changed over
>the years. All the citations before 1969 cite "shenanigan"; all after
>cite "shenanigans".

This is very surprising. I've known the word since long before 1969,
and I don't think I've ever heard it in the singular. It just sounds
wrong.

David

Charles Riggs

unread,
Apr 22, 2002, 3:40:26 PM4/22/02
to

It surprised me too. Like you, I've never heard it in the singular.
The OED editors have heard more than we have, it seems!
--

Charles Riggs

dcw

unread,
Apr 23, 2002, 5:22:24 AM4/23/02
to
In article <8dp8cuo14hikpgj3j...@4ax.com>,

I'd be seriously worried if they hadn't. What is odd is that they
seem to have heard _less_ than we did before 1969.

David


Charles Riggs

unread,
Apr 24, 2002, 3:49:16 AM4/24/02
to

I'm 56, so I was 24 in 1969. Many of those days remain hidden behind a
cloud of Old Crow vapors and marijuana smoke. Still, I think I would
have remembered if I had heard it in the singular.
--

Charles Riggs

dcw

unread,
Apr 24, 2002, 4:24:36 AM4/24/02
to
In article <62mccugdj53j9qu6r...@4ax.com>,
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:

>I'm 56, so I was 24 in 1969. Many of those days remain hidden behind a
>cloud of Old Crow vapors and marijuana smoke. Still, I think I would
>have remembered if I had heard it in the singular.

And I'm 58. Since I can actually remember the 60s, including plural
"shenanigans", I can't have been there.

David

Charles Riggs

unread,
Apr 25, 2002, 5:05:04 AM4/25/02
to

Tune in, turn on, drop out.

Timothy O'Leary
--

Charles Riggs

0 new messages