Who was it who said...

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss grammar.

Some insist that the “-s” belongs on the noun in the middle of the expression (runners-up), and those with the common touch are content to leave it at the end (runner-ups). — javi2541997

I cannot actually say that I have ever heard anyone say "runner-ups", but it definitely sounds wrong.
If someone is talking about the people that did not win the competition they usually talk about more than one person. If there were only two people the second place would be runner-up, so it should be obvious that when talking about more than two people that the emphasis goes on the runner. The phrase actually comes from dog racing when there were only first and second place prizes.

So have you ever been challenged for saying Jack + s in a box or Jack-in-the-box + es? — javi2541997

Jacks-in-the-box would imply that there are more than one Jack in one box, so it is grammatically incorrect as a plural when used for more than box.

So have you ever been challenged for saying Jack + s in a box or Jack-in-the-box + es? — javi2541997

The problem is that "Jacks-in-the-box" could be more than one Jack in a single box. So, I vote for that. Ambiguous and a little goofy. I am a big fan of ambiguous, goofy language.

Who was it who said...

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss grammar. — Jamal

I don't know who said it first but there are several variations. My own is:

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss themselves(usually on Twatter, Farcebook, Nit nok).

I cannot actually say that I have ever heard anyone say "runner-ups", but it definitely sounds wrong. — Sir2u

I agree with you. When I was reading the paper by Steven Pinker, I had some difficulties with the pronunciation, and my tongue suffered instead of being easy. So, yes, it sounds wrong, or at least weird.

English isn't my native language, but from a logical point of view, when there are multiple instances of a "Jack-in-a-box", aren't there multiple Jacks as well as multiple boxes, so that the final expression should actually read Jacks-in-boxes?

Jacks-in-the-box would imply that there are more than one Jack in one box, so it is grammatically incorrect as a plural when used for more than box. — Sir2u

The problem is that "Jacks-in-the-box" could be more than one Jack in a single box. So, I vote for that. Ambiguous and a little goofy. I am a big fan of ambiguous, goofy language. — T Clark

OK. This is so interesting. Clarky is American, and sir2u is British. Yet, you both have interpreted the same regarding that there could be more than one Jack in the box. So, the subject of this example is Jack, not the boxes. Ergo, plural would always be applied to Jack instead of box (right?).

I know you are a fan of goofy language, Clarky! :wink:

Who was it who said "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss grammar." — Jamal

Presumably not the philosopher who said "Half of good philosophy is good grammar.’

@Sir2u and @T Clark stated that there is plural of Jack. Thus, more than one Jack in a single box. The latter doesn't change.

Ergo, plural would always be applied to Jack instead of box (right?). — javi2541997

When you talk about Jack-in-the-box, the subject is the box, because that is the toy. Because you are talking about a box with a Jack in it. That is the way to decide where the S goes.
As Quk points out, multiple Jacks in multiple boxes would be Jacks-in-the-boxes. But if there is only one Jack in each box then it is Jack-in-the boxes.

Why do we disagree on how to pluralize?

We pluralize nouns. The problem is Jack-in-the-box is a clause being used as a noun. It has a subject and predicate. It has two nouns in it. So I would pluralize both nouns for reasons of grammar. When in doubt just use whatever is easier to say and whichever combination sounds better, or avoid using the word altogether.

The problem is Jack-in-the-box is a clause being used as a noun. It has a subject and predicate. — NOS4A2

If the phrase is being used as a noun, then it has to be treated as such. It does not have a subject nor a predicate because it is counted as one word, thus the hyphens.
Being only one word the S goes on the end.

As Quk points out, multiple Jacks in multiple boxes would be Jacks-in-the-boxes. — Sir2u

But how can we know that? I thought this word is tricky because of its plural conjugation precisely. Either you can pluralize Jack or pluralize box, I believed (maybe wrongly) that we can't pluralize both at the same time.

Nonetheless, @NOS4A2 thinks that the easiest way to resolve this grammar dilemma is to pluralize altogether :chin:

But how can we know that? — javi2541997

Twenty boxes containing ten apples in each. Could not be an apple in boxes.
Twenty boxes containing ten Jacks in each. Could not be a jack in the boxes.

The whole thing is the toy, one object. Each box constitutes a toy. If it has one Jack in it it would be a jack-in-the-box. If it has more than one Jack in it, it could not be a jack-in-the-box.

Twenty boxes containing ten applesin each. Could not be an apple in boxes.
Twenty boxes containing ten Jacks in each. Could not be a jack in the boxes. — Sir2u

Oh! in each object, yes. You are referring to a scenario where there are multiple objects: twenty boxes and then twenty Jacks. I understand your point about using plural here. 

Yet, I thought that "Jack-in-the-box" was one word (which came from a phrase). So, in my view, I only considered the nouns separately. Either "Jacks in the box" or "Jack in the boxes"

Gins and tonic, passersby, etc. This is barely even linguistics, and I'm not sure why it's been put in philosophy of language.

Can anyone tell me why this shouldn't be put in the Lounge?

You can even remove it if you want. But please do not be a hypocrite regarding what OP deserves more respect than other. At least we are not debating about religion or AI like the other 25161836 posts of this forum.

If I were @Banno or @Quixodian your opinion on my post would be different right?

I was genuinely open to persuasion, but since you characteristically responded obnoxiously, to the Lounge it goes.

The Secret Life of Words:
English Words and Their Origins
By: Anne Curzan, Ph.D

The Routes of English
By: Melvyn Bragg

These are good books to read, especially if you are not native speakers. They help to understand just how screwed up English really is. I have a few more, but they are on an old drive that I don't have handy right now and I cannot remember the names

OK, I respect your decision!
Muchísimas gracias Jamal! I thought you had a different opinion on me.

passersby — Jamal

Perfectly good word there, fine example of where to put the S. :up:

Perfectly good word there, fine example of where to put the S — Sir2u

So what?

So what? — Jamal

Ouch! :worry:

These are good books to read, especially if you are not native speakers. — Sir2u

Thanks for those books recommendations :up:

So what? — Jamal

Why are you keeping posting here? Didn't you consider this OP as “not philosophical”?

Gins and tonic, passersby, etc. This is barely even linguistics, and I'm not sure why it's been put in philosophy of language.

Can anyone tell me why this shouldn't be put in the Lounge? — Jamal

This thread could in theory lead to a discussion about what grammar is. I come from linguistics, and I've often felt confused about how philosophers use the term grammar. It sometimes feels like philosophers think grammar is the structure of thought, when it's just the structure of language.

"Jack-in-the-box" and where the plural goes is actually a pretty good example. People here keep talking about Jacks and Boxes, but the grammatical structure does suggest you tag the -s onto Jack.

Javi is actually right here (in spirit):

So, the subject of this example is Jack, not the boxes. Ergo, plural would always be applied to Jack instead of box (right?). — javi2541997

The term "subject" is, strictly speaking, wrong - since "jack in the box" is a phrase, and phrases have "heads" not "subjects". You'd need to interpret "jack in the box" as a clause for it to have a subject. Beyond that, a grammatical analysis would suggest that the -s goes to the phrases head. That's not implausible.

There's a problem, though: Sir2u has a point, here, too:

If the phrase is being used as a noun, then it has to be treated as such. It does not have a subject nor a predicate because it is counted as one word, thus the hyphens. — Sir2u

The internal phrasal structure doesn't necessarily stipulate where the -s would go. Usage determines that, and "jack-in-the-box" might well be treated as an exception (by a dictionary, as a variant, etc.)

The discussion here about "jack-in-the-box" is mostly humorous, but it does show that grammar and thought needn't be the same. You can't deviate too much from the word, or you many people won't recognise it as the plural of a common word.

"Jacks-in-the-box": Hm, are there many Jacks in one box?
"Jack-in-the-boxes": So it's one Jack who alternates between many boxes?
"Jacks-in-boxes": Hm, but how many jacks per box. This is too imprecise:
"Jacks-in-one-box-each": Ah, that's the perfect plural. (But it doesn't sound like a plural, does it?)

I tend towards jacks-in-the-box, as "jack" is the head of noun-phrase that makes the complex noun. But if you'd say jack-in-the-boxes, I'd still recognise it as the plural of "jack-in-the-box" and that's really the most important thing. If jack-in-the-box were a more common noun, or more commonly used in the plural, we'd all be used to a particular plural, probably. Or there'd be established variants. Grammar follows usage, and usage often follows rules - but rarely slavishly. Grammar is generally rule-bound but always a little chaotic around the edges. The logic is a property of two things: (a) the theory linguists use to describe it, and (b) the generative rules available to speakers of a language (which can be overridden by things like the lexicon or habit or common usage). (a) will always be a step behind (b), and people will always use (a) to criticise (b). Or (c) which is a collection of rules that people think apply but either really don't or not as simply as they think - like people going around correcting "five items or less" signs to "five items or fewer" - and even those influence actual usage to a degree (though people who champion a particular rule are often unaware that they're not using that rule themselves; I've once come across a blog who figured out she was correcting others but didn't do as she said herself - she called herself a "grammar nazi hypocrite"; I think the blog no longer exists.)

So the upshot is this: if all you care about is communication, "jacks-in-the-box" and "jack-in-the-boxes" should both suffice. If you care about correctness, pick your favourite and negotiate (or choose your trusted authority and do as they say) - ideally actually use your favourite (though you might want to pick your fights if you're in conflict with an editor - you might waste energy you need for more important topics). Publishers tend to use style guides (such as the Chicago Manual of Style) for a reason. Pinker is right, really: it's all custom and authority. (But some custom is so deeply ingrained that it's hard to see an alternative: if you're curious google the difference between accusative-nominative languages [most of them] and ergative-absolutive languages [Basque among a few others].)

How many jacks do you see here?

I don't see any. I only see two box. But the toy's name is "Jack-in-the-box". A single word, proper noun.



Now there is a jack, but the name is still "Jack-in-the-box"

(or choose your trusted authority and do as they say) — Dawnstorm

Good idea, let's do that.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jack-in-the-box

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jack-in-the-box

Merriam says that both work, but has this little caveat.
"These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'jack-in-the-box.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors."

This is sort of weird because I have not been able to find any use of Jacks-in-the-box on the most popular web sites, they all return Jack.

Javi is actually right here (in spirit): — Dawnstorm

Thanks :up: I appreciate your comment and support.



By the way, coming back to the original post and focusing on your analysis. 

I. It's interesting how you interpret "Jack-in-the-box" as a phrase and not as a word. I highlight this because, according to Steven Pinker, there are two different groups: those who interpret it as a phrase and those who interpret it as a word. He explains that they are not wrong, but in terms of pluralizing, that is when the debate starts up.


II. Yes, I am on the side of the idea that, using grammar analysis or "logic", the "s" goes to the phrase's head. But this specific argument made me ask myself some questions: is it plausible to say "Jack-in-the-boxes"? And why do some use plural in both: "Jacks in the boxes?"
It is complex but funny because, for a non native speaker like me, it is another activity to keep learning.

How many jacks do you see here? — Sir2u

Well, I don't see any, but I presume Jack is there, but the toy hasn't popped up yet.

Having a picture of the toy can explain why I can only imagine "independent" objects. It is complex to visualize a Jack in different boxes or Jacks in a one box. 

Now there is a jack, but the name is still "Jack-in-the-box" — Sir2u

That's a perfect example of today's debate, indeed. :lol:

This is sort of weird because I have not been able to find any use of Jacks-in-the-box on the most popular web sites, they all return Jack. — Sir2u

I agree. I only found it as an example in Steven Pinker's book.

I don't know exactly how correct I am but I mostly use a rule for things like this that I learned somewhere a long time ago.

If the noun-phrase or compound noun has several heads that are of equal value, when it is obvious that as a whole it refers a single object that cannot be broken down into separate pieces without losing its meaning or is used as a noun to describe an object the S goes at the end of the line,

This is sort of weird because I have not been able to find any use of Jacks-in-the-box on the most popular web sites, they all return Jack. — Sir2u

I find this quote on Wikipedia:

"Some jacks-in-the-box open at random times..."

I'd call wikipedia a popular page. But, well, you (or anyone really) can go there and edit it, so maybe by the time you check it'll say "jack-in-the-boxes"? It would really be fun if people were to edit it back and forth, so we could never agree what the page actually says... (Most results I get for "jacks-in-the-box" come from dictionaries. And, frankly, it's the same for "jack-in-the-boxes". The plural seems to be rare in the first place.)

Seriously, just use what you want to use.

It's interesting how you interpret "Jack-in-the-box" as a phrase and not as a word. I highlight this because, according to Steven Pinker, there are two different groups: those who interpret it as a phrase and those who interpret it as a word. He explains that they are not wrong, but in terms of pluralizing, that is when the debate starts up. — javi2541997

Well, I'm not a native speaker, either, so maybe non-native speakers are biased towards internal structure (and maybe it depends on their mother tongue, too?). I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that I'm certainly not going to the grammar wars of the plural of jack-in-the-box. And frankly I don't even know what I'd have used if it weren't in a linguistic discussion. Maybe I'd have intuitively said "jack-in-the-boxes", too? I don't remember having the opportunity to use that particular plural a lot.

Last night I had this nightmare: I'm chased by countless jack-in-the-box toys... like the ghost of Schrödinger's Cat the word's plural hovers over them -- a silent battlecry. "Jacks-in-the-box" it would ring out, or "jack-in-the-boxes". I shall never know, for if they ever catch up I shall surely die...