• javi2541997
    5.7k
    People disagree on how to pluralize nouns, and they care about who is correct. 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).

    According to Steven Pinker in both of his books, “words and rules: The ingredients of language” and “The language instinct”, there is not correct answer
    Most disputes about “correct” use are questions of custom and authority rather than grammatical logic.
    Their agony highlights the distinction among lexicon, morphology, and syntax. The mind analyses every stretch of language as some mixture of memorized chunks and rule-governed assemblies. How people pluralize an expression depends on how they tacitly analyze it: as a word or as a phrase.

    But when a phrase is used as a word repeatedly, the original meaning can recede from collective memory. For example: no one thinks of breakfast as breaking a fast or Christmas as Christ’s Mass, etc.
    Most of our disputed plurals originated as phrases and then became words. Another example: Jack is in the box = that is Jack-in-the-box.
    If some speakers still hear the phrase inside the word, they will be tempted to put the plural marker on the head of the phrase: Jack + s in a box. But if speakers glom the words together in their minds, they will be tempted to put the plural marker at the end: Jack-in-the-box + es.
    It's not that phrase hearers interpret these expressions literally, or the phrase-deaf treat them as an old string of consonants and vowels; both surely recognise them as complex words built out of familiar words.

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

    Why do we disagree on how to pluralize?
  • Jamal
    9.6k
    Who was it who said...

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss grammar.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    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.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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).
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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.
  • Quk
    24
    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?
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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:
  • RussellA
    1.8k
    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.’
  • javi2541997
    5.7k


    @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.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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.
  • NOS4A2
    9.2k


    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.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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:
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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"
  • Jamal
    9.6k
    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?
  • javi2541997
    5.7k


    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?
  • Jamal
    9.6k
    I was genuinely open to persuasion, but since you characteristically responded obnoxiously, to the Lounge it goes.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    OK, I respect your decision!
    Muchísimas gracias Jamal! I thought you had a different opinion on me.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    passersbyJamal

    Perfectly good word there, fine example of where to put the S. :up:
  • Jamal
    9.6k
    Perfectly good word there, fine example of where to put the SSir2u

    So what?
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    So what?Jamal

    Ouch! :worry:
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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”?
  • Dawnstorm
    242
    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].)
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    jack-in-the-box-jack-in-the-boxjack-in-the-box-toyschyllings-jester-jack-in-the-boxcheap-jack-in-the-box-toytraditional-jack-in-the-box-toyjack-in-the-box-2.jpg?v=1687037120

    jack-in-the-box-jack-in-the-boxjack-in-the-box-toyschyllings-jester-jack-in-the-boxcheap-jack-in-the-box-toytraditional-jack-in-the-box-toyjack-in-the-box-2.jpg?v=1687037120

    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.

    81Kl2pEOoNL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    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.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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,
  • Dawnstorm
    242
    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...
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.