jack-in-the-box toys — Dawnstorm

Actually you did here the same as I do when I am not sure and I don't want be to harassed by the grammar police. Rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem.

There's always an alternative.

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, — Sir2u

Interesting! I am going to use your wisdom from now on. Again, I appreciate all this information which helps me out.

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 — Dawnstorm

I agree! This is why I find this debate funny and entertaining. Everything started when I was reading examples of how some phrases came onto one word.
"Jack is in the box" -> "Jack-in-the-box" or "break a fast" to "breakfast".
All of these are the key facts to keep understanding English and how works.

It is true that is difficult to find a context or conversation to use such a word in plural. Yet, it seems to be tricky and I never thought it could make a brief/short debate regarding to pluralize. It is a hidden gem inside the beautiful world of linguistics! :smile:

To be honest, if I have the opportunity, I would use or Jacks-in-the-box " or " Jack-in-the-boxes" but not altogether. I still see the latter complex.

jack-in-the-box toys... — Dawnstorm

Actually you did here the same as I do when I am not sure and I don't want be to harassed by the grammar police. Rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem. — Sir2u

Clever move, indeed!

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. — Dawnstorm

The discussion here about "jack-in-the-box" is mostly humorous, but it does show that grammar and thought needn't be the same. — Dawnstorm

A valiant attempt, which I appreciate. Perhaps if I’d left this discussion on the main page, your post would have produced an interesting discussion.

I'm interested in posting the following words here, in this thread, because it was the first time I have read them. I do not want to forget those.

Trifle: slightly, (used as an adverb. 'She seemed a trifle anxious').

Whimsically: ​in an unusual or slightly silly way that people find either funny or annoying.

Haughtily: in an unfriendly way that shows other people that you think that you are better than them.

Commandingly: in a position of authority that allows you to give formal orders.

Tormentedly: to make somebody suffer very much.

Maybe I will post more interesting adverbs or words which I would find in the books I read. I understand that maybe you all see them as normal and not so amazing, but for me, they are spectacular because those are taught in school. :sparkle: