Major newspapers baffled by plurals
If you were paying attention in elementary school English class, you might remember how plurals are formed. Generally, you simply add an “s,” though if the word already ends in “s,” “x,” “ch,” or “sh,” you add “es.” The same rules apply to proper names, too, as in the common expression “keeping up with the Joneses (i.e., members of the Jones family)” They are not hard rules to remember.
And yet whenever the Wayans brothers do something, the world is flooded with mutations of their name just as horrific as the rancid comedies the Wayanses produce. (Their last name is Wayans, not Wayan. Damon is a Wayans. There are many other Wayanses. This is the Wayanses’ latest movie.) When “Dance Flick” opened Friday, I figured the blogs would be the worst offenders, since blogs tend not to have copy editors. But while some onliners did screw it up, what amazed me was how many major newspapers — which DO have full-time copy editors on staff — botched it.
None of the following examples are correct by certain style guidelines, or according to certain local customs. All of them are simply wrong.
- USA Today: “Like the Wayans’ other productions…”
- The Los Angeles Times: “After the Wayans’ deadly funny ‘Scary Movie’ back in 2000…” “The Wayans had nothing to do with those…”
- The Orlando Sentinel: “All the Wayans in the world…” “Keenen Ivory Wayans and the least funny of the gang, Shawn Wayans, were lead Wayans’ in the all-Wayans script”
- Newsday: “The Wayans keep mining the same trash heap…”
- The (Toronto) Globe and Mail: “A whole lotta Wayans are up for the task…” “The Wayans have fun with the white-black dynamic…”
- Variety: “What the Wayans fail to do…”
- New York Daily News: “Five Wayans wrote it…”
- The Toronto Star: “Too many Wayans spoils the broth…” “One departs from seeing this flick with the fervent hope that it is the Wayans’s last dance movie.”
[UPDATE: See the follow-up post for more scandalous details!]
May 25th, 2009 at 6:01 am
You’re absolutely right Eric. The media is now a victim not just of lazy fact-checking, but editing too. One thing though: The USA today and LA Times quotes appear to just be using the possessive apostrophe without the plural–may be incorrect, but a much smaller error comparatively. The other quotes have no such excuse.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Oh, wait…just noticed that the LA times did the double error. Curse you, LA Times and your damned poor editing (and bias…and your sucky excuse for journalism).
May 25th, 2009 at 7:39 am
This makes my soul hurt.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Misspellings for the purpose of clarifying pronunciation to follow:
Just curious about this, but how is Wayanses (or Joneses) pronounced? “Wayans-es” or just “Wayans” And how is Wayanses’ or Joneses’ pronounced? I had a friend named James; I would always say “that is James car” rather than what most people would say “That is James-es car” Which is right?
May 25th, 2009 at 8:20 am
The problem can easily be solved by forbidding the Wayanses from making future movies and destroying all copies of their old ones.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Touché, O’MAllen, touché.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I’m with you on the apostrophe catastrophes in the world. But actually, these aren’t incorrect.
When pluralizing a proper noun (the same thing applies to latin, greek words too) that ends in s, one can either add -es to the end, or keep it with just the single s.For example, my last name is Watkins, and to refer to my family as a plural unit, one could correctly say either Watkins or Watkinses. To add a possessive quality to it, either Watkins’ or Watkins’s is correct as well. This is due to the inherit awkwardness of how Watkinses or Wayanses sounds. However, one must refer to a style guide to be certain of this, since MLA and Chicago Manual of Style may differ. OWL at Purdue suggests using the former, Wayans as plural and Wayans’ as plural possessive, but also warns to double check the style guide. Wow, I just bored myself.
But we can all agree that people that say the Wayan’s are idiots and deserve to get an unnecessary tetanus shot.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Hold the phone it appears as if my last paragraph is suggesting people that think the Wayans are idiots should be punished. Far from true, they deserve a hearty back pat. I meant people who write the Wayan’s with an apostrophe s as the plural are idiots.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am
No, R.D. Watkins, you are wrong. I’m sorry there is not a more polite way of saying that, but there it is. You are wrong.
When pluralizing a proper noun… that ends in s, one can either add -es to the end, or keep it with just the single s.
No. No, you cannot. You will not find any grammar book, style guide, or other authoritative source anywhere in the English-speaking world that will back you up on that. (OWL at Purdue, which you seem to think validates your theory, does not — here is the relevant page; the matter is also addressed in a question here.) The plural of your last name, Watkins, is Watkinses. Period.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Just curious about this, but how is Wayanses (or Joneses) pronounced? “Wayans-es” or just “Wayans” And how is Wayanses’ or Joneses’ pronounced? I had a friend named James; I would always say “that is James car” rather than what most people would say “That is James-es car” Which is right?
You pronounce them the way they look: Jones-es. Wayans-es. I hated the Wayanses’ (“Wayans-es”) movie. Some people feel like since the “-es” at the end of it only signifies plural, they need to add another “-es” sound on top of it to signify the possessive. That’s what Homer Simpson does with his next-door neighbors, the Flanders family: “I hate going to the Flanderseseses house.” But that’s wrong. Don’t be like Homer. The Flanderses’ (pronounced “Flanders-es”) house is correct.
To make a possessive out of a SINGULAR name that ends in “s,” like James, you can make it James’ or James’s. Either one is correct; the AP Stylebook goes with James’, while almost all others prefer James’s. (In England, James’s is almost exclusively the rule, as in the book and film “Bridget Jones’s Diary.” American newspaper writers kept wanting to make it “Bridget Jones’ Diary.”) The AP Stylebook is already starting to cave in, though, so we might as well get used to the James’s form being the only correct one. (I need to retrain myself.) And, whether you spell it James’s or not, you’d still pronounce it that way: James-es. Which is another good reason to go ahead and spell it that way, to retain the “pronounce it the way it looks” rule.
Pronunciation-wise, then, the singular possessive of Wayans sounds just like the plural and plural possessive of it: This is Damon Wayans’ (or Wayans’s) best performance. The Wayanses are not funny. I hate the Wayanses’ new movie. All of those are pronounced “Wayans-es.”
(Finally, just to make it a little more confusing, for some reason there is a rule that biblical and classical names do NOT take the ‘s for possessives, no matter what. Jesus’ disciples. Moses’ followers. Sophocles’ plays. And, as always, these are pronounced the way they look: Jesus’ disciples is pronounced “Jesus disciples.” I know, it’s weird, but the rule has been around for a long time and shows no signs of changing. Luckily, it doesn’t come up all that often in everyday writing.)
May 25th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Sorry Eric, I guess I should’ve checked my sources first. I was under the impression that plural proper nouns fell under the same category as noncount noun (i.e.,news, economics, measles, etc.), but I’m finding nothing to support that. I guess it is the Waynses and/or the Watkinses after all, even though it sounds lame. However, OWL at Purdue (MLA) has this sample sentence,
“For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the ‘s’: ‘The Eggles’ presentation was good.’ The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.”
Also, Queen’s college, quoting MLA, says, “To form the possessive of a plural proper noun (a name), add an apostrophe only.”
It appears that the correct way to punctuate a plural, proper noun in MLA would be: the Wayans’ unfunny film. However, APA and Chicago Manual of Style say the Wayanses’ unfunny film is correct. Hmmm.
Okay, keep up the awesome reviews and grammatical slapdowns, I love using them in class.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Moosen! I saw a flock of moosen! There were many of ‘em! Many much moosen! Out in the woods. In the woodes. In the woodsen! The meese want the food, the food is to eatenesen, the meese want the food in the woodingesen! In the food in the woodenesen!!!
May 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Wait, you want me to pronounce “Bridget Jones’s Diary” like Jones-es? Like I have a stutter? No way, man. No way, in heaven. English is a dumb language. Who invented these rules, anyway? I think the most important thing is knowing how to spell. There is absolutely no excuse for spelling errors in this day and age.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the ’s’: ‘The Eggles’ presentation was good.’ The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.”
In that example, the couple’s last name is Eggle (not Eggles). Hence, together they are the Eggles, and the Eggles’ presentation was good.
Also, Queen’s college, quoting MLA, says, “To form the possessive of a plural proper noun (a name), add an apostrophe only.”
Yes — which is exactly what I’ve been saying. To form the possessive of a PLURAL proper noun, you add an apostrophe. These people’s last name is not Wayan — it’s Wayans. Hence, two of them are Wayanses, and to make the possessive of that plural, you simply add an apostrophe: Wayanses’.
It appears that the correct way to punctuate a plural, proper noun in MLA would be: the Wayans’ unfunny film.
No. You have misread MLA. The correct way to punctuate a plural proper noun in EVERY STYLE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE is to do EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. One Smith, two Smiths, the Smiths’ house. One Watkins, two Watkinses, the Watkinses’ house. One Wayans, two Wayanses, the Wayanses’ house. You are more than welcome to continue to debate this, my friend, but you will continue to be wrong.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
This thread makes me (an English major and former copy editor) very happy. Thank you for repeating the rules again and again and again. And again.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
So let’s say that instead of “Wayans” I want to use “Wayans Brothers.”
Which of the following is correct?
The Wayans Brotherses new movie …
The Wayans Brothers’ new movie …
The Wayans Brotherses’ new movie …
The Wayans Brothers’s new movie …
May 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I actually wasn’t debating, I was conceding. Sorry it wasn’t more clear. I brought up the MLA because the sources were a bit vague whereas Chicago and APA were quite clear. The Eggle made it make sense though.
Oh p.s. I just read the review in Deseret News and they made the same wayanses errors. Fun.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Great post! In a similar vein, can anyone tell me why anything pertaining to the Boston Red Sox has recently started appearing in AP articles and elsewhere as “the Red Sox’s” manager, victory, bullpen, etc.? I was under the impression that Sox was a plural noun. And if it isn’t, shouldn’t they be the Red Soxes?
May 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
“Red Sox” is indeed a plural noun. When a plural noun does not end in “s” — for example, children, women, alumni, people, Red Sox — you form the possessive simply by adding an apostrophe and “s”: the children’s toys, the people’s choice, the women’s hosiery, the Red Sox’s manager.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:49 am
sam Garfield: It’s Wayans Brothers’. Brothers is already plural, so just add an aprostrophe to make it possessive. Now, if their last name was Brothers, then the plural of that would be Brotherses, which would make the possessive plural Brotherses’.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:17 am
You guys are all such nerds… I love it!
May 26th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Eric,
You have touched upon the tip of an iceberg that is a sore spot with me. In fact, I refuse to subscribe to any of our local newspapers because of the sloppy copy writing and lack of copy editing. I know I’m not perfect in this area, but it feels like we should be able to expect more from “professionals” whose job it is to write stuff correctly. I refuse to pay good money (or even bad money) to people whose business it has become to pervert the English language.
This goes way beyond the correct usage of the plural…..
DaleD
May 26th, 2009 at 9:23 am
So let’s try the newspaper quotes with a surname that does not end in ‘s’.
USA Today: “Like the Snider’ other productions…”
The Los Angeles Times: “After the Snider’ deadly funny ‘Scary Movie’ back in 2000…” “The Snider had nothing to do with those…”
The Orlando Sentinel: “All the Snider in the world…”
Newsday: “The Snider keep mining the same trash heap…”
The (Toronto) Globe and Mail: “A whole lotta Snider are up for the task…” “The Snider have fun with the white-black dynamic…”
Variety: “What the Snider fail to do…”
New York Daily News: “Five Snider wrote it…”
The Toronto Star: “Too many Snider spoils the broth…” “One departs from seeing this flick with the fervent hope that it is the Snider’s last dance movie.”
That last one actually works if the word “the” in front of Snider is capitalized, although not as originally intended. Same for “The Snider had nothing to do with those,” where the “the” is capitalized due to being the first word of the sentence. But my favorite is “All the Snider in the world.” That one is useful. For example: “Reading the writings of Eric D. Snider usually improves my mood, but yesterday I was so distraught that all the Snider in the world couldn’t have helped.”
May 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
My guess is some of them knew the rule but opted not to apply it because Wayenses is awkward and silly.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Here’s where Eric is wrong. The examples of Wayans and Wayans’ provided above are not accidents — they are intentionally flauting the rule in favor of a more stylish, simple, and modern practice. (An alternative practice fully supported by the Chicago Manual, by the way.)
Wayanses is awkward and silly, and so is Wayanses’. As long as the newspapers cited above consistently use Wayans’, Jones’, and so forth, I really don’t see a problem. In fact, it looks like this may be the preferred practice.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Here’s where Bryon is wrong. He says this “alternative” (i.e., incorrect) practice is “fully supported by the Chicago Manual,” when in fact no such thing is true. Here’s what the Chicago Manual of Style says:
7.9Proper nouns
Names of persons and other capitalized nouns normally form the plural by adding s or es (but see 7.11).
five Toms, four Dicks, and three Harrys
keeping up with the Joneses
rainy Sundays
the two Germanys reunited
Romanys were persecuted
Afghans and Pakistanis
An apostrophe is never used to form the plural of a family name: “The Jeffersons live here” (not “Jefferson’s”). With names such as Waters or Rogers, consider rewording to avoid the awkwardness of “Waterses” or “Rogerses.”
[The "see 7.11" refers to the rule that "names ending in an unpronounced s or x are best left in the singular form," so for more than one author named Dumas (pronounced "Du-maw"), you'd write "the two Dumas." I suspect you'd pronounce it "Du-maws," to indicate to the listener than the plural is meant. Better yet, don't talk about more than one person whose names end in a silent "s" or "x."]
When it comes to possessives of plural proper nouns, the Chicago Manual of Style — surprise! — says what I’ve been saying all along, and what EVERY OTHER MANUAL OF STYLE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE says:
7.18Proper nouns, letters, and numbers
The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.
Kansas’s legislature
Chicago’s lakefront
Burns’s poems
Marx’s theories
Williams’s reputation
the Williamses’ new house
the Martinezes’ daughter
It also adds this suggestion:
Rewording may be advisable to avoid such awkward possessives as “the Rogerses’ address”
In other words, it fully acknowledges the awkwardness of the rule, yet continues to stand by it, merely suggesting that you rephrase the sentence if you don’t like the awkwardness. (I don’t see why “Wayanses” is any more awkward than “bosses” or “thermoses,” but whatever.)
As for these papers doing it intentionally, I propose an experiment. I’m going to e-mail them and point out their mistakes, then see whether they say, “Oops, you’re right, my bad,” or whether they defend themselves as vanguards of a new, non-awkward system of grammar. What do you want to bet it’s the former, not the latter?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
They’ll all say something to the tune of
“Thank you for your email. While we are certainly aware of the rule that you reference… blah… in certain cases we adopt a ‘less formal’… blah… more ‘relaxed tone’… blah”
So if that falls in the “vanguard” category I’ll take the bet.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Newspapers don’t do that. Newspapers, if anything, stick to old-fashioned rules about things long after everyone else does. (The AP Stylebook didn’t take the hyphen out of “teen-ager” until 2003, many years after “teenager” became the norm everywhere else.) No major, legitimate newspaper in the world would say, “Yeah, it’s wrong, but it looked kinda weird the right way, so we figured we’d do it the wrong way just to avoid confusing people.”
May 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Still I’m guessing the “Lifestyle” section, or whatever that particular paper calls its “hey we’re hip!” section that has movie reviews and the like, is loose on the editing. I mean, look at one of the quotes you reference:
“A whole lotta Wayans are up for the task…”
Applying the proper plural here is like taking a house that’s falling apart and painting the shutters. Why bother?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
What I really want to know is what you would do if my last name was Octopus and I was actually an octopus making horrible movies with my sister and you had to review one. Also you have to use the English Usage Dictionary as your standard for the plural form of octopus. What THEN?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I’m basically a grammer idiot so I have a bit of a headache trying to read all of these comments and keep up with all the es, ‘s, s’ business but that octopus comment made me laugh right out loud and maybe snot a tiny bit on my computer.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Oh see, I told you. I’m a grammar idiot as well.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Applying the proper plural here is like taking a house that’s falling apart and painting the shutters. Why bother?
That’s why you shouldn’t work at a newspaper.
Newspapers are — or at least used to be — proud of their role as bastions of correct grammar and spelling. It may seem like a minor thing, but it’s linked to overall trustworthiness and reliability. Many readers, at least subconsciously, will see spelling/grammar/punctuation errors and think, “If they can’t even get the mechanical stuff right, why should I trust them on trickier things like fact-checking and accurate reporting?” And it’s a valid point. If a paper is sloppy on things that are EASY to get right (since there’s usually a clear-cut, right-or-wrong answer when it comes to spelling and grammar), it’s probably going to be sloppy in more important areas, too.
As for a family of octopuses, with the last name Octopus, making movies — well, now we’re just being silly! But for the record, the last name Octopus would, of course, be pluralized Octopuses. I mean, a family with the last name Child aren’t referred to as the Children, are they? And as it happens, the correct English plural of “octopus” is “octopuses” anyway. “Octopi” is wrong: That would be the Latin plural, and “octopus” comes from Greek. The Greek plural of “octopus” is “octopodes,” but that’s archaic and no one uses it.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Wow!! Proof that English really isn’t as boring as the teachers make it!
May 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Halfway right, Eric.
Under the heading “Exceptions [gasp] to the General Rule and Some Options [gasp again],” you will find section 7.23:
An alternative practice. Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending with s — hence “Dylan Thomas’ poetry,” Maria Callas’ singing,” and “that business’ main concern.” Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.
So the Chicago Manual does, in fact, endorse an alternative practice.
And my version of Fowler’s endorses in certain contexts using only the apostrophe to form the possessive of words ending in s.
And the correct way to talk about a GM bankruptcy is the General Motors’ (not Motors’s) bankruptcy.
And what about that childhood classic, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood? Is that wrong too? And if it is, how do I regain my childhood innocence?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
No, I’m completely right, Bryon. The problem is that you’re describing a situation has nothing to do with the Wayans/Wayanses/Wayanses’ dilemma. It refers instead to the acceptable practice — already described in these comments — of indicating possession of a SINGULAR proper noun ending in “s” by merely adding an apostrophe, rather than apostrophe-s. As we have already discussed, “Dylan Thomas’ poetry” and “Dylan Thomas’s poetry” are both acceptable, the former preferred by the AP Stylebook, the latter by most others.
That has NOTHING TO DO with the question of how to a) pluralize a proper noun or b) show possession on it. The possessive for the singular Wayans is either Wayans’ or Wayans’s, whichever you prefer. But to make Wayans plural, the only acceptable option is Wayanses. After you’ve made it plural, making it possessive involves adding an apostrophe: Wayanses’.
Wayans’, Jones’, Rogers’, etc., are correct only when those names are SINGULAR: Marlon Wayans’ movie, Tom Jones’ singing style, Mr. Rogers’ collection of child pornography. In the cases I cited in this blog post, the writers were using those forms to refer to SEVERAL people names Wayans. And once again, the only possible acceptable plural form of Wayans is Wayanses, with the only possible acceptable possessive form of that plural being Wayanses’.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Dang, it has been a long time since I’ve seen a comment section ignite over the correct usage of the English language. I pray that this article finds its way over to the Politico forums, home of some of the worst practitioners of English ever to walk the earth.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I think Eric’s right, for the record.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Nerd fights RULE
May 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
This is awesome, the last place I expected a smackdown.
I suggest that Bryon either turn tail and run or admit that hes wrong… lol.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I’m with Christina D (and extra kudos to her for the hilarious Octopus conundrum) on this one, Eric seems to be 100% correct and has done his research to boot.
This is without question the nerdiest discussion that I have ever actively and excitedly looked forward to checking in on over and over…
May 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Still, Eric, you gotta admit
“A whole lotta Wayans are up for the task…”
is the product of relaxed editing standards. (Which part of the AP Stylebook endorses “lotta”?) My point is that improving this to
“A whole lotta Wayanses are up for the task…”
does very little towards setting the gentle reader’s mind at ease about his newspaper’s fact-checking and reporting accuracy. I am merely suggesting that
the Lifestyles section of the paper is not held to the same grammatical standard of the news reporting (pretty obvious, actually), and there’s your reason for finding so many examples.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Let me tell you what you’re missing, Eric.
James’ as the singular possessive of James is just dead wrong if you’re following the grammar rules. But everywhere you look you see James’ rather than James’s. To a greater or lesser degree the grammarians begrudgingly recognize this supposed “exception,” which is more a concession to the fact that the incorrect practice has become ubiquitous. The critical point is that the common (but incorrect) use of James’ somehow makes it acceptable.
The same thing is going on with Wayans, Williams, Roberts, and other polysyllabic proper names ending in s. The grammarians will tell you that the possessive is made by adding an ‘s and the plural is formed by adding an “es.” But despite the grammarians, many have adopted a practice of forming the possessive with only an apostrophe and the plural with nothing at all.
As long as the practice is systematic, I’m not sure we care that some people write “the Wayans aren’t funny,” rather than writing “the Wayanses aren’t funny.” It’s no more objectionable than writing, “I took James’ ball” rather than “I took James’s ball.”
What do you want people to think after they read your review saying the Wayanses’ recent film was horrible: (i) wow, what a helpful review; or (ii) really, it’s Wayanses’? I never would have thought it was Wayanses’. Who in the world says Wayanses’?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
James’ as the singular possessive of James is just dead wrong if you’re following the grammar rules. But everywhere you look you see James’ rather than James’s.
Part of the reason you see it is that it’s a very old rule — a very old exception, if you prefer, but an old one nonetheless — that is still adhered to by the Associated Press Stylebook, and thus by 99% of the newspapers in America.
I’m not sure we care that some people write “the Wayans aren’t funny,” rather than writing “the Wayanses aren’t funny.” It’s no more objectionable than writing, “I took James’ ball” rather than “I took James’s ball.”
Except for one crucial, key difference that is at the crux of the whole matter: Whether you write James’ or James’s, it is still perfectly clear to the reader what is meant: one person named James possesses something. James’ and James’s mean the same thing. But “the Wayans aren’t funny” only makes grammatical sense if you’re talking about several people named Wayan. If your intention is to say that several people named Wayans aren’t funny, then — I mean — just look at it. How can the plural of “Wayans” be “Wayans”? Is “Snider” pluralized as “Snider”? Do you refer to several people named Smith as “the Smith”? THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.
Yes, there are exceptions to plurals. The plural of fish is fish. The plural of sheep is sheep. Those are exceptions. The rule is that to form the plural of something, you add “s” or “es.”
If you want to argue that people consistently doing something incorrectly will eventually lead to that mistake becoming acceptable, then that’s something worth discussing. Language does evolve that way. But so far, forming the plural of a last name ending in “s” by doing nothing is still considered incorrect. And, besides, that’s quite a different place from where we started, which was people saying, “No, it’s not wrong! Look, here’s a fictional and/or irrelevant passage in a style guide that proves it!”
The fact is, it IS wrong. Might it change over time? Maybe. Maybe someday the correct plural of “ticket” will be “ticket’s,” and the people who post on Craigslist will finally be right. But I don’t see either thing happening for a long time, and — more to the point — it hasn’t happened yet. So far, the plural of a last name ending in “s” is formed by adding “es.” No style guide or grammar expert anywhere in the English-speaking world suggests otherwise. So let’s quit calling them “relaxed standards” or “exceptions” when what we mean is “mistakes.”
May 26th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I thought of something else. I don’t think we’d even be talking about this if the family’s last name were Thomas. Wayans is an uncommon name, and it already sounds like a plural. Thomas doesn’t. You wouldn’t think of writing “Are the Thomas coming to dinner?” when you meant the entire Thomas family. “Thomas,” in that context, just wouldn’t look right, and it certainly wouldn’t sound right if you said it aloud.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
“(I don’t see why “Wayanses” is any more awkward than “bosses” or “thermoses,” but whatever.)” -Eric D Snider
I thinkt the awkwardness comes from how the “s” is pronounced at the end of boss and thermos with a more sibilant sound, whereas Rogers has a “z” sound. Pronouncing Wayans or Rogerses with a sibilant s sound is less awkward for me.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:21 am
To Corned_Beef: Copy editors read all articles in the newspaper, they don’t just ignore the Lifestyles section for some reason. The ones that care don’t slack off, no matter what they’re editing. Your assumption that a copy editor would think it was OK to break rules because it is a “sillier” section doesn’t really make sense.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am
I disagree that allowing James’ or James’s always preserves meaning. For example, it is completely unclear whether Williams’ refers to the plural possesive of William or the singular possessive of Williams.
Consider this sentence: “After the Williams’ defeat, tennis will change forever.” Was this a singles match lost by Serena Williams, or a doubles match lost by two guys named William? The meaning is not clear. But in most cases the singual or plural is made clear from context, so the incorrect practice of Williams’ as a singualr possessive is acceptable.
If context can adequately reveal whether Williams’ is singular or plural, then context also can adequately reveal whether Williams itself is singular or plural. So perhaps the LA Times et al., think that using Wayans rather than Wayanses is more stylish and readable and are confident that context will make the meaning clear. (Which it obviously did because you were able to spot the technical mistakes.)
May 27th, 2009 at 8:03 am
“Wayans is an uncommon name, and it already sounds like a plural. Thomas doesn’t. You wouldn’t think of writing ‘Are the Thomas coming to dinner?’ when you meant the entire Thomas family.”
Thomas doesn’t sound like a plural even if it was unfamiliar, because the presumed singular (Thoma) would be pluralized with an s that sounds like a z. Like the subtle difference between he lives in Las Vegas, and he only drives Vegas.
A better example would be Atkins, which is as familiar as Thomas, but I would still say “Are the Atkins coming to dinner?”
May 27th, 2009 at 8:12 am
“So let’s quit calling them ‘relaxed standards’ or ‘exceptions’ when what we mean is ‘mistakes.’”
Referencing the Wayans bros in a news article is already employing relaxed standards.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am
“(If it helps, replace “Wayans” with “mayonnaise” in those sentences.)”
“Whey” also works.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am
This discussion takes me back to college, in a relatively good way.
I propose that the real problem here isn’t the rule itself, but rather the name Wayans. Therefore, that family should be renamed, perhaps to “Wayan” or maybe “Unfunny,” but that could introduce a new uncertainty regarding pluralization. Maybe we should just propose a rule that the singular is “Wayans” and the plural is “Wayanz.”
Ultimately, though, I just wish they’d go back to country music. I miss the old Willie and Wayans classics.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Byron, the Williams problem you set forth still doesn’t make sense as an argument. “The Williams’ ” is obviously plural because you don’t put “the” before a singular name like that. Just “Williams’ ” would obviously be singular because more than one would require the article whereas the singular wouldn’t. As Eric said, the sole purpose of punctuation (and articles like that) is to make the meaning of the sentence clear; in no way would someone be confused by your examples. However, if someone had never heard of the Wayans family (how lucky would they be?) it would take a very long time before they figured out what the family’s last name even was, if ever; given the examples above, any person reading would have to automatically assume their last name was Wayan. Using the argument of “Well, everyone’s heard of the Wayans so everyone knows what they meant anyway,” supposedly using their powers of pop culture knowledge and deduction, isn’t good enough. Can you honestly see newspapers getting away with, “Oh, you know what we meant, right?” No way.
“Mr. Rogers’ collection of child pornography.” HA!
May 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am
If context can adequately reveal whether Williams’ is singular or plural, then context also can adequately reveal whether Williams itself is singular or plural.
There would be no need to look at the context to determine whether Williams is singular or plural if the writer formed the plural of Williams in the proper way: Williamses.
So perhaps the LA Times et al., think that using Wayans rather than Wayanses is more stylish and readable and are confident that context will make the meaning clear.
So let me get this straight. Your theory is that the Los Angeles Times copy editors thought: Forming the plural of “Wayans” as “Wayans” rather than “Wayanses” is technically wrong; it goes against the elementary rules of grammar, and is opposed by every single style guide and grammar book in the English language; it’s also ambiguous to have the singular and plural of a name be identical to one another. Nonetheless, we’re going with the ambiguous and wrong version because the unambiguous and correct version looks weird. (And it’s apparently a new policy, too, since the L.A. Times’ review of “White Chicks” did it the correct way: Wayanses.)
My theory, on the other hand, is that a careless writer made a mistake, and a careless copy editor didn’t catch it. I admit I’m biased, but isn’t my theory a lot simpler, and doesn’t it fit the known facts about how newspapers operate — i.e., that they generally pride themselves on accuracy and correctness — a lot better?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“Wayans is an uncommon name, and it already sounds like a plural. Thomas doesn’t. You wouldn’t think of writing ‘Are the Thomas coming to dinner?’ when you meant the entire Thomas family.”
Thomas doesn’t sound like a plural even if it was unfamiliar, because the presumed singular (Thoma) would be pluralized with an s that sounds like a z. Like the subtle difference between he lives in Las Vegas, and he only drives Vegas.
A better example would be Atkins, which is as familiar as Thomas, but I would still say “Are the Atkins coming to dinner?”
I chose Thomas as an example specifically because it doesn’t sound anything like a plural, but it ends in “s” — and the rule is the same for all names ending in a non-silent “s.” It’s a good way to remember the rule (or, if still necessary at this point, prove the veracity of the rule) about forming plurals of names that end in “s.” Since you wouldn’t say “Are the Thomas coming for dinner?,” you also shouldn’t say “Are the Atkins coming for dinner?” when more than one Atkins is meant. Remember the Thomases! They will lead you down the path of righteousness.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Ooo, now Ockham’s razor is being invoked. This is totally the best discussion ever!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
>“Red Sox” is indeed a plural noun. When a plural noun does not end in “s” — for >example, children, women, alumni, people, Red Sox — you form the possessive >simply by adding an apostrophe and “s”: the children’s toys, the people’s choice, >the women’s hosiery, the Red Sox’s manager.
I’m familiar with that rule, but I wouldn’t have thought that it applied here, since Sox is a diminutive of Stockings, which clearly would get an ending apostrophe. It’s also an alternate spelling of socks, which would also get one.
Either way, I’ve been following the Sox for ten years, and have only begun seeing the “Sox’s” construction in the last year or so. Why would that be the case?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I chose Thomas as an example specifically because it doesn’t sound anything like a plural, but it ends in “s” — and the rule is the same for all names ending in a non-silent “s.” It’s a good way to remember the rule (or, if still necessary at this point, prove the veracity of the rule) about forming plurals of names that end in “s.”
Great! Too bad this doesn’t help address why people say “Thomases” but not “Wayanses,” which is what I explained.
Since you wouldn’t say “Are the Thomas coming for dinner?,” you also shouldn’t say “Are the Atkins coming for dinner?” when more than one Atkins is meant.
If it were inconsistent to do so, sure… but here’s the thing: it’s not! When we pronounce “Atkins,” it sounds plural. You’ve got more than one Atkin. When we pronounce “Thomas,” it doesn’t. If we had more than one Thoma (rhymes with comma), we’d have Thomas (rhymes with commas)… a completely different word.
See? It has everything to do with pronunciation. Your point that it’s inconsistent to apply the rule differently just because they both end in “-s” is to focus completely on the visual and ignore the auditory. Well, you can’t do that! It’s precisely because a name “sounds” plural that induces the plural suppression that is causing you fits! And I am very sorry for that!!!
By the way, my wife points out that if I said I was inviting the Hopkinses to dinner she would think I was imitating Gollum.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:55 am
See? It has everything to do with pronunciation. Your point that it’s inconsistent to apply the rule differently just because they both end in “-s” is to focus completely on the visual and ignore the auditory.
And what I’m saying is that if you want to be correct — and I realize that’s a big “if” — you would do well to visualize what you’re saying and see if it “looks” right in your head.
Alternatively, you could simply remember the very easy-to-remember rule that plurals of names are formed by adding an “s” or “es” at the end of them — the same way plurals of almost all other words in the English language are formed. I can’t imagine why anyone would think the correct plural of “Atkins” is “Atkins,” but apparently I’m alone in that. It’s like I’m living in a cuckoo clock!!
May 27th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Jones” sounds plural, but “keeping up with the Joneses” doesn’t sound weird to anyone, does it?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Maybe they’re typos, maybe they’re not. We’re both guessing at this point. It would be easy to assume idiocy, but isn’t it more fun to imagine that they understand better than we?
As for accuracy and correctness — the ubiquitous use of James’ rather than James’s already sacrificed accuracy for something else (probably readability). And if they sacrifice accuracy for the readability of James’ over James’s, why isn’t it possible that they also sacrifice accuracy for the readability of Wayans over Wayanses (or the godawful Wayanses’)?
And as for you, Turkey – thanks for proving my point. The context will almost always make clear whether the proper name is singular or plural. So we can ignore the rule with impunity, improve readability and style, and sacrifice nothing in terms of meaning.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
And what I’m saying is that if you want to be correct — and I realize that’s a big “if” — you would do well to visualize what you’re saying and see if it “looks” right in your head.
Hold on there! I’m not arguing that Wayans as a plural is correct (clearly it’s not, according to The Rules of Grammar). I’m just saying that when we sheeps use Wayans and Atkins as a plural, there’s an internal logic behind it that’s consistent and has nothing to do with how familiar a name is. Which is what I thought you were saying with Wayans vs. Thomas earlier… but who the hell knows.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:40 am
To Corned_Beef: Copy editors read all articles in the newspaper, they don’t just ignore the Lifestyles section for some reason. The ones that care don’t slack off, no matter what they’re editing. Your assumption that a copy editor would think it was OK to break rules because it is a “sillier” section doesn’t really make sense.
Then take this sentence
“It may not be as full-on as the Hollywood musical’s golden years, but there’s a whole lotta step-ball-changing on the big screen these days.” (LA Times movie review ref’d at top)
and show me the reference guide, AP style or otherwise, where “lotta” is grammatically correct. You think the papers would allow it on the front page?
“Gun-toting suicide attackers exploded a giant bomb in the centre of Lahore today, killing a whole lotta people…”
What you find in Lifestyles is called informal writing. Doesn’t play by the same rules. Kind of like this. Which is why it’s sort of ridiculous to think editors would say something like “OK, the ‘lotta’ is fine… but using ‘Wayans’ as the plural? Just a gosh darn minute there skippy WHAT KIND OF OPERATION YOU THINK WE RUN HERE!?!?!?”
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
As for accuracy and correctness — the ubiquitous use of James’ rather than James’s already sacrificed accuracy for something else (probably readability). And if they sacrifice accuracy for the readability of James’ over James’s, why isn’t it possible that they also sacrifice accuracy for the readability of Wayans over Wayanses (or the godawful Wayanses’)?
I’ll tell you why (again): because James’ (instead of James’s) is NOT incorrect, at least not in the eyes of the AP Stylebook, which is what the L.A. Times and most other U.S. newspapers follow. When the L.A. Times uses James’, they are following protocol. When they use Wayans (instead of Wayanses), they are going against protocol.
Newspapers do sometimes develop in-house styles that differ slightly from the AP Stylebook. The AP still prefers “Web site” while some specific papers prefer “website,” for example. But no newspaper would formulate an in-house style that violates not just the AP but the basic rules of grammar. I mean, what would they gain by that? The avoidance of words that are technically correct but that “look weird”? The average reader might think “Wayanses” looks funny, but no one’s going to think it’s wrong.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Still, Eric, you gotta admit
“A whole lotta Wayans are up for the task…”
is the product of relaxed editing standards. (Which part of the AP Stylebook endorses “lotta”?)
You’re talking about two different things here. “Lotta” is an example of relaxed, informal language. It’s slang. You’re right that it probably wouldn’t appear in a hard news story. When the writer wrote it, he knew it was not grammatically correct but used it anyway as an example of informal speech — which, as you note, is often permissible in lighter news stories.
“Wayans” instead of “Wayanses,” however, would be an example not of slang but of incorrect grammar. Even in fluffy stories, newspapers don’t intentionally relax their standards of grammar. The writer knew “lotta” was technically wrong but used it for effect. The writer used “Wayans” (instead of “Wayanses”) because he thought it was right. That’s the difference.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“Wayans” instead of “Wayanses,” however, would be an example not of slang but of incorrect grammar. Even in fluffy stories, newspapers don’t intentionally relax their standards of grammar. The writer knew “lotta” was technically wrong but used it for effect. The writer used “Wayans” (instead of “Wayanses”) because he thought it was right. That’s the difference.
I’m sorry, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I am far from an editor, but even I am familiar with the Gollum rule of pluralizing Wayans as Wayanses. To me, applying the Gollum rule sounds more formal… less conversational. Similar to the “don’t end with a preposition” rule. The difference between
“He retrieved the key he opened the door with”
and
“He retrieved the key with which he opened the door”
is not that the latter is correct grammatically, but it’s also more formal… more stuffy. Less conversational. For me, it’s the same with Wayanses. But maybe I’m just an idiot.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I’m just saying that when we sheeps use Wayans and Atkins as a plural, there’s an internal logic behind it that’s consistent and has nothing to do with how familiar a name is.
But your consistent internal logic is as follows:
When we pronounce “Atkins,” it sounds plural. You’ve got more than one Atkin.
Except that you don’t. Even one Atkins is still Atkins. Anthony Hopkins is only one individual. You DON’T have more than one Hopkin. Your “consistent” internal logic is simply wrong.
If I may be so presumptuous as to attempt to summarize your point: You seem to be saying that if it sounds natural, then it’s OK, even if it’s wrong.
Eric’s point seems to be that if you are a professional writer, you should get the grammar correct regardless of how awkward it may sound to some, because you’re a professional, for crying out loud.
I agree with that point. That’s why we (used to) take newspapers seriously. If you disregard one rule because that’s how the kids talk these days, then what is to prevent you from going full-blown street slang? You either follow the rules or you don’t. And really, could you respect a newspaper that did go full-blown street slang?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
But your consistent internal logic is as follows…
Come on, admit it… it’s yours too. Tell me you really say “Wayanses”.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
When I refer to a family of Atkinses or the like I have tended to say something along the lines of “Atkinseses” because I wasn’t sure what you were supposed to do with it (and no, I have never referred to multiple Atkinses as Atkins). Now that I know though, I will say it correctly and with confidence!
“Hello there, Mrs. Octopus! How are you Octopuses doing today? It’s always so nice to see you guys around. Your little baby octopodes are so cute! Oh yes, I just wanted to tell you that you make horrible octopus movies. The Octopuses’ Revenge was just awful!”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Note to self: Create the Robison Stylebook. Never be wrong again. BWAH HA HA!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
By the way, Eric, the title to your film review reads: “Just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans.”
Shouldn’t that read “turds and Wayanses?”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
No, because I’m using “Wayans” the same way the Orlando Sentinel did: as a sort of brand name, speaking of a quantity of Wayans rather than a plurality of Wayanses. (Other possible examples: “Ew, I got Wayans all over my hands!” “Don’t step in that pile of Wayans!” etc.)
May 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Suppose the movie starred the Osmonds rather than the Wayanses, would your headline really read, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Osmond?” Not a chance. Without question the headline would say, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Osmonds.”
That you find “turds and Wayans” workable has nothing to do with this brand name malarkey and everything to do with the awkwardness of Wayanses.
And don’t tell me that the brand name for the Osmonds is the Osmonds while the brand name for the Wayanses is the Wayans. That the singular evolved into the supposed “brand name” for the group only proves once more how awkward and silly Wayanses is. It’s so silly, the Wayanses themselves refuse to use it.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wayanses is correct. However, newspapers are notorious for clipping space. We can blame them for the bastardization of the Oxford comma. Of all the style guides, really only the AP says not to use it (although I did work with a small journal that also said not to use it too). Maybe it’s the first step toward cutting out a few more letters? I’m just saying.
One last thing. I’ve worked as a copyeditor for four years and as a college English teacher for two. My wife teaches high school English. We both thought that Wayans was okay to use (see my earlier burn by Eric in the comments). I’ve had professors tell me the same. Maybe the papers just got confused. It’s a pretty picky rule to fight over and I’m not saying that because I got proven wrong. I completely admit I WAS WRONG. But with a last name like Snider, it’s easy. If you had my last name you’d feel like a douche too if you had to introduce your family as the Watkinses.
I love the Wayans example as a brand. Funny.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Suppose the movie starred the Osmonds rather than the Wayanses, would your headline really read, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Osmond?” Not a chance. Without question the headline would say, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Osmonds.”
That you find “turds and Wayans” workable has nothing to do with this brand name malarkey and everything to do with the awkwardness of Wayanses.
Well, I was going for a pun on “curds and whey.” But to adapt to a project featuring several Osmonds, I could see writing a headline like “Come visit the merry old land of Osmond!” Skipping puns altogether, I might also write, “There’s too much Osmond in this movie,” or “this movie is fairly dripping with Osmond.” Think of it as a descriptor: the Osmond style, the Wayans style, etc.
Remember, you’re the one who finds “Wayanses” awkward, not me. I think it’s perfectly fine. If I found it awkward, I wouldn’t have used it in my reviews of their movies. I’d either have done it the way you prefer (i.e., incorrectly), or rewritten the sentence to avoid it. But in no case have I avoided “Wayanses.” If anything, I embrace the opportunity to use it, if only to cancel out the many instances of people doing it wrong.
Finally, the L.A. Times has replied to my query and clarified that they messed up. They should have used “Wayanses” and “Wayanses’.” They don’t have an in-house style calling for incorrect grammar in cases where correct grammar would look funny. I’ll post the exchange in a follow-up blog.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
But in no case have I avoided “Wayanses.”
Well you should! Wayanses is silly.
They don’t have an in-house style calling for incorrect grammar in cases where correct grammar would look funny.
They don’t? They need one of those!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Last night as I was reading this, I was also watching a TV show that had selected the 50 funniest phrases from TV, and Keenen Ivory Wayans was one of the people commenting. I was hoping to hear him refer to his family in the collective to see how he pluralized Wayans, but, alas, all I caught was a singular possessive (which he structured correctly), something like “Redd Foxx’s comedy.”
May 28th, 2009 at 6:10 am
I understand that you would have used Osmond rather than Osmonds if you had written a different headline. So what? My question was about the headline you actually wrote: “Just 83 minutes of turds and _____.”
I’ll take your nonresponse as a concession that “turds and Osmonds” works better than “turds and Osmond.” I also appreciate the admission that you used Wayans rather than the grammatically preferable Wayanses for the sake of a pun. That’s fine with me — I agree that accuracy and correctness can be fudged for the sake of a pun.
I would also note that the Orlando Sentinel example does not pass the Osmond test. “All the Osmonds in the world” works much better than the extremely clunky “all the Osmond in the world.”
I look forward to seeing the email exchange with the LA Times. But for those keeping score at home, we have one admitted mistake (LA Times) and two who doggedly defend the use of Wayans in sentences that would normally call for the plural form of a proper name (that would be the Orlando Sentinel and you, Mr. Snider).
May 28th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I understand that you would have used Osmond rather than Osmonds if you had written a different headline. So what? My question was about the headline you actually wrote: “Just 83 minutes of turds and _____.”
I wouldn’t have written that headline with any name other than Wayans (or, I guess, another name that sounds like “whey”).
[ADDED: I thought of one. Wayne. If the Wayne brothers had made this movie, yes, I'd have said "83 minutes of turds and Wayne," for the same reason described below.]
I would also note that the Orlando Sentinel example does not pass the Osmond test. “All the Osmonds in the world” works much better than the extremely clunky “all the Osmond in the world.”
It does sound clunky. A better phrasing — one that would better exemplify the concept the author was going for, one of amount rather than number — would be “No matter how much Osmond [or Wayans] you put in this movie, it wouldn’t help.” We’re talking, in this instance, about how much of something, not how many. And when you’re talking about how much — an amount, rather than a number — it remains singular.
In my headline, “turds and Wayanses” would have worked, too. “Just 83 minutes of…” could lead into “hijinks and shenanigans” (both plural) as easily as “foolishness and idiocy” (both singular), or any combination of them. “Just 83 minutes of shenanigans and idiocy” is both accurate and grammatically correct, just as “83 minutes of turds and Wayans” is. It would take a longer sentence to remove all doubt as to why the singular Wayans was used — “It’s just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans, and it doesn’t matter how much Wayans you spread on it: you still mostly just taste the turds.” As before, replace “Wayans” with something uncountable like “mayonnaise” or “butter” and you see what I’m getting at.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I’m not disagreeing that “83 minutes of turds and Jay” would be accurate and grammatically correct. I’m saying that “83 minutes of turds and Jays” would be universally preferable given the context. (I switched from Osmond to Jay to preserve your pun and use a common last name.)
83 minutes of turds and Jay gives the distinct impression that there is only one Jay in the film. Do you really expect the reader to interpret “turds and Jay” as a reference to the abstract and uncountable concept of the borthers Jay? Turds and Jays better conveys your meaning, which is that the film is full of what we have come to expect from the borthers Jay (or Wayans).
I don’t misunderstand your justification for using Wayans rather than Wayanses, I just find your justification entirely pretextual.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Thanks Damien (Wayans) we’re all English majors here, so this is among friends.
But this entire thread may be the funniest waste of bandwidth I’ve ever run across. Or was that acrossed? Acrost?
May 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Do you really expect the reader to interpret “turds and Jay” as a reference to the abstract and uncountable concept of the borthers Jay?
Oh, I dunno. Not necessarily. My first thought for the headline was “Too much turds and Wayans,” and then I got hung up on whether I wanted “too much” or “too many.” In the original phrase, “curds and whey,” it would easily be “too much”: curds can be counted (how many?), but whey cannot (how much?). So when you combine them, the whole thing becomes uncountable: too much curds and whey.
With “turds and Wayans,” though, I’d changed both words of the original phrase, and now it didn’t seem quite as easy as just swapping out “too much curds and whey” (a common food combination) with “too much turds and Wayans” (not so common). Then I realized what was making me think that: “Wayans” sounds like a plural, and if it were, “turds and Wayans” would indeed require “too many.” But “Wayans” isn’t plural, that “s” notwithstanding. It’s singular — and uncountable — just like “whey” is. Thus, combining it (“Wayans”) with something else, even something countable, makes the whole thing uncountable.
Having now arrived at “Too much turds and Wayans,” I discovered that my headline was too short. There’s a space of 35-40 characters for the front-page headlines, and I like to keep them as close to that exact length as I can, for aesthetic reasons. Of the variations I tried, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans” was the best fit. By now, though, I’d forgotten about needing a lead-in phrase to “turds and Wayans” that would signify it as an amount rather than a specific number, the way “too much” would have done. “Just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans” works both ways (the same as “a lot of” would have), but, as you note, most people would think of it one way before they’d think of it the other way.
A parallel example. You could say a movie has much failure in it, or you could say it has many failures. You could also say, “This movie has a lot of ____” and put “failure” or “failures” in the blank. “A lot of” is ambiguous, as is “Just 83 minutes of.” That was my mistake: using a lead-in phrase that was ambiguous (and where my intended meaning was the less-common one), rather than one that was definite.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Is it too late to change it to
“A Whole Lotta Turds and Wayans”
which ties everything together nicely.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:30 am
If this thread somehow prevents future constructions like:
“Keenen Ivory Wayans and the least funny of the gang, Shawn Wayans, were lead Wayans’ [wtf?] in the all-Wayans script,”
then it’s worth all the bandwidth in the world, Roger.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Keenen Ivory Wayans and the least funny of the gang, Shawn Wayans, were lead Wayans’ in the all-Wayans script.
Yikes, I didn’t even notice that one. Wow. That should be “lead Wayanses,” of course.
But maybe we should check with the Orlando Sentinel to make sure it’s not their official style. They might be intentionally flouting the rule in favor of a more stylish, simple, and modern practice, since “Wayanses” is so awkward and silly. Forming the plural of Wayans as Wayans’ violates every grammar book in the world, just as forming the plural of Wayans as Wayans does. But as long as they do it consistently, what’s the problem?