Skip to main content

grammatical number - Can an “s”-form plural follow an “s”-form possessive?


This is best described via an example. I believe this might be technically correct, but sounds clumsy:



You need to look through all the chemicals shelves



There are multiple shelves, of type chemical. There is a chemicals shelf times many/plural. On the other hand you could have:



You need to look through all the chemical shelves



This sounds better, but to me implies that the shelves themselves are chemicals. Obviously context factors in, in that most people would know that the shelves are not chemicals.



Answer



Plural modifiers are entirely acceptable.


Your doubt about the validity of the plural form comes from a rule in the past that noun modifiers had to be singular (apple tree, vegetable soup, rubber chicken) but today this is not an absolute and there are many examples of plural noun modifiers in everyday use, for example, parts departments, schools superintendents and options markets.


In Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, the following situations are listed where a plural modifier may be used:





  1. the singular form might lead to ambiguity
    an Arts degree (a degree in the humanities) as opposed to an art degree (a degree in fine art)




  2. there is no singular form of a noun (in pluralia tantum)
    a customs officer




  3. there is a need to denote variety
    a soft drinks manufacturer [but] a car manufacturer




  4. a topical issue comes forth, often in newspaper stories. Quirk cites examples of Watergate reporting from newspapers:
    the tapes issue
    the tapes compromise
    the Watergate tapes affair
    the White House tapes mystery and other examples, including jobs cut.





In your case, chemicals shelf might be used because of the variety of chemicals. However, I disagree about the potential for confusion. Taking the example of the electronic engineer, when could that ever be interpreted as some sort of robotic device? No such thing even exists. The same applies to mechanical engineer but in that case there's no alternative.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.