Skip to main content

grammar - Which is grammatically correct: "first and last name" or "first and last names"?


So I'm having a bit of a pluraltiy issue here, and I'm not sure which is the correct version because they both seem right, and I've seen both versions used in writing:



A. What is your first and last name?


B. What are your first and last names?



The second version seems more grammatically correct than the first one, but it just sounds odd. The first one is what you'd typically hear in speech, but that of course doesn't mean it's right.


Then again, this doesn't seem grammatically correct:



Your first and last name is ...



While this does:



Your first and last names are ...



So is one of these more right than the other, or are they equally valid?


EDIT: Option A previously said "What are your first and last name" when it should have said "What is your first and last name". My question is about the pluralization of "name".



Answer



More broadly, one might consider four possibilities:



A. What is your first and last name?


B. What is your first and last names?


C. What are your first and last name?


D. What are your first and last names?



Of these,


A is the right choice if you only need one full name,


B is ungrammatical,


C is ungrammatical (One might think that the distributive property, X Z + Y Z = (X + Y) Z applies here, making "first and last name" equivalent to "first name and last name", which is plural. However, "first and last name" is singular)


D is not ungrammatical, but is less idiomatic, and may be construed as requesting multiple names (such as aliases),


Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more