So i just learned today, that the plural of Director-General is Directors-General, not Director-Generals as i would have expected. Another example apparently is Trades-Union as a plural of Trade-Union.
Now that was news to me. However, despite it sounding totally wrong to my ears, I do believe my source as a well educated individual. He was unable to explain the rationale however, or indeed what the rule is regarding this. Does this apply to all hyphenated proper nouns or what?
Also, a side question: As i understand it, language evolves over time in accordance with popular usage. Now i’d be willing to bet that 90% of the population or more would pluralise these incorrectly, so does that mean the wrong way will eventually be accepted as the right way? Or does evolution only apply to words and definition not grammer etc?
My understanding was that the noun of the compound was generally what was pluralized. Hence, Secretaries-General, daughters-in-law, courts martial, higher-ups, etc.
I always assumed that it was the noun that should be pluralised – and have always said “hands full,” “mothers-in-law,” etc. Never had to pluralise trade union, so never thought about it. It always sounds weird to me to hear people say “director generals” and the like.
Of course, being a grammar nazi, I cringe when I see the idiots (and it is becoming much more common) who think that " 's" makes something plural – “snail’s” means a possession of the snail in question, “snails” means more than one snail. Drives me batty.
It used to sound wrong to me, too. Then somebody asked what I used as the plural of ‘passerby’. I said ‘passersby’, and it started to click. Now, ‘court martials’ sounds wrong.
It seems in this case that “trades union” is used here as it is a union of various trades not several trade unions. Indeed the TUC grew out of the General Federation of Trade Unions. I think in the case of “trades union” the OP’s source was trying to sound a little too educated.
I agree. The noun, as others have noted, is “union,” so it should be pluralised, not “trade.” To pluralise trade would be the same as writing “cats-call”
Nope, the TUC is a federation of many trade unions (or trades union!), so the name does seem to be meaning ‘congress of trades union’. TUC members
However, digging around on their site does confuse things. They stick with ‘TUC’ as much as possible, but here they talk of the formation of the ‘Trades Union Congress’, and also of the ‘Royal Commission of Inquiry into Trades Unions’.
“Trade union” and “trades union” are both singular, with “union” being the noun and “trade(s)” being the adjective. You form the plural by adding “s” at the end of “union”. After all, a trade(s) union is a kind of union, not a kind of trade.
I might be missing something, but can’t trade also be a noun (i.e. to ply one’s trade)? In situations such as that which noun would have priority for pluralization?
So the plural of “message board” is “messages board”? The plural of “web site” is “webs site”?
I repeat: a trade union is a kind of union, not a kind of trade. The Trades Union Congress calls itself that because in that context “Trades Union” is being used as a adjective, not as a noun: the TUC is a congress of trades unions.
With “director general”, you have a kind of director, not a kind of general, sdo you add the “s” to “director”. I believe that’s the rule, and I can’t think of any exceptions.
My classification of “trade” as an adjective may be questionable, but trades-union isn’t correct. Just as you could conceivably shorten “directors-general” to “directors” (not “generals”) you can only shorten trade-unions to “unions” (not “trades”).
It’s “Kelseys” – the vowel before the -y means you merely add the S, rather than converting -y to -ies as you would if a consonant preceded it. (That’s with reference to the Grammer question on plurals.)
The main noun of a construct is the one which is changed to show a plural in English. Generally any modifiers not phrasal in nature will precede the noun, but there are a few active constructions and any number of “fossil” constructions where a modifier is postpositioned. Attorneys, Postmasters, and Inspectors General are among such constructions: the “general” is the modifier indicating that they are in authority over the entire range of the task implicit in the title, not local as in a District Attorney or a local Post Office’s Postmaster. Constructions ending in “-in-law” to show relationship by marriage pluralize on the title to which -in-law is suffixed: “One major argument against legalizing polygamy in America is the danger of having multiple mothers-in-law.”
A trade union is one that represents a specific trade: joiner, stonemason, aardvark trainer, or whatever. It is in contradistinction to a “company union” (there’s also another term which I don’t recall) that incorporates all and only employees of one company, and an industrial union which incorporates employees in a given industry, regardless of trade. As noted, British labour history includes groups which united “trades unions.”
I’ll concede that the history of naming trade(s) union(s) is far from clear on this point (which the reference earlier started to indicate). Elsewhere on the TUC history section:
“Manchester and Salford Trades Council”
“London Trades Council”
An 1868 circular to ‘trades councils and other similar federations of trade societies’
“Birmingham Trades’ Council” (oh god, not apostrophes as well!)
The only thing that seems consistent is that the TUC has used ‘trades union’ in its title throughout its history.