# Newscasters say "Attorneys General." Why isn't it "Attorney Generals"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 16, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026 "2012-02-16T14:47:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/41 "2012-02-17T22:17:04Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > My argument is that words like “attorney general” and “Whopper Junior” and “court martial” are treated as single syntactic units, and the inflection more naturally (well, to many people, myself included), falls at the end of the unit. “Attorneys general” has always sounded stupid and stilted to me in English. Hell, even “mothers-in-law” sounds off to me. Lots of things will sound weird if you’re not used to them. To me, “atorney generals” sounds a bit jarring, just because I know it’s the right plural. It’s like hearing “gooses”, it doesn’t matter that it’s the logical plural, it just sounds wrong. I expect you’ll find “attorneys general” will sound perfectly reasonable to you if you say it/hear it a few more times in the knowledge that it’s the correct way. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/42 "2012-02-17T22:41:04Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Lots of things will sound weird if you’re not used to them. To me, “atorney generals” sounds a bit jarring, just because I know it’s the right plural. It’s like hearing “gooses”, it doesn’t matter that it’s the logical plural, it just sounds wrong. I expect you’ll find “attorneys general” will sound perfectly reasonable to you if you say it/hear it a few more times in the knowledge that it’s the correct way. Well, I’ve always said “attorneys general” when speaking formally. I know the plural, and I’m used to hearing it used correctly (so much so, that when I heard an NPR host recently use “attorney generals” in an interview, it immediately leapt out at me as being an odd thing in context, as NPR news programming is usually in precise, formal diction.) That said, I still think it sounds stupid, and I doubt any amount of exposure to it is going to change my feelings on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/43 "2012-02-17T22:53:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > While “Attorneys General” is the preferred way of pluralizing the term, “Attorney Generals” is OK, is in usage and is 100% understandable. > [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorney+generals](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorney+generals) > “plural attorneys general, attorney generals.” That citation is from the Random House Dictionary, which is almost uniquely descriptive. It’s like citing your 14-year-old cousin’s text messages as an authority on correct (as opposed to common) usage. [Here’s a proper dictionary’s take.](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attorney%2Bgeneral?q=attorney+general) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/44 "2012-02-17T23:13:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That citation is from the Random House Dictionary, which is almost uniquely descriptive. It’s like citing your 14-year-old cousin’s text messages as an authority on correct (as opposed to common) usage. [Here’s a proper dictionary’s take.](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attorney%2Bgeneral?q=attorney+general) Well, most modern dictionaries _are_ primarily descriptive, but I’m guessing you know that. Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Cambridge online dictionary, etc., all list “attorney generals” as one of the two plural forms of “attorney general.” There’s nothing unique about Random House’s take on this particular word. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/45 "2012-02-17T23:17:40Z")
Now sure, one can say their cite is better, and use counter-cites, and that’s fair. But once you resort to saying “Here’s a PROPER dictionary’s take’ you have lost the cite battle. Not even going to bother to click, since you can’t bother to quote. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/46 "2012-02-17T23:33:59Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Well, most modern dictionaries _are_ primarily descriptive, but I’m guessing you know that. Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Cambridge online dictionary, etc., all list “attorney generals” as one of the two plural forms of “attorney general.” There’s nothing unique about Random House’s take on this particular word. Yes. I mean relatively; Funk/Wagnall and Oxford (and Collins, IMHO) are on one end of the scale, while Random House is on the other. I mean, it’s not [urbandictionary.com](http://urbandictionary.com), but it’s well known for being the least judgy one. Here you go, DrDeth: > [@](#): > > attorney general > > (abbreviation: AG or Atty. Gen.) > noun (plural attorneys general) > the principal legal officer who represents a country or a state in legal proceedings and gives legal advice to the government. > the head of the US Department of Justice. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/47 "2012-02-17T23:44:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes. I mean relatively; Funk/Wagnall and Oxford (and Collins, IMHO) are on one end of the scale, while Random House is on the other. Does Funk & Wagnall’s still even exist? Anyhow, as I said, even Collins lists “attorney generals” in their dictionary. [See here.](http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/attorney-general) It doesn’t really matter. Style guides are what you go to for prescriptivism, and I’m pretty sure all will side with “attorneys general.” ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/48 "2012-02-18T01:57:01Z")
Previous thread: [Why "Attorneys" General, etc? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=581862) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/49 "2012-02-18T04:18:13Z")
Apparently they went under in 1986. I could have sworn I’d seen recent editions of their dictionaries and encyclopaedias in college libraries. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/50 "2012-02-18T05:45:51Z")
And it’s time for my GQ rant, which I make about once a month: Yes, we should aim for descriptivism, not prescriptivism; _alright_ and _alot_ are perfectly good English words in one, highly informal register. **BUT** a part of good descriptive philology recognizes that there are multiple registers, and that usage appropriate in one may not be appropriate in another. The 50 women who gave birth to the spouses of the states’ chief legal officers are the attorneys general’s mothers-in-law. (Note that the possessive, unlike the plural, goes on the last word of the noun phrase, something which dates back to Cranmer and his dying line about “the King of England’s ears.”) When people, presumably fluent speakers of English, ask about what is ‘correct’ in GQ, they are generally quite familiar with what is appropriate in a colloquial register, and are asking for assistance in what is appropriate in a more formal usage they may not be as familiar with. Stating that descriptively, the dictionary says either is correct’ is often not useful in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/51 "2012-02-18T05:54:00Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The 50 women who gave birth to the spouses of the states’ chief legal officers are the attorneys general’s mothers-in-law. And if that’s not a good example of why “attorneys general” is a mess of a construction, I don’t know what is. 🙂 But, yes, I think we’ve well established that “attorneys general” is the preferred plural in a formal register. I don’t think any of the descriptivists (myself included) are arguing that it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2012, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026/52 "2012-02-19T07:59:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes. I mean relatively; Funk/Wagnall and Oxford (and Collins, IMHO) are on one end of the scale, while Random House is on the other. I mean, it’s not [urbandictionary.com](http://urbandictionary.com), but it’s well known for being the least judgy one. Really? I thought Merriam-Webster held that title undisputedly. Though I suppose it depends on how you define “descriptivist” and “least judgy.” Contrary to **Polycarp** ’s excellent advise, they argue in nearly every single usage note that the prescriptivist stance is not merely overly restrictive or limited to certain registers, but is factually incorrect. They’re actually highly prescriptivist _in favor_ of more casual usage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newscasters-say-attorneys-general-why-isnt-it-attorney-generals/613026.md?page=2)