No need to. It was a dig at the fact that while Olson had (and has) quite a distinguished career at the Bar, Kagan had never argued a case in her life.
We are in agreement.
I don’t think it wouldn’t be improper to call them Officers General. Though I don’t think this is a usage that made the jump from French to English in that form.
Are you sure? She spent a couple of years in private practice after clerking for Thurgood Marshall.
Actually, it’s a contraction of “captain-general” or "general captain.
I’d say you’re either “Chefs extraordinaire” or “Chef Extraordinaires”. I understand that I’m wrong, but it’s simply due to convention and not logic.
If the word extraordinaire had no meaning, then what would the answer be? When a word is in a title (which is why it’s capitalized), it doesn’t have to have a meaning. If you gave yourself and your colleague the titles Chef Rjssjfh - pronounce it however you like - then how would you pluralize it?
For “titles” less formalized, you could go either way, and you’re not wrong, based on both convention and logic.
English still maintains post-position adjectives. They haven’t completely left the language. If those cases have been formal titles for a period, then by convention we pluralize the noun. However, in the case of chef extraordinaire, it’s can simply evolve into a (“borrowed”) foreign phrase that becomes anglicized, so it takes on normal English morphology.
Normally, situations like this simply come down to the degree to the phrases have become “naturalized” into English. In this case, however, we have long-standing titles.
Actually it’s not. This question has to do with a deviation form normal English word order (noun-adjective rather than our usual adjective-noun), influenced by French. With the Maple Leafs, it’s a basic English rule that (some) words with irregular plurals use standard plurals when they’re proper nouns.
I know what you’re saying. The only thing here that sounds right to me is, oddly enough, “burritos supreme.” I would say Chef Extraordinares, Surgeon Generals, Court Martials, etc. It’s gotta be convention because I’m thoroughly convinced that trying to apply logic to the English language is the path to madness.
It would be improper. The term General Officer describes what type of officer it is, not what type of general it is. I will not try to talk about the origin of such terms but I will tell you that in modern American Army terms there are several levels of officers. Captains and Lieutenants are called “Company Grade Officers”. Major through Colonel are “Field Grade Officers”. The four levels of Generals are called either “General Officers” or “Flag Officers.”
So in the case cited general is the adjective.
Change martial to military and make it plural. Would you say Court Militaries?
Which means that it’s just a convention, since these terms are very well naturalized.
The problem with these terms is that the adjective portion doesn’t seem to be an adjective, as these words can also be nouns, and would more readily be nouns in that location. It’s precisely because general and martial are not on the list of adjectives that normally follow nouns that causes people to think they must be nouns.
I would be inclined to do so if “Court Military” was the actual commonly used term, yes. Military can also be an adjective, but it is in the place where I would expect a noun.
So how does the sentence “There are 20 Grands Prix this year” work? Isn’t Prix the noun here?
What’s happening there is that for that phrase the writer is switching to French grammar, which has adjectival inflections. I wouldn’t do that myself.
Yes, which is why no one would ever say “Grands Prix.”
Unless you were writing in French, which was my point.
Isn’t everything in the English language? Look what happens when you try to make it logical: you end up with spellings like “analog”.
Prix is indeed the noun. In French the adjective takes a plural form too (for example, “the green fairy” is “la fée verte”, but “the green fairies” is “les fées vertes”). That explains the “grands”. As for “prix”, that word just happens to be the same for both singular and plural form.
And my understanding is that “grands prix” is the correct plural in English, despite the last three posts.
While “Attorneys General” is the preferred way of pluralizing the term, “Attorney Generals” is OK, is in usage and is 100% understandable.
“plural attorneys general, attorney generals.”
So why don’t you inflect the noun when making a possessive in the same case? After all, possessive markers should follow the noun, shouldn’t they?
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.
I think eventually it will become standard to pluralize the end of these kinds of phrases. It’s already pretty common in everyday speech (at least where I live).
If you don’t eat them all, will you have lefts over?
You’re doing that on purpose, just to spite me!
Sincerely,
Someone who is well able to poison your leftOVERS, not lefts-OVER, dammit!