I have a T-shirt that shows all the different versions of comic book character Iron Man. Whenever I wear it, people always debate if it shows “Iron Men” or “Iron Mans”. Which is the correct form?
Iron Mans. It sounds wrong but it is grammatically correct.
If it is always Stark in the suit, then Iron Mans. If Rhodes is in one of the suits and Stark in another, then Iron Men.
“Genius . . . Billionaire . . . Playboy . . . Philanthropist.”
Another Iron Man question.
I have a pair of Ironman sunglasses. They are well built athletic sunglasses. They don’t appear to have any connection to Stark, metal suits, or the comics. What, if anything, are they named after?
The sport.
The general rule in English is if an adjective modifies a noun but leaves the overall meaning of the noun unchanged, then you use normal pluralization rules. But if the adjective changes the meaning of the noun, then you just append “s”.
So for example, the plural of “leaf” is “leaves”. A maple tree has a lot of maple leaves. But the Toronto hockey team is the Maple Leafs because they are not a bunch of actual leaves. If you buy more than one Sony Walkman, you’re buying Walkmans, not Walkmen, because the music players are not actual men.
So the question is, is Iron Man actually a man? This case is a little tricky because there’s an actual man involved, so it’s a little ambiguous whether Iron Man refers to the man in the suit or the suit. That’s probably why people have difficulty with it, while their intuition works ok for the Maple Leafs and Walkmans.
–Mark
Agreed, for the reason explained (if not fully embraced) by markn+.
I say you’re overthinking this. Iron Man, whether he’s based on a man or not, is not a natural man. If there’s more than one Iron Man character they are Iron Mans.
It refers to the combination of the person and the suit – the man WHILE IN the suit. Neither the person by himself, not the suit by itself, is Iron Man.
Now, if you have a tough guy who earns the sobriquet “Iron Man” (but who is still quite clearly a natural man), and there’s another just like him, they are “Iron Men.”
And if there were two such men-in-suits at a time, I’d call them Iron Men.
Oh never mind.
Yeah, I think it’s not as clear-cut as Gary T is arguing for. Normally we don’t think that a person changes his identity depending on the clothing he’s wearing, even if it’s very special clothing. Clark Kent is Superman, whether he’s wearing the colorful underwear or not. It would seem a little (but not totally) odd to me if Tony Stark claimed that he was Iron Man, and some one objected, saying “no you can’t be because you’re not wearing the suit”.
–Mark
Iron Persons
Wasn’t that the point of the third Iron Man movie, Stark realizing that he was still Iron Man even when he wasn’t suited up?
Conventionally, Supermen is the plural of Superman. I’ve read that many times, but I don’t remember seeing Supermans.
In fact, Reign of the Supermen is canon.
A storyline that featured one Clark Kent, a/k/a Kal-El, a/k/a The One True Superman.
But that entails 4 different people (i.e., more than 1 “man”), which is only one type of scenario being discussed. And just because a comic book did it, doesn’t make it grammatically correct.
No it’s not. It should be Iron Men in this case.
Yep, he is Iron Man. The suit is just a whole-body prosthetic that Iron Man wears. So, the t-shirt shows neither Iron Men or Iron Mans–it shows Iron Man Suits.
Why should usage care about what’s grammatically correct? It never has and it never will.
Now that I think about it, it should be “Iron Man’s Suits”.