While reading the news on various web sites, I can’t help but notice something that really just doesn’t look right. One state has an attorney general. Fine. But why is it that two or more are attorneys general and not attorney generals? The only way that this makes any sense to me at all is that if you figure that they are just plain old attorney’s that happen to work for the state. It would make more sense to me, in that case, if they just called them states attorneys and just leave off the word general.
For the same reason that more than one court martial are courts martial. The noun to be pluralized in “attorney general” is “attorney,” not “general.” “General” in this phrase is an adjective and adjectives don’t take plural form.
The word “general” is the adjective in this case.
Unlike Spaniards, we do not pluralize the adjective when the noun is pluralized. For example, you would never say messies desks. The correct form is “messy desks.” Just because the adjective and noun are turned around in the “attorney general” case, does not nullify this rule.
We eat pies a la mode. Not pies a las modes. Get it?
-L
2 thoughts:
-
I believe the approach of pluralizing Attorneys as opposed to Generals is based on a French practice - as we all know, English tends to co-opt practices from a variety of languages and this happens to be one of them
-
More importantly, if one logics it out, the noun in the phrase “attorneys general” is “attorneys” - “general” is an adjective. Therefore, since we say things like “green tractors” not “greens tractor”, we pluralize the noun of the phrase; it just so happens that because we adopted the French construct of having the adjective come second that the phrase appears awkward (if you think about it, in standard structure, the office would be “General Attorney” and pluralizing it would be a non-issue).
WordMan
Actually, the American Heritage Dictionary allows both attorney generals and attorneys general. I personally prefer “attorney generals” as this seems to be more natural for most people and more in keeping with the rules of English. Anyhow, my mind parses it more as one unit, attaching the “s” at the end, rather than a noun followed by an adjective and thus requiring the “s” on attorney. (Yes, I know that it really is noun-adjective, but I don’t hear it that way and I suspect most people don’t either if their natural inclination is to put the “s” at the end. You can make a similar argument for “sons-of-bitches” versus “son-of-a-bitches.” Both are acceptable to me, depending on how your mind parses the phrase.)
I’m neither English, nor Major. Hey, I’m not even native english-speaking, but I’ll give it a try.
First of all, Merriam-Webster gives both alternatives as accepted plurals.
The historic reason for the construction is the use of French in the medeival English judical system. This gave rise to several odd constructions that are neither French nor English. In French modifiers (generally) come after the noun they modify, so ‘Attorney general’ means a general attorney. In French one would add a plural -s to the adjective as well as the noun, but when the phrase was integrated into English that pattern was broken and only the noun gets a plural ending.
In preview I see that other posters have already commented on that, but SexyWriters post raises another question.
First of all it’s a bad example, ‘a la mode’ is not really an adjective.
[nitpick]Wouldn’t it rather be ‘pies aux modes’ (if indeed the pies were done according to several fashions) [/nitpick]
[related question] What does the phrase ‘a la mode’ mean in contemporary American English? If you ask for a ‘pie a la mode’ in Paris, you’re most likelly to get a pie dressed according to the latest fashions.
Pie a la mode has ice cream on it, tc. (And yes, the plural form of a la mode would indeed be aux modes.)
Pie with ice cream. Ice cream is always in fashion.
It is a confusing phrase because, as noted above, the adjective follows the noun, as in the French, and without knowing that, it’s hard to tell which is the noun (since “general” can be either). “Attorney general” would more accurately be phrased in English as “general attorney,” except that it ain’t.
Personally, I can vouch that the form used by the offices of the various attorneys general is in fact “attorneys general,” not “attorney generals.” They use this one because it is the one that is strictly correct. The other usage, while perhaps acceptable today, is not strictly correct, because it pluralizes the adjective.
“Solicitor general” is the same, by the way, as is “letter patent” and a handful of other phrases taken from the French.
Here’s another interesting French word…how would you
pluralize “cul-de-sac”?
I’d reckon that most people would say “cul-de-sacs” However, the plural is “culs-de-sac.” Sounds pretty funny to my ears. (That’s Webster’s Revised 1996. American heritage also allows “cul-de-sacs.”)
Following that, shouldn’t the plural of “maitre d’” be “maitres d’” rather than “maitre d’s”? What about “bete noire”? I’ve seen “bete noires” but I suppose “betes noires” would be more correct, no?
I just think it is stupid to apply the French plural to English, just like I hate most Latin and Greek plurals. I’ll whack ya upside the kisser with a sturgeon if I hear “octopodes” or “fora” coming from ya.
Fee simple is another medieval french fossil of exactly the same origin. The plural is fees simple
Pie a la mode in contemporary American means pie with ice cream on the plate or on top of the pie.
You can add to that fee tail. But no one uses that anymore. States attorneys won’t do, as that is another entirely different office. Neither will General Attorney be acceptable since that was my initial title with the government. It’s a basic level attorney position in the federal government hierarchy.
I’m not so sure:
“Son of a bitch”; OK=1 son, from 1 bitch; 1 jerk
“Sons of bitches” Also OK=2 sons, from 2 bitches; 2 jerks
“Sons of a bitch” Still OK=2 sons, from 1 bitch; still 2 jerks
“Son of a bitches” Not OK=1 son, from 2 bitches; ??? Plus “a” needs to (by definition) modify a singular–like “bitch”–not a plural such as “bitches.”
The phrase “son-of-a-bitches” makes no more sense than, “Give me two sandwich with mayonnaises,” “two Coke with ices,” or “service with a smiles.” (I won’t even bring up the dreaded “two son-in-laws.”) 
ALl right, what is the correct possessive form of Attorney General? Tell me about her coat in an example.
The Attorney General’s coat. The coat belongs to the Attorney General. “Attorney General” (both words) used in this fashion is a title, and the whole title takes the possessive. Besides, “attorney’s general coat” doesn’t make any sense.
Interesting. So if we take it to the next level, is it
Attorney Generals’ lawsuit, or
Attorneys’ General lawsuit
The latter appears to be confusing, and therefore one of those technicalities to be avoided in “real world” use. However, the former appears to violate the laws of plurality. Is the solution
Attorneys General**'s** lawsuit
Or is it something else?
Yes, SOFA, “Attorneys General**'s**” is correct. “Attorney General” is a title. Plural title is “Attorneys General.” A suit belonging to one Attorney General is “the Attorney General’s suit.” A suit belonging to more than one is “the Attorneys General’s suit,” as awkward as that sounds.
Funnily enough, this came up rather a lot regarding the tobacco litigation – a suit instigated by more than one Attorney General, and which was therefore correctly denominated “the Attorneys General’s suit.” But I admit that you have to red it about three times before it makes sense.
Well, what about “passer-by,” as in “the passer-by saw the accident?”
“Two passers-by saw the accident.” Obviously correct.
“Two passer-bys saw the accident.” Obviously incorrect.
I know this is different from the attorney general example, but there is a point here, and it has to do with what is called the “attributive position.”
Now it’s getting interesting. What’s the genitive of the Queen of England: The Queen**'s** of England … or the Queen of England**'s**? In Swedish you can say either, although the second alternative is the normal (and the first more grammatically correct).