Confederacy of a Dunce - Not so obligatory plurals

Friday, June 10, 2005

« Tip of tongue yet again | Main | Eatin' vittles »

And with that it's another linguistic issue, raised on the pages of Sarmoung's secret diary. For those readers afraid to click the preceding link, he uses the phrase "SPECTACLE WRANGLING" to refer to individuals "trying to grab [his] glasses for comic routines" and subsequently wondered

I wasn't sure whether since the noun is "spectacles" it might not need to remain so. Trouser Wrangling? The plural just "sounded" wrong. But then "Glass Wrangling" doesn't sound too good either, although that's maybe for reasons of clarity. As for "Binocular Wrangling"...Hmm. Fortunately I don't have to deal with this sort of thing on an in-depth daily basis.

On the other hand, I do. Well, maybe I don't have to but perhaps I choose to. ... I think "spectacle wrangling" is the correct use. Look in analogy to the terminology one might use for wrangling other entities which are expressed in clear singular or plural forms, e.g. "cat wrangling" (not "cats wrangling", even if you're after a whole host of them). My intuition is that in this sort of form, "wrangling" is a noun and the terms like "spectacle", "trouser", "cat" are behaving more like adjectives to reflect a sort of habitual behavior. "Spectacle wrangling" is the act of wrangling spectacles (not "spectacle"), and you (surely!) wouldn't say "I had my spectacle wrangled". The same sort of thing seems to happen for other actions too ("spectacle breaking", "trouser peeling", "cat spotting"). In a strange sort of way the plural marker is removed when the spectacles (trousers, cats) are being acted upon and represented in a compound form, even in cases in which the singular form is never in common use.

The wikipedia entry for English plural has a brief discussion of these words (under the heading "Defective nouns"), using the technical term pluralia tantum to refer to those words for which a singular form does not exist (also including annals, billiards, measles, nuptials, thanks, tidings, vittles). An interesting distinction is between those which behave (syntactically) as a plural, vs. those which behave as singular:
My spectacles are filthy.
Billiards is a pursuit of vile men.

Although I don't have the time to go into a full investigation of the cause of this behavior (ie, why do even pluralia tantum words become singular in constructions of this sort), here's an interesting article dealing with related issues:
Why children sometimes say "mice-eater" (PDF)
and in A Linguistic Introduction to English Words (ch 5, PDF) Heidi Harley writes Note that the roots, pant-, scissor- or tong-, can occur without the plural suffix when part of a compound: pantleg, scissor factory, tong holder. This shows that the -s suffix on these words really is the regular plural marker. Within compounds, singular or plural is simply not relevant. We say lawn-mower, not *lawns-mower, even though any given lawn-mower could easily be intended to mow multiple lawns. So the existence of pantleg shows that the root pant- does exist independently of the suffix -s. The only strange thing in these cases is that the plural marking is required even when the meaning is singular.

Why does this happen? Who knows.

language

Friday, June 10, 2005 11:56:34 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)