Compound nouns

Question

Hello.I have a problem with compound nouns in english. Can a noun, which is not the main noun in a compound noun, be in plural?Example - are those compound nouns correct:1. tasks machine (= machine counting tasks)2. toys producer (= producer of toys)or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?Best regards,Miroslav

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hello. I have a problem with compound nouns in english. Can a noun, which is not the main noun in ... machine counting tasks) 2. toys producer (= producer of toys) or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?[/nq]
Singular, usually. We speak of a "horse race" even though there is bound to be more than one horse. Using a noun in this adjectival way is called the "attributive" sense.
Some can go either way. I see that the Google hits for "weapons producers" outnumber "weapon producers" about 2:1.

Sometimes people argue about whether it's written like the singular possessive, plural, or plural possessive. Mother's Day, Mothers Day, or Mothers' Day?

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Can a noun, which is not the main noun in a compound noun, be in plural? Example - are those compound nouns correct: 1. tasks machine (= machine counting tasks) 2. toys producer (= producer of toys)[/nq]
Noo!
A baseball manufacturer makes baseballs: the company isn't a . Policyholders hold policies. Decisionmakers make decisions. Flypaper catches flies. A dogcatcher catches dogs. A cowcatcher catches well, you get the idea.
Some seeming exceptions (, etc.) began with the first word not a plural but a possessive (, etc.).
[nq:1]or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?[/nq]
Yes! (Except that the meanings of and are opaque. Is it a machine that counts tasks? That would be a task-counting machine.)
Naturally, respondents will find exceptions for you, and some exceptions may mark a particular dialect. (Is exclusively British?) A nondialectal exception that comes to mind is , which should have been , but its coiners had forgotten their Latin. ::winkwink::

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I have a problem with compound nouns in english. Can ... or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?[/nq]
[nq:1]Singular, usually. We speak of a "horse race" even though there is bound to be more than one horse. Using ... sense. Some can go either way. I see that the Google hits for "weapons producers" outnumber "weapon producers" about 2:1.[/nq]
I would only add that the plural is much more common than it used to be. Altho there have always been exceptions, I would say that 50 years ago, in standard English, when a plural was used attributively there was usually a special reason for it, such as to distinguish an attributive noun from a homonymous adjective, as we do in "singles bar". A sign of the change is that "teeth care" is fairly common, but "tooth decay" an older phrase is still the normal expression.
Joe Fineman (Email Removed)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello. I have a problem with compound nouns in english. Can a noun, which is not the main noun in ... machine counting tasks) 2. toys producer (= producer of toys) or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?[/nq]
Task machine, toy producer.
An example where the plural is used: trades union.

Where the first noun is customarily used in the plural, it might be put in the singular or the plural when used attributively. For example, trouser(s) pocket, trouser(s) turn-ups, jean(s) skirt. But the singular seems to be idiomatic even here. "Trousers belt" seems quite wrong.
Richard Sabey Visit the r.p.crosswords competition website cryptic fan at hotmail.com http://www.rsabey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rpc/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello. I have a problem with compound nouns in english. Can a noun, which is not the main noun in ... machine counting tasks) 2. toys producer (= producer of toys) or should it always be: task machine, toy producer, etc?[/nq]
Beware "always". Usually the noun adjective is in the singular, by idiom, but there are exceptions. The exceptions generally occur when the normal singular form of the noun could be mistaken for an adjective with a sense of its own. An organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties would be a "rights organization", because "right organization" could be misread. A baseball player might be referred to as a "doubles producer", because "double producer" would mislead. And so on.

Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Compound nouns

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions