the Browns

[ewelina]

Hello,

To what extend can we use the phrase "the + surname in plural (+ -s)" like in the Browns, the Connerys, the Onassises, the Jameses for:

1) a married couple only
2) a brother and a sister carrying the same name (with parents f.i. dead)
3) a brother and a married sister (still regarded as a family)
3) brothers or sisters (alternatively for the Kennedy bothers, the Bronte sisters),
4) multi-generation family with all members alive (grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren),
5) a clan (in genealogy),
5) configurations like a widow after one brother and the second brother?

What is the determining factor in here?

Thank you, Ewelina

[MrPedantic]

Hello Ewelina

I would say as follows:

1) a married couple ]
— Fine.

2) a brother and a sister carrying the same name (with parents f.i. dead)

— I would find this a bit strange; you'd be more likely to say "Ewelina and Eustace Brown".

3) a brother and a married sister (still regarded as a family)

— No, I don't think so.

3) brothers or sisters (alternatively for the Kennedy bothers, the Bronte sisters),

— The Brown brothers, the Kennedy sisters, etc. would be fine; though perhaps a little old-fashioned.

4) multi-generation family with all members alive (grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren),

— If they all lived in the same house, possibly. Otherwise, I don't think so.

5) a clan (in genealogy),

— No, probably not.

5) configurations like a widow after one brother and the second brother?

— No, quite unlikely!

MrP

[ewelina]

Understood. Thank you