"McDonald's" in plural

[GoesStation]

When the overwhelming majority of speakers disregard a "rule", the overarching rule tells us that the rule is wrong, not the speakers. If a rule dictates that the correct plural of "Starbucks" is Starbuckses, the rulemaker has to throw it out and start over.

 

[Phaedrus]

When the overwhelming majority of speakers disregard a "rule", the overarching rule tells us that rule is wrong, not the speakers. If a rule dictates that the correct plural of "Starbucks" is Starbuckses, the rulemaker has to throw it out and start over.

I think the term you're looking for is "exception." The rulemaker has to make an exception; he doesn't throw out the rule and start over.

If you'd object to my saying that I stopped at two Starbuckses yesterday, I doubt you'd object to my saying that I stopped at two Burger Kings.

How many Starbucks have you been to? / How many Starbuckses have you been to?
How many Burger King have you been to? / How many Burger Kings have you been to?

I enjoyed the following quote that I found online this morning:

"If home ownership is part of the American Dream, the Home Depots and Lowe'ses of the world are their Valhallas." (source)

Would you say that the writer should have written "the Home Depots and Lowe's of the world" or "the Home Depot and Lowe's of the world"?

 

[GoesStation]

I think the term you're looking for is "exception." The rulemaker has to make an exception; he doesn't throw out the rule and start over.

If you'd object to my saying that I stopped at two Starbuckses yesterday, I doubt you'd object to my saying that I stopped at two Burger Kings.

How many Starbucks have you been to? / How many Starbuckses have you been to?
How many Burger King have you been to? / How many Burger Kings have you been to?

I enjoyed the following quote that I found online this morning:

Would you say that the writer should have written "the Home Depots and Lowe's of the world" or "the Home Depot and Lowe's of the world"?

You can call it an exception. I'd prefer to say that plurals of business names take -s or -es unless they end in "s"; in that case, they can take -es but are usually left unaltered.

I find "Lowe'ses" tolerable. The plural of "Home Depot" is clearly "Home Depots".

 

[Phaedrus]

You can call it an exception. I'd prefer to say that plurals of business names take -s or -es unless they end in "s"; in that case, they can take -es but are usually left unaltered.

I find "Lowe'ses" tolerable. The plural of "Home Depot" is clearly "Home Depots".

I don't think anyone will deny that business names are proper nouns. The following passage written by Bryan Garner may be of interest:

"Although few books on grammar mention the point, proper names often cause problems as plurals. The rule is simple: most take a simple -s, while those ending in -s, -x, or -z, or in a sibilant -ch or -sh, take -es. Thus:

Singular Form Plural Form
Adam Adams
Adams Adamses
Bush Bushes [. . .]
Flowers Flowerses [. . .]

Plurals such as these are often erroneously formed by calling, say, Mr. and Mrs. Sinz *the Sinz . . . . Otherwise well-schooled people have a hard time with names that end in -s. The Flowers couple really should be known as the Flowerses -- that's the only known plural that any traditional English grammar would countenance."

- Garner, B. (2016). Garner's modern English usage (4th Ed.), p. 704. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

 

[Phaedrus]

Hmmm.

Yes. Here is a link to the same passage in an earlier edition of the same book.

 

[Phaedrus]

I wasn't expressing doubt that Garner had written those words.

Like GS, I was suggesting some doubt about his divine right to decree common usages erroneous.

It is I who have extended his decrees to the pluralization of business names, which, as far as I can tell, no grammar or morphology of English has addressed.

 

[Phaedrus]

You can call it an exception. I'd prefer to say that plurals of business names take -s or -es unless they end in "s"; in that case, they can take -es but are usually left unaltered.

I find "Lowe'ses" tolerable. The plural of "Home Depot" is clearly "Home Depots".

In addition to Lowe'ses, these other plurals also seem tolerable to me, each being formed (according to the usual rule for proper nouns) from business names ending in -s:

Nieman Marcus --> Nieman Marcuses
Sears --> Searses
Family Fitness --> Family Fitnesses
Five Guys --> Five Guyses
Hecht's --> Hecht'ses
CVS --> CVSes/ CVS's

 

[probus]

When the overwhelming majority of speakers disregard a "rule", the overarching rule tells us that the rule is wrong, not the speakers. If a rule dictates that the correct plural of "Starbucks" is Starbuckses, the rulemaker has to throw it out and start over.

Right on! And that, right there, tells us everything we need to know about Wiktionary. It is often wrong because like its big brother Wikipedia it does not even aspire to be right.

 

[Tdol]

I would say that someone has eaten in many McDonald's without worrying about it.

 

[probus]

Not worrying about saying, or about eating in McDonald's? :-D

 

[Tdol]

I haven't actually eaten in one in thirty years. My lack of worry is the saying. I did buy a takeaway coffee from one ten years ago in a bus station in Japan.

 

[Phaedrus]

Right on! And that, right there, tells us everything we need to know about Wiktionary. It is often wrong because like its big brother Wikipedia it does not even aspire to be right.

I shall write to Starbucks corporate and ask whether Starbuckses is an accepted plural form. That, not GoesStation, will tell us whether Wiktionary is wrong.

 

[Phaedrus]

It won't. No organisation can decide whether the words people use about the organisation are 'accepted' or not.

Leaders of an organization can decide whether a given form of the name of the organization is acceptable to use in the formal discourse of the organization.

 

[GoesStation]

I'm pretty sure Starbucks management doesn't care what you use as the plural of their name. I'm equally confident they'll think "Starbuckses" sounds absurd.

 

[Phaedrus]

I'm pretty sure Starbucks management doesn't care what you use as the plural of their name. I'm equally confident they'll think "Starbuckses" sounds absurd.

I don't share your confidence in that regard. However, I am pretty confident that I won't hear back from them. I have submitted my question to them.

(1) How many Starbucks are there in this town?
(2) How many Starbuckses are there in this town?

I see no reason to think (1) is inherently superior to (2), especially since (1) could easily be misinterpreted as asking about the number of Starbuck.

From a grammatical standpoint, sentence (2) asks unambiguously about the number of Starbucks.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think you'll hear back from them. I rather like this writer's take on it though.

 

[probus]

They can decree what form is used in their own materials, but that is unlikely to affect what millions of GoesStations and Pisceans say.

I wish I could add millions of Probi to that list, but like Tigger, I'm the only one.

 

[Phaedrus]

Another fun quote from your resident underdog:

"One glimpse of girls in cowboy boots, one glance at a billboard-freckled hillside, one eyeful of U.S. 36 north of Denver—the Denny'ses and Arby'ses and Wendy'ses, the tall man's cars in the big man's lanes—sufficed to set his mind at rest: This was the place for him."

- Jonathan Franzen (source)

 

[emsr2d2]

This makes my eyes bleed:

the Denny'ses and Arby'ses and Wendy'ses,

 

[GoesStation]

Another fun quote from your resident underdog:

This makes my eyes bleed:

the Denny'ses and Arby'ses and Wendy'ses,

Franzen is writing in a jocular tone, emphasized by the silly plural forms. I've never read him before, but the first complete sentence on the page shows he doesn't hesitate to invent derived words: He never really adolesced.