the Russian soldier deaths

[constantinusphilo]

This is what one often reads nowadays in the internet news even on websites from English-speaking countries. To be honest, I am not a hundred percent sure whether it was ' the Russian soldiers deaths' or 'the Russian soldier deaths'. Anyway, none of them is written in acceptable English. So, how can we correct the phrase? The casualties among the Russian soldiers? The Russian soldiers' death/deaths?

 

[tedmc]

I agree with you. I prefer Russian soldiers' death(s) or the death of Russian soldiers.
If it was meant to be a compound adjective, it should have been hyphenated (Russian-soldier dealths).

 

[Phaedrus]

This is what one often reads nowadays in the internet news even on websites from English-speaking countries. To be honest, I am not a hundred percent sure whether it was ' the Russian soldiers deaths' or 'the Russian soldier deaths'. Anyway, none of them is written in acceptable English.

What don't you find acceptable about the Russian soldier deaths (grammatically, I mean)?

There's nothing wrong with the phrase, though some people would add a hyphen: the Russian-soldier deaths.

Soldier deaths, an attributive-noun construction, refers to deaths of soldiers.

Russian-soldier deaths refers to deaths of Russian soldiers; the adjective Russian modifies the attributive noun (soldier), which in turn modifies the head noun (deaths).

 

[Tarheel]

You could use casualties, but that includes both deaths and injuries.

 

[constantinusphilo]

What don't you find acceptable about the Russian soldier deaths (grammatically, I mean)?

There's nothing wrong with the phrase, though some people would add a hyphen: the Russian-soldier deaths.

Soldier deaths, an attributive-noun construction, refers to deaths of soldiers.

Russian-soldier deaths refers to deaths of Russian soldiers; the adjective Russian modifies the attributive noun (soldier), which in turn modifies the head noun (deaths).

Is 'the Russian soldier deaths' stylistically acceptable in well-written prose? Usually, only nouns referring to inanimate things are used in attributive-noun constructions, the nouns referring to human beings are commonly put in the Genitive case.

 

[jutfrank]

Usually, only nouns referring to inanimate things are used in attributive-noun constructions, the nouns referring to human beings are commonly put in the Genitive case.

I wonder where you get this idea from. Is that your own observation?

 

[Phaedrus]

Is 'the Russian soldier deaths' stylistically acceptable in well-written prose? Usually, only nouns referring to inanimate things are used in attributive-noun constructions, the nouns referring to human beings are commonly put in the Genitive case.

Do you reject, then, attributive noun constructions like the ones below as well?

student teachers
tourist information
consumer protection

If so, I'm afraid you are likely to be regularly disappointed by English speakers, who are not limited in speech or in writing by your imaginary constraint.

 

[constantinusphilo]

Do you reject, then, attributive noun constructions like the ones below as well?

student teachers
tourist information
consumer protection

If so, I'm afraid you are likely to be regularly disappointed by English speakers, who are not limited in speech or in writing by your imaginary constraint.

What is the difference between, for instance, 'consumer protection' and 'consumers protection', 'student teachers' and 'students teachers', tourists info, etc.?

 

[jutfrank]

What is the difference between, for instance, 'consumer protection' and 'consumers protection', 'student teachers' and 'students teachers', tourists info, etc.?

Only the singular forms are correct.

 

[tedmc]

Only the singular form of a noun is used as an adjective

 

[emsr2d2]

Only the singular form of a noun is used as an adjective.

 

[constantinusphilo]

I do not think this is true because such phrases as 'careers guidance', 'grants committee', 'systems analyst', etc., are commonly used. Please, consult Quirk's Comprehensive Grammar, sections 17. 104-109

 

[Phaedrus]

I do not think this is true because such phrases as 'careers guidance', 'grants committee', 'systems analyst', etc., are commonly used. Please, consult Quirk's Comprehensive Grammar, sections 17. 104-109

Quirk et al. explain that those are exceptions, and exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

"[N]ouns which are plural in postmodification," they write, "are singular (number-neutral) in premodification. . . . However, the plural attributive construction is on the increase, particularly in BrE where it is more common than in AmE . . . The choice of premodifying nouns in the plural rather than the singular may be attributed to a number of factors, but predominantly to the fact that an entity has been institutionalized in plural form" (pp. 1333-1334).

Here's a little story for you. I used to work for the California School Boards Association. In a meeting one time, the CFO mentioned that, historically, CSBA was known as the California School Board Association and then said, jokingly, that at that time there was only school board in California! Of course, there were plenty of school boards in California when CSBA was formed.

The fact that Board Association was changed to Boards Association in the name of the organization is a reflection, I think, of people's grammatical nervousness about keeping the singular when the reference is plural. Even if they know the rule about using the singular in attributive modification even when the reference is plural, they may worry that other people may suppose the referent to be singular.

 

[constantinusphilo]

Quirk et al. explain that those are exceptions, and exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

"[N]ouns which are plural in postmodification," they write, "are singular (number-neutral) in premodification. . . . However, the plural attributive construction is on the increase, particularly in BrE where it is more common than in AmE . . . The choice of premodifying nouns in the plural rather than the singular may be attributed to a number of factors, but predominantly to the fact that an entity has been institutionalized in plural form" (pp. 1333-1334).

Here's a little story for you. I used to work for the California School Boards Association. In a meeting one time, the CFO mentioned that, historically, CSBA was known as the California School Board Association and then said, jokingly, that at that time there was only school board in California! Of course, there were plenty of school boards in California when CSBA was formed.

The fact that Board Association was changed to Boards Association in the name of the organization is a reflection, I think, of people's grammatical nervousness about keeping the singular when the reference is plural. Even if they know the rule about using the singular in attributive modification even when the reference is plural, they may worry that other people may suppose the referent to be singular.

To sum it up, the phrase 'the Russian soldiers death' may sound eventually ok in some varieties of English, am I right?

 

[Tarheel]

Two things. One, I don't know what you mean by "eventually" there, and I really don't understand the question. Two, I would prefer "the deaths of Russian soldiers", which I think is much better.

 

[Phaedrus]

To sum it up, the phrase 'the Russian soldiers death' may sound eventually ok in some varieties of English, am I right?

To sum it up, you seem to have misunderstood. Everyone dies his or her own death, so it's nonsense to speak of a plurality's death. We can speak of Russian-soldier deaths, or of a Russian-soldier fatality, but not of Russian-soldiers death, which is absurd. We could, however, speak of a Russian-soldiers club or a Russian-soldiers parade. And if death is your main focus, there could, I suppose, be a Russian-soldiers massacre (a massacre of Russian soldiers), a Russian-soldiers tomb/cemetery, etc.

 

[constantinusphilo]

To sum it up, you seem to have misunderstood. Everyone dies his or her own death, so it's nonsense to speak of a plurality's death. We can speak of Russian-soldier deaths, or of a Russian-soldier fatality, but not of Russian-soldiers death, which is absurd. We could, however, speak of a Russian-soldiers club or a Russian-soldiers parade. And if death is your main focus, there could, I suppose, be a Russian-soldiers massacre (a massacre of Russian soldiers), a Russian-soldiers tomb/cemetery, etc.

Fine, one more thing: is 'Russian-soldiers parade' the same as 'Russian-soldier parade'? The last one does not sound good to me.

 

[Tarheel]

Fine, one more thing: is 'Russian-soldiers parade' the same as 'Russian-soldier parade'? The last one does not sound good to me.

Are you talking about a parade of Russian soldiers? Or Russian soldiers marching in parade formation?

 

[Phaedrus]

. . . is 'Russian-soldiers parade' the same as 'Russian-soldier parade'?

Yes.

Are you talking about a parade of Russian soldiers? Or Russian soldiers marching in parade formation?

I had in mind a parade of Russian soldiers, like a parade of Girl Scouts.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes.

I had in mind a parade of Russian soldiers, like a parade of Girl Scouts.

In that case, I don't think I'd use "Russian soldier" at all. It would be a "Russian military/army parade".