BS: pluralistic language

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jul 25 - 08:18 AM

Oxford recognizes only "walkthroughs" as a plural form, and both "courts-martial" and "court-martials," the latter from at least 1712.


Good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Jul 25 - 07:36 AM

Mr Red: what is said verbally was common parlance (can parlance be written?). Soooooooo would you prefer "what is uttered.......?" - clunky if consistent
No, I would prefer 'what is said'.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 25 - 03:56 AM

Mr. Red, literal-minded me is compelled to note that 'fellow' is non-gender specific. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Pappy Fiddle
Date: 28 Jul 25 - 12:20 AM

It's true that "the" English language is morphing as we speak, so to speak. I suspect that people will change their word usage when they run into problems like multiple terms that sound alike, or terms that are hard to pronounce. Or hard to combobulate. Case in point: a single walk-thru, and multiple... uh, uh, multiple *rehearsals*.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Jul 25 - 05:14 AM

I don't think anyone else is claiming that 'walk-through' could be plural of itself.

There are some people who just don't get instructions. So multiple walks are required. Which would make it "walks thorough"

what is said verbally was common parlance (can parlance be written?). Soooooooo would you prefer "what is uttered.......?" - clunky if consistent and don't get me started on "verbalised".

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Jul 25 - 06:57 AM

It seems the English language is still mutating even as we speak. (Yes. I know I'm writing, but 'as we speak' is a figure-of-speech)
I just finished a book (no names, no pack drill) where a time-traveller went forward in time for about 900 years. Another character described this as time-travelling for almost a millennia.
Later another character is standing on the (decorated) tomb of Queen Isabella, but a few lines later is described as sitting on the sarcophagi. Now maybe he'd pushed two together to make a more comfortable seat, but I doubt it.

Sometimes I just gloss-over these things. Sometimes I gnash my teeth.

Even Mr Red's comment above: Let me see.............. what is said verbally? makes me edgy. Can we 'say' something non-verbally? If it is done verbally do we need 'said'?

As for 'walk through' I'd accept either pluralisation.
Walks through, pluralised in line with mothers-in-law and Aides-de-camp.
But also Walk throughs. Here we are not pluralising the 'through' but the whole compound noun (even if written as two words).

And BBCW: I would say that the walk-through is hyphenated and hence can be plural.
No! it can be pluralised. I don't think anyone else is claiming that 'walk-through' could be plural of itself.

Just my 120th of a pound ;)

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 25 - 03:47 AM

Referring to more than one brother in law I say brothers in law but if we drop the brother bit to refer to multiple unspecified relatives by marriage it becomes in laws.

Apropos of not much really...

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Jul 25 - 04:43 PM

Mr Red yes that sounds correct,
howver years ago i did do some calling for beginners , and i said lets start by walking it through.
Ithink when you are calling for non folk dancers you are much more likely to explain as simply as possible, and more likely to say"can we start by walking it through"

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Jul 25 - 03:48 PM

Let me see.............. what is said verbally?

"we will start with a walk through" - "a" sounds like it is a noun to me. They never say "let's walk through" which would make it a verb.

And there ain't no hyphen verbally.

So there we have it. Communication and language.

Not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 04:45 PM

AI Overview
Yes, walkthrough can be hyphenated as walk-through, but it is more commonly written as a single, closed compound word, walkthrough. While the hyphenated form is acceptable, the single-word version is preferred in modern English.
Here's a breakdown:

    Walkthrough: (one word) is the most common and widely accepted spelling.
    Walk-through: (hyphenated) is also a valid and understandable option, especially in certain contexts like technical writing or when referring to a specific type of walkthrough (like a rehearsal).
    Walk through: (two words, open form) is generally not used as a noun referring to a tutorial or explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 03:31 PM

I would say that the walk-through is hyphenated and hence can be plural.

Robin.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Charmion
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 03:20 PM

Two things:

1. “Through” is an adverb, modifying “walk”, which is normally a verb but in this context operates as a noun, which makes “walk-through” a compound noun. If the sentence is phrased any other way — e.g: at the beginning of the celidh, we walk through the new dances — “walk” goes back to being a verb. To help the reader identify a compound noun, it should be hyphenated.

2. In a sentence such as this: “Sgt Bloggins was convicted of theft by Summary Court Martial”, “court” is a noun modified by the adjective “martial”. When you kick it up a notch and make it plural — “Sgt Bloggins faced three Courts Martial before the chain of command got him convicted of theft” — we note that the plural “s” attaches only to the noun. In English, nouns have plural forms but adjectives do not.

Trust me on this.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 02:56 PM

Poking the bear is one way to make a big mistake, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 02:25 PM

Joe, when one makes mistakes, it is useful to learn from them.
If you want to carry on in ignorance, that is your prerogative

Subject: RE: BS: pluralistic language
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 02:18 PM

I usually say walkthroughs and courtmartials. So THERE!!

Subject: BS: pluralistic language
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Jul 25 - 12:55 PM

I have had this discussion with, of all possible expertises, a fellow engineer.
viz
a ceilidh "walk through" - walk is the object and through the adjective. So more than one "walk through" has multiple objects and only on adjective. ie "walks through". She disagreed (can a she be a fellow anything?)

Much like "courts marshal" etc.

What do we think?