"Time Outs" or "Times Out"
Toward the end of last night's game between Notre Dame and Stanford, the ABC broadcasting team (Keith Jackson and someone else) regularly reminded viewers of how many "times out" each team had. "Times out," as a plural of "time out," sounds awkward but seems on the surface to be gramatically correct. The rules of English grammar tell us that nouns have plural forms; modifiers do not. Thus the plural of "passerby" is "passersby," not "passerbies." "Passer" is a noun, meaning "one who passes"; "by" modifies "passer." Therefore "passer" becomes plural, and "by" does not. Likewise, the plural of "attorney general" is "attorneys general." An attorney general is an attorney; "general" is a modifier that describes a particular type of attorney.
In my opinion, however, "time out" is different. Yes, "time," like "passer" and "attorney," is a noun. But when "time" is part of the construction "time out," it functions differently than it would otherwise. One can call a "time out"; one cannot call a "time." A team can have four "time outs" remaining. No one has four "times" remaining. That doesn't make sense. The meaning of the phrase "time out" cannot be determined by combining the meanings of the words "time" and "out." Rather "time out," though it is a two-word phrase, functions as an autonomous word. By contrast, one can see two "passers" (though one may never refer to them as such) or two "passersby." One can contact an "attorney" or one can contact an "attorney general." The modifiers in these cases specify a type of "passer" and "attorney," they do not change the meaning of these words entirely.
"Time out," I think, is more like "playoff." A team doesn't go to the "playsoff"; it goes to the "playoffs." There is a noun form of "play," but the "play" in "playoff" functions differently, and "playoff" is not simply a variation of the noun "play." Therefore, the "s" is applied to the end of the entire construction, not to the end of "play," to form the plural.
Since "time out" is a two-word phrase that functions as an autonomous word, and is not simply a product of its two parts, the entire construction must be made plural. Thus the "s" should be added to the end of the phrase instead of to the end of "time." So, in my opinion, the plural of "time out" should be "time outs."
In my opinion, however, "time out" is different. Yes, "time," like "passer" and "attorney," is a noun. But when "time" is part of the construction "time out," it functions differently than it would otherwise. One can call a "time out"; one cannot call a "time." A team can have four "time outs" remaining. No one has four "times" remaining. That doesn't make sense. The meaning of the phrase "time out" cannot be determined by combining the meanings of the words "time" and "out." Rather "time out," though it is a two-word phrase, functions as an autonomous word. By contrast, one can see two "passers" (though one may never refer to them as such) or two "passersby." One can contact an "attorney" or one can contact an "attorney general." The modifiers in these cases specify a type of "passer" and "attorney," they do not change the meaning of these words entirely.
"Time out," I think, is more like "playoff." A team doesn't go to the "playsoff"; it goes to the "playoffs." There is a noun form of "play," but the "play" in "playoff" functions differently, and "playoff" is not simply a variation of the noun "play." Therefore, the "s" is applied to the end of the entire construction, not to the end of "play," to form the plural.
Since "time out" is a two-word phrase that functions as an autonomous word, and is not simply a product of its two parts, the entire construction must be made plural. Thus the "s" should be added to the end of the phrase instead of to the end of "time." So, in my opinion, the plural of "time out" should be "time outs."
posted by Tinley | 7:19 AM
4 Comments:
inspiration from a man who was made famous by saying "whoa-nelly" or was it "whoas-nelly" possibly "whoa-nellys"
Though not a definite answer, your logic is good, and I think I agree with your answer to this question. Good to know other people are thinking about the same miniscule details as me, and posting their thoughts so I can find them with Google.
I agree that it should be time outs, but I actually disagree with your reasoning. I included my reasoning in my latest post at http://thejpsurvey.blogspot.com - let me know what you think.
I am a firm advocate of breaking some rules of grammar when the effect is language that is more logically consistent or clearer to understand. I agree with the usage of "timeouts". But I would say the same logic applies to all noun-modifier compound words. My reasoning is that the words should be viewed as nouns in-and-of-themselves. Both "passerby" and "timeout" strike me as being such words. "Timeout" is an extreme example, to the extent that a "timeout" cannot be adequately described using the words "time" and "out". It's not "something out of time" or "time that is moving out", for example. And while "passerbyies" (I've seen "passerbyer/s" as well) likely sounds odd to us, I think you could make a similar argument. (Honestly, its just silly word. I'd prefer "bypassers" or "pass-by-ers").
My point being: "Compound word" is a useless distinction if you use it exactly as you would its non-compound constituent words. If it feels natural to pluralize the end of these noun-then-modifier compound word, rather than after the noun, then it probably means the word is a noun unto itself, and thus there is sufficient justification to use it as such. Either way is justified. Consider: "My brothers in law" vs "my brother-in-laws". The existence of the word "in-laws" is proof enough that "brother-in-law" is a plain ol' noun, pluralized with an "s" at the end. "2 spoons full of sugar" is a proper sentence. "2 spoonfuls of sugar" is also just fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home