Concerning Plurality

Jon_Lincicum at stream.com Jon_Lincicum at stream.com
Mon Nov 28 13:02:45 PST 2005

>Jon_Lincicum at stream.com wrote:
>>I personally don't think as "s" should be used on anything other than 
>>Dragon(s), Hawk(s) and possibly Phoenix(es).
>>The others just "sound better" being their own plurals, IMO.
>>From what I recall, Steve avoids having to pluralize the house names 
>>of the time by the expedient of referring to folks as "Dragonlords" or 
>>"Hawklords" rather than as "Dragons" or "Hawks". 
>We already have a tradition of having words like hanged and hung.   I'm 
>pretty sure we have similar words which are declined differently when 
>talking about people belonging to a state, but am not thinking of them.
>We are used to the words dragons and hawks.   Which is all the more 
>reason to not have Dragons and Hawks.
>Now in English we have different traditions about team names.   Is "The 
>Broncos" one team or a collection of football players?    Or teams 
>without plural names:
>The Jazz
>The Heat
>The Avalanche
>The White Sox
>The Red Sox
>The Dallas Stars refer to a Lone star.   They used to be the North Stars 
>which is also a single star.

Don't get me started. Most sports writers can't apply the plurality rules 
of team names consistently enough to save their lives.

However, some animals on earth have their own name as a plural (i.e Moose, 
Fish, Orca) and since the house names are all based on animal names, 
self-pluralizing makes as much sense as any other approach.