Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by CalRobert | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

CalRobert

Very odd to refer to "Baja Blasts" in the plural. Like saying mountain dews

View on HN

Should be Bajas Blast, like Attornies General

A six-pack of Mountains Dew

six mountains dewing

five bajas blasting

four attournies generalising

three jokes fading

two eyes closing

one final line

Don't forget witches three and Airpods Pro.

> Attornies General

How archaic! This seems wrong and broken, and surely in a generation or two it will no longer be considered proper.

I'm glad the collective might of society and culture, much like a river changing course, can mutate language.

Modern example: AirPods Pro.

This discussion being AirPod Prose.

Birds of Prey.

> This seems wrong and broken

Does it? "Attorney" is the noun. "General" is the adjective. You pluralize the noun, not the adjective.

As a military rank, "general" is already a noun and you say "army generals", so why not "attorney generals"?

I think it's the word order, borrowed from French, that's scrutinized here. I don't know if that makes it "broken" but it is a special case with only a handful of peers.

A native English construction would be general attorneys.

This reminds me of my favorite Onion article: "William Safire Orders Two Whoppers Junior"

https://www.theonion.com/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers-...

I have stated this case before for Doctors Pepper

Both of those seem idiomatic to me. English generally marks the noun as plural. Blasts of the Baja type. Blast is the noun, Baja the adjective. Dew from the mountain. Dew is generally uncountable, but referring to a serving of a soda as a countable noun doesn't seem grating here.

You know, if they sold cans of Baja Blast I could see it, but I think it being a fountain drink makes it feel weird. Then again, if they said "Fantas" maybe it would be less weird.

Maybe it's just me. Language is weird.

> You know, if they sold cans of Baja Blast I could see it

They do, actually.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Mountain-Dew-Baja-Blast-Tropical-...

I'm actually OK with Baja Blasts, but not so much with "Taco Bells"... Tacos Bell? (keep in mind that Bell is a proper noun, the name of the company's founder, of which there is only one)

“I don’t want to get anybody in trouble, but the gentlemen I purchased it from renovates Taco Bells”

Crunchwraps Supreme is clearly the plural.

Why? Those two are the same to my ESL sensibilities: one Taco Bell, two Taco Bells; one Mountain Dew, two Mountain Dews. "Bell" may be a name of a specific person, but that's arguably subsumed by the "Taco Bell" being the name of a company. That may be a proper name in context[0] of all local companies, but once you use it to refer to restaurants - as in, "Taco Bell restaurant" with "restaurant" implied, then why wouldn't plural be "Taco Bells"? One ${opaque name}, two ${opaque name}s, etc.

Same with Mountain Dew - one Mountain Dew[ drink], two Mountain Dew[ drink]s...

EDIT:

The answer here seems to agree with my thinking: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/190023/why-are-n....

[0] - There are no truly unique names; there are only names referring to a specific entity in the context they're being used in.

It can't be tacos bell because Taco Bell is the name of the restaurant, Tacos Bell would be Tacos of Bell, not the same meaning.

As opposed to Taco’s Bell, which would be the Bell of Taco.

There's "Bells Line of Road" in Sydney, which goes to a town called Bell. Why it's a "Line of Road" instead of just a "Road" or a "Line" remains a mystery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Line_of_Road

Reply on news.ycombinator.com