Talk:runner-up

Plural
Shouldn't runners-up be removed. It makes no sense that theres two pluralizations of one word. Atleast I can't think of an example.

ML —This unsigned comment was added by &#x20;at 17:12, 12 August 2008‎.

Runners-up doesn't make sense to me, it's strange to put the pluralization in the middle of the hyphenated word. It would be like low-budget = lows-budgets, top-hat being tops-hat, or jump-rope being jumps-rope. It seems better to be jump-ropes, top-hats, or low-budgets.

JS —This unsigned comment was added by &#x20;at 17:17, 12 August 2008‎.


 * I agree... perhaps this is very sparse localized usage of "runners-up"? —This unsigned comment was added by &#x20;at 17:24, 12 August 2008‎.


 * The reason "runners-up" is preferred is that in compounds it is the noun that is pluralized, not the modifier; this is one of the few compounds where the noun precedes the modifier. Thus it is consistent that jump ropes, top hats, or low budgets are all correct, but runners-up is as well.


 * Support, at least you have a reason other than sheer aesthetic preference. Thanks.  Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Plenty of similar words can do this for the same reason: finders-out, washers-up, etc. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The OED lists both runners-up and runner-ups as plurals, which is, I assume, because people use both. Since dictionaries describe how people use words, not how people should use words, we're not going to choose one or the other as "correct". This is called descriptivism, as opposed to prescriptivism. Eru·tuon 00:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I study linguistics and have been around here for years. I didn't say we should omit anything, merely that this kind of plural is commonly encountered; earlier posters seemed to consider it alien. Equinox ◑ 00:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I was responding to the earlier comments more than to you. Eru·tuon 18:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)