Sign up ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Should it be

Our company is renown for


Our company is renowned for

share|improve this question

closed as general reference by FumbleFingers, Kit Z. Fox Mar 13 '13 at 16:36

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I need to ensure you are not confusing renown with the past perfect of know => known.

[Middle English renoun, from Anglo-Norman, from renomer, to make famous : re-, repeatedly (from Latin; see re-) + nomer, to name (from Latin nminre, from nmen, nmin-, name; see n-men- in Indo-European roots).]

With that hope, I would then otherwise advise that a verb used as an adjective is usually a past-perfect participle. e.g.

  • painted door (vs paint door)
  • broken vase (vs break vase)
  • renowned person (renown person)
  • burnt-in product (burning-in is quality control methodologies to test a product to its extremities to qualify its release).

Compare to present participle /gerund form (using the present continuous verb as adjective)

  • closing door
  • breaking bad
  • burning house

However, IMO, the following formal speech is erroneous to turn a noun into a verb and then into an adjectival particple.

  • white-tailed deer (why not white-tail deer?)
  • red-haired girl (should be red-hair girl, shouldn't it?)
  • green-eyed monster (unless considering movie-makers' placing green eyes into monster as legitimate participatory effort)
  • chickened rice (shoule be chicken rice)
  • pepperonied piza (has always been pepperoni pizza)

When we say, "painted door", someone "participatorily" painted the door to put it into a state of being "painted" to let us say "painted" door.

But, in the case of a red-hair girl, no one "participatorily" turned her hair red, as her hair is naturally red, neither had anyone needed to consciously attached red-hair on her scalp, nor anyone had to turn a deer's tail naturally white tail white. You cannot chicken a plate of rice to make it chickened rice or pineapple a pudding to make it pineappled pudding.

But, a problem has to be subjected to participatory efforts by people to know it, to make that a "known problem", or a person a "renowned person".

share|improve this answer
+1 Food for thought! I accept that "red-hair girl" has a claim to validity, but here's another consideration: The participatory quality you describe is not be the only reason to use the more familiar construction. "Red-haired" girl conventionally indicates that she possesses red hair, as opposed to her being a seller of red hair, a devotee of red hair, a collector of red hair, a person who talks about red hair incessantly... you see my point. – John M. Landsberg Mar 14 '13 at 2:13
To fix the typo in the above comment: "The participatory quality you describe is not the only reason to use the more familiar construction." – John M. Landsberg Mar 14 '13 at 6:50

Renowned. Definitely. As an example: "He has worldwide renown" as opposed to "He is renowned worldwide."

share|improve this answer

"Renowned" is the adjectival form, and "renown" is the noun form. "X is renown" is therefore an identification of X as being renown itself (just as "A cloud is water vapor" equates "cloud" and "water vapor")

You couldn't be saying that your company IS renown, because your company is a company; it is not A RENOWN.

The correct usage here is "renowned."

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.