Are there any cases where the plural and singular form of an English compound word or noun phrase differ in the number of words contained?

In all cases I can think of, the actual words within the noun phrase will change based on the grammatical number, but the number of words will not.


  • large red car becomes large red cars in plural form. Both phrases have 3 words
  • this apple becomes these apples - 2 words in each form

Are there any cases where the number of words will be different?

Background: I'm writing an app that performs basic natural language processing and, if my hypothesis is true, I can simplify its implementation significantly.

  • 2
    If you're talking about orthographic words rather than lexemes, numbers will be an exception: one car ==> two hundred and seventy-one cars. Perhaps this is not a problem for you. Other quantifiers (a single example ==/==> *five single examples) don't behave nicely either. Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 9:42
  • In my case, I'm planning to restrict numbers to the symbols (i.e. 0-9), which I can treat as a single 'word', so I'm hoping to avoid the 'spelled-out' numbers issue. Many thanks for your reply and for highlighting the quantifier issue - that gives me something to look into. Thanks
    – Wheelie
    Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 9:56
  • There's the simple example: "a car" --> "cars". But it sounds like you already know about that, and can allow for it. Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 11:40
  • What about collective nouns? A sheep vs. A flock of sheep.
    – Julian
    Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 17:42
  • @Julian That's my line of thought too. We can disregard quantifiers and adjectives because they will always remain the same (I think!). What the question boils down to is - are there any single word, singular nouns which must be 2 or more words in the plural. A flock of sheep, unfortunately, can still be written as 'sheep' (plural).
    – Mynamite
    Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 22:47

2 Answers 2


The answer appears to be no, there aren't any such plurals. The comments section on the question have pointed out a few interesting cases but they don't apply to the specific requirements you were looking for:

numerical counts: one car => two hundred cars

article removal: a car => cars

collective nouns: a sheep => a flock of sheep

One additional exception would be adjectives that become invalidated when there are two:

a single wolf => two single wolves

But since your restriction appears to be of the form [0-9] [noun] I think you can escape these.

The only evidence I have to offer on my behalf is Wikipedia's article on plurals and their extensive irregularities section. Nothing I saw on the article had an example of what you were looking for.

If anyone happens to come across an example I am more than willing to update the answer. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that there are no such plurals -- and if there are they are extremely rare cases.


I'm not a native English-speaker, I'm Chinese. So My English is definately not as half good as yours. But Your question is so interesting that I would like to try to find some answer——

It took me some time to think of some words like vice-chairman, vice-champion...

As far as i know, the plural forms of these words with hyphen ought to be like "vice chairmen" and "vice champions", am I right? If so, there are some words in English with different number of words in plural/singular form.

  • 1
    No, sorry; it's vice-chairmen and vice-champions. A vice champion would be something quite different! (Because vice has a number of meanings.)
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Oct 18, 2013 at 7:00
  • Oh, I made a mistake. But, when and where did i I see "vice chairmen" and "vice presidents" then?
    – dennylv
    Commented Oct 18, 2013 at 8:33
  • 2
    It's acceptable not to hyphenate (although it's usual to do so). The thing is that plurals don't lose the hyphen.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Oct 18, 2013 at 8:37
  • @AndrewLeach It wouldn't mean anything, though, would it? Apart from the normal usage as 'substitute', vice isn't an adjective. So a vice champion wouldn't really mean anything. Or does it? Commented Oct 18, 2013 at 11:58
  • @mikhailcazi Nouns can be used attributively. Vice as a noun
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Oct 18, 2013 at 12:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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