My friend Paul Robichaux (noted O'Reilly author, Exchange MVP, and all-around good guy) was tagged in a Facebook post today in which the poster lamented that they “were missing a few tall Robichauxs.”

A plural that reflects pronunciation looks sensible and certainly less awkward than Robichauxes. Is it correct in this case?


1 Answer 1


Robichaux is already pluralised from its original French. I would treat it as plurale tantum (plural only) in recognition of its roots and so I would render it as "they were missing a few tall Robichaux".

  • 1
    Generally, we don't follow pluralization rules of other languages when we pluralize a loanword or proper name in English. Nov 27, 2015 at 18:22
  • I agree with Steven. I would pluralize it based on the spelling, which would be Robichauxes. (And I am not sure why the OP considers that awkward.)
    – JLG
    Nov 27, 2015 at 18:24
  • Like in this article about a couple with the last name Robichaux: blog.al.com/wire/2011/12/mississippi_supreme_court_over.html
    – JLG
    Nov 27, 2015 at 18:30
  • @StevenLittman Undoubtedly based on the 19th-century idea that, since English is the likely language of the Almighty, why bother making gestures to the lesser tongues!
    – WS2
    Nov 27, 2015 at 18:44
  • 2
    @StevenLittman Plateaux and Châteaux are both accepted plural forms in English.
    – efran
    Nov 27, 2015 at 23:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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