2

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?

Improve this question
4

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

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".

Improve this answer
8
  • 1
    Generally, we don't follow pluralization rules of other languages when we pluralize a loanword or proper name in English.
    – Steven Littman
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented Nov 27, 2015 at 18:44
  • 2
    @StevenLittman Plateaux and Châteaux are both accepted plural forms in English.
    – efran
    Commented Nov 27, 2015 at 23:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .