Now, let us suppose that the brothers in "1" is a brother-in-law and also that all the brothers in "2" space brothers-in-law.
You are watching: Plural form of brother in law
Question is: how do we rewrite "1" and also "2" in these cases?
Following the J.R."s suggestion, I have actually done part preliminary researches and I discovered that once in-laws end up being possessive brothers-in-law is written brother-in-law"s. So, I would conclude the we should rewrite "1" and also "2" in the very same way, as follow.
i) mine brother-in-law"s friend"s opinions.
ii) my brother-in-law"s friend"s opinions.
But, if that is so, how can we distinguish the two various cases?
plural-forms apostrophe possessives
boost this question
edited Jul 25 "17 in ~ 14:00
11.5k1111 gold badges4242 silver- badges8080 bronze badges
request Mar 31 "13 in ~ 17:42
include a comment |
4 answers 4
energetic oldest Votes
So let"s start with the singular "brother-in-law", i m sorry is perfectly clear. If you have actually a single brother-in-law and he possesses something, this is written as:
My brother-in-law"s cooking skills are exckeolistravelservices.coment.
If you have more than one brother-in-law (no possession) you would certainly write:
My brothers-in-law space all brunettes.
This is due to the fact that when pluralizing a link noun, us always add the "s" to the many "important" word. The fact that they room brothers is most important, for this reason it gets the "s". This is the very same for "mothers-in-law", "fathers-in-law", etc.
If girlfriend have an ext than one brother-in-law and also they all own something:
My brothers-in-law"s restaurant is the ideal in town!
Confirmation of this final building and construction can be discovered at grammarbook.com:
If the compound noun is plural, form the plural very first and then use the apostrophe.
Example:my two brothers-in-law"s hats
boost this price
edited Jun 16 "20 in ~ 9:11
answer Mar 31 "13 in ~ 18:25
14.4k44 ykeolistravelservices.comow badges3939 silver badges6565 bronze badges
Wendi, i was puzzled by "The Cambridge guide to English Usage", which excludes the "brothers-in-law's" is correct. In reality in that publication it is claimed "But when in-laws become possessive, the creates are completely English: brother-in-law's, father-in-law's etc." (the mentioned develops are brothers-in-law, fathers-in-law etc.)
Mar 31 "13 in ~ 18:38
| show 4 much more comments
This conflict seems to count on a pair of published authorities (like the Cambridge Guide), but this building is so low frequency that many grammars donʼt have any type of information on it. Couple of native speakers ever need to usage it, for this reason intuitions are hard to access.
The comment so far ignore the reality that syntax is no "flat"; grammatical units are grouped into hierarchical units. The plural of nouns belongs to the simple category of the noun, yet the genitive/possessive belongs come the entire noun phrase, together proven by phrases choose "the queen the England"s crown" (not *the queen"s the England crown): in<
See more: How Many Baseballs Are Typically Used During A Major League Game
So the plural of "brother-in-law" (at least in the traditional language) is "brothers-in-law", due to the fact that the plural goes on the bare noun. The possessive can not be *brother"s-in-law; it needs to be "brother-in-law"s", and also that is what aboriginal speakers speak ("We visited my brother-in-law"s house").
By this logic, the many possessive have to be "brothers-in-law"s" (no matter what any kind of guide says!), however at the very least where i come from, the colloquial language resolves it as "brother-in-laws"". We have tendency not come non-standard plurals (e.g. Two brother-in-laws, two attorney generals). Allow the purists cringe, however it"s a more natural, "English" solution.
The reader of this write-up should decide who they to trust more--a pronouncement indigenous a guide on a low-frequency construction, or the intuitions that millions of indigenous speakers of English. What would certainly most civilization produce and/or comprehend?