A weird discussion with Wendy and Frank led to the question, how does one go about pluralize "Jack-in-the-box?" The following would have weird denotations, though they're what an online search brought up:
• Jacks-in-the-box (á la passersby ou coups-d'etat, though note: tête-à-têtes)
• Jack-in-the-boxes (one Jack in multiple boxes)
Which leaves us with "Jacks-in-the-boxes." Which sounds like it should be right.
Personally, I'd go with Jack-in-the-boxes, though I can't give you an irrefutable explanation of why. I'd argue that "Jack-in- the-box" is a phrase inseparable from what it describes; though hyphenated, it is, in effect, a single noun describing a single object. In this sense, though "Jack" is technically the subject, the truth is that "Jack-in-the-box" without "Jack" would be meaningless. Similarly, "tête-à-tête" defines a single act; if you remove the à tête," it just means "head."
ReplyDeleteLikewise "Jack-o'-lanterns" (not "Jacks-o'-lanterns,"), "hammer-and-sickles," "ladies-in-waiting" and "cat o nine tails," in which the plural is "cat o nine tails," sort of like the plural of "deer" is "deer," I guess. (Although in this case, I have to concede that in the times when one was used, it was frequently shortened to "cat," which would imply "cats o nine tails." My guess is that because "cat" has now lost that meaning, it makes no sense to make it plural.)
By comparison, a coup is a coup, with or without the d'etat, and "passerby" is, it can be argued, just one who passes; the "by" is extraneous.
It's an imperfect analogy, because it lacks the dashes (though it's certainly a self-contained phrase, identifying one object), but consider this: you'd never go into a supermarket and say "Please give me three "We can't believe it's butters!"