4 ms·

I have some very fond memories of my iPods Nano (is that really how we have to say it?). Farewell, old friend.

freehunter 9y ago
>(is that really how we have to say it?) I can't imagine why. Most formally it would be "iPod Nano devices", but most people would say "iPod Nanos". You only pluralize the words that there are actually multiple of. You may talk about a Member of Parliament, but you wouldn't have Member of Parliaments because you're not talking about multiple Parliaments. You're talking about multiple members and a singular Parliament, so it's Members of Parliament. Your city has a Chamber of Commerce, but your state has many Chambers of Commerce. But with the iPod Nano, it's not multiple iPods and a singular Nano. It's multiple "iPod Nano" devices. So you'd just say "iPod Nanos".
- currymj 9y ago
  if Nano is an adjective though then it might be like the classic "Attorney General"/"Attorneys General".
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Nano is part of a brand name, not an adjective: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
- robmass94 9y ago
  I think a better example would be "Attorneys General." Edit: Beaten to the punch!
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  The Whopper Jr. would like to have a word with you. I did have multiple iPods because the iPod is the name of the device and the "Nano" piece is a descriptive adjective of which iPod it is.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    If you had multiple iPods including the Nano, you would say "multiple iPods including the Nano". iPod is the brand name, Nano is the model. You can have multiple iPods and multiple iPod Nanos but multiple iPods Nano is, at best, heavily archaic use of the language. I've owned two Corolla cars in my life. It doesn't make sense for me to say "I've owned two Toyotas Corolla", does it? If I cloned this site, would I say "there are two Hackers News"?
    - dkonofalski 9y ago
      No... Apple is the brand name, iPod is the product, and Nano is the descriptor for which model of iPod. As mentioned in my last reply, it's not 2 Whopper Jr.'s, it's 2 Whoppers Jr. Since Nano is an adjective, you pluralize the noun which, in this case, is iPod.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        So I should be saying "Macbooks Pro", "Surfaces RT", or "iPads Pro". If I have a Toyota Corolla S and then bought another, it should be "I have two Toyota Corollas S". Would I also have multiple "Telsa Models S"? Or you can end the ridiculous destruction of the English language and realize that "Nano" isn't really an adjective in this case, but rather "iPod Nano" is the entire noun and is pluralized as such. "Red iPods" has a noun and an adjective and the noun is pluralized. If you dropped the word "iPod" from the statement you'd still have a valid sentence "I have two Nano..." what? "Two Nanos", or "Two Nano", since Nano is an adjective and can't be pluralized? You asked "is that really how we have to say it?" and the answer is no. That is decidedly not how you have to say it. It may be how you choose to say it, but you don't have to, and most people would find it very odd phrasing indeed. If you ask Apple, brand names cannot be pluralized, so their recommendation is "iPod Nano mobile digital devices": https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/... I do want to point out that no matter what Burger King says, The Onion has an article specifically mocking that line of thinking: http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers-junior-3351 http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two-wh...
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Since I can no longer edit my previous post, I'm gonna add another one here. Your premise is false because your examples ("Member of Parliament") are using a preposition. iPod Nano doesn't include a preposition... just a noun or an adjective. The only reason your examples work is because the noun is still being pluralized and the preposition stays the same. The object of the preposition is not the main noun in the sentence or term so it doesn't make sense to pluralize it.
amdavidson 9y ago
Apple prefers that the device names never be pluralized[0] 0: https://twitter.com/pschiller/status/725791354769399808 https://twitter.com/pschiller/status/725791354769399808
dragonwriter 9y ago
I wouldn't say “have to”, but it would fit the pattern of compound (proper and otherwise) nouns formed of a simple noun followed by an adjective, such as “Postmaster General" (pluralized as “Postmasters General”.)

>(is that really how we have to say it?) I can't imagine why. Most formally it would be "iPod Nano devices", but most people would say "iPod Nanos". You only pluralize the words that there are actually multiple of. You may talk about a Member of Parliament, but you wouldn't have Member of Parliaments because you're not talking about multiple Parliaments. You're talking about multiple members and a singular Parliament, so it's Members of Parliament. Your city has a Chamber of Commerce, but your state has many Chambers of Commerce. But with the iPod Nano, it's not multiple iPods and a singular Nano. It's multiple "iPod Nano" devices. So you'd just say "iPod Nanos".

currymj 9y ago
if Nano is an adjective though then it might be like the classic "Attorney General"/"Attorneys General".
- freehunter 9y ago
  Nano is part of a brand name, not an adjective: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
robmass94 9y ago
I think a better example would be "Attorneys General." Edit: Beaten to the punch!
dkonofalski 9y ago
The Whopper Jr. would like to have a word with you. I did have multiple iPods because the iPod is the name of the device and the "Nano" piece is a descriptive adjective of which iPod it is.
- freehunter 9y ago
  If you had multiple iPods including the Nano, you would say "multiple iPods including the Nano". iPod is the brand name, Nano is the model. You can have multiple iPods and multiple iPod Nanos but multiple iPods Nano is, at best, heavily archaic use of the language. I've owned two Corolla cars in my life. It doesn't make sense for me to say "I've owned two Toyotas Corolla", does it? If I cloned this site, would I say "there are two Hackers News"?
  - dkonofalski 9y ago
    No... Apple is the brand name, iPod is the product, and Nano is the descriptor for which model of iPod. As mentioned in my last reply, it's not 2 Whopper Jr.'s, it's 2 Whoppers Jr. Since Nano is an adjective, you pluralize the noun which, in this case, is iPod.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      So I should be saying "Macbooks Pro", "Surfaces RT", or "iPads Pro". If I have a Toyota Corolla S and then bought another, it should be "I have two Toyota Corollas S". Would I also have multiple "Telsa Models S"? Or you can end the ridiculous destruction of the English language and realize that "Nano" isn't really an adjective in this case, but rather "iPod Nano" is the entire noun and is pluralized as such. "Red iPods" has a noun and an adjective and the noun is pluralized. If you dropped the word "iPod" from the statement you'd still have a valid sentence "I have two Nano..." what? "Two Nanos", or "Two Nano", since Nano is an adjective and can't be pluralized? You asked "is that really how we have to say it?" and the answer is no. That is decidedly not how you have to say it. It may be how you choose to say it, but you don't have to, and most people would find it very odd phrasing indeed. If you ask Apple, brand names cannot be pluralized, so their recommendation is "iPod Nano mobile digital devices": https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/... I do want to point out that no matter what Burger King says, The Onion has an article specifically mocking that line of thinking: http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers-junior-3351 http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two-wh...
dkonofalski 9y ago
Since I can no longer edit my previous post, I'm gonna add another one here. Your premise is false because your examples ("Member of Parliament") are using a preposition. iPod Nano doesn't include a preposition... just a noun or an adjective. The only reason your examples work is because the noun is still being pluralized and the preposition stays the same. The object of the preposition is not the main noun in the sentence or term so it doesn't make sense to pluralize it.

amdavidson 9y ago

Apple prefers that the device names never be pluralized[0] 0: https://twitter.com/pschiller/status/725791354769399808 https://twitter.com/pschiller/status/725791354769399808

dragonwriter 9y ago

I wouldn't say “have to”, but it would fit the pattern of compound (proper and otherwise) nouns formed of a simple noun followed by an adjective, such as “Postmaster General" (pluralized as “Postmasters General”.)