0

I've met a "drinks cans" compound noun on this webpage.

See how food and drinks cans get recycled

As I know, there is a specific rule for the plural compound nouns that are made of two nouns. In this case the second noun takes an -s form and the first one acts like an adjective, so it cannot have the plural form. "Drinks cans" is not a typo, it is also pronounced this way in the video, so how can it be correct?

S Conroy
  • 6,089
  • 1
  • 14
  • 35
Vlad Klochkov
  • 1
  • 1
    It's not common that the first noun is plural, but it's not true that it cannot take a plural form. I drove my *sports car. The two countries were engaged in an* *arms race*. – Jason Bassford Jun 12 '19 at 20:06
  • 2
    Welcome to EL&U. I believe you will find the answer in Singular/plural Nouns as Adjectives, or in the similar question at our sister site for [ELL.SE], Plural or singular noun adjunct? – choster Jun 12 '19 at 20:13
  • 2
    The short answer is that it is not a "specific rule" so much as a common pattern. Sometimes a plural adjunct can be attributed to the plural being more familiar in independent use (e.g. veterans affairs, human rights attorney), yet we have pharmaceutical reps and playoff brackets, not to mention somehow event planner and events manager. Ultimately, it is convention which dictates when to use a singular or plural adjunct, and I'll add that in the U.S., drinks can would be quite unconventional and markedly "foreign"-sounding. – choster Jun 12 '19 at 20:31
  • @choster I’d consider drinks can quite odd too, but mainly because drinks don’t usually come in cans, so I’m left scratching my head as to what on earth a drinks can *is*. A drinks party would be natural enough. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 12 '19 at 22:46
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet I think most Leftpondians today would simply say aluminum can, in contrast to tin can (which is actually steel). Beverage can would be more natural than drink can. I'd prefer beer can or soda can (which are conventionally alumin[i]um) for parallelism with beer bottle or soda/pop bottle (conventionally glass), soup can or bean can (conventionally steel) and milk carton or egg carton (conventionally paper). – choster Jun 12 '19 at 23:17
  • @choster On this side of the pond, however, it's quite normal after a family party where only some people were drinking alcohol for the recycling box to be full of drinks cans. – BoldBen Jun 13 '19 at 05:40
  • @JanusBahsJacquet What do you call these? https://www.shutterstock.com/search/coke+can – Kate Bunting Jun 13 '19 at 08:52
  • 1
    @Kate I’d call those soda cans, alumin(i)um cans, Coke cans, etc. I might not react if I heard them referred to as drinks cans (perhaps it only struck me as odd here because I actively thought about it), but I doubt I’d call them that myself. It’s specifically the plural form drinks that makes it odd to me, since that makes it sound like a ‘cocktail can’, and cocktails rarely come in cans; a ‘drink can’ would make more sense logically, but it does sound rather clumsy. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 13 '19 at 08:58
  • It's not a compound noun, but a syntactic construction with "can" as head and "drinks" as modifier (or possibly complement). "Drinks can" here simply means a can that can contain drinks of whatever kind. – BillJ Jun 13 '19 at 10:55
  • @JanusBahsJacquet The first link provided by choster above gives the example 'a soft drinks manufacturer' where 'drinks' is plural to indicate variety. In the UK a 'drinks can' implies 'the type of can used for single servings of beer, cider or carbonated soft drinks'. – Kate Bunting Jun 13 '19 at 10:58
  • drinks cans is typical BrE usage. They also say things like: drugs imports (as in illegal drugs) where AmE says: drug imports. I can't think of other examples right this minute but I'm sure Kate Bunting can. :). Come on you BrE speakers, please post additional example like these. – Lambie Jun 23 '19 at 15:24
  • Drink can without the 's' could be ambiguous in the sense of meaning a can you can drink from (parallel to a tin can or a steel can where the adjective is a feature of the can itself rather than what is in it). I think the 's' is helpful in that sense. – S Conroy Jun 23 '19 at 15:25
  • American speakers have adjectivized nouns where British speakers have not. Another one is: drugs lords where AmE speakers say: drug lords. I cannot believe I am the only one who knows this fact here. Even if you don't live in the UK, you can hear this usage all the time on the BBC. – Lambie Jun 23 '19 at 15:48
  • I can't think of a way to specify the premodifier + head here in Google searches. I'm fairly sure that 'drink bottles' fares better against 'drinks bottles' than 'drink cans' does against 'drinks cans' here in the UK, almost certainly because of @Janus's clumsy reasoning. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 23 '19 at 15:53
  • @Lambie There is an ongoing debate (already mentioned on ELU, I think with the test-case steel bridge) about exactly when an attributive noun should be considered to have become fully adjectivised. Just using the singular form where others use the plural form is not a definitive test. The case of fun (now with the comparative and superlative considered lexical) is an easier one. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 23 '19 at 15:56
  • Who cares about "fully adjectivized"? It is a fact that Brits say and write: drugs lords, drinks cans, drugs imports and the like. steel bridge or steel anything is a separate case altogether. steel is both a noun and an adjective, like glass or rubber or whatever. No one even bothered to point out these basic usage facts until I did. it's kind of surprising but it happens a lot around here. – Lambie Jun 23 '19 at 16:05

0 Answers0