0

I need to explain to someone why it's grammatically incorrect to use "artifacts reduction" as opposed to "artifact reduction." Can anyone help with an explanation?

Laurel
  • 66,382
Bob
  • 1
  • A little more context might help. I think you are asking about why "reduction of artifacts" changes to "artifact reduction" -- when you invert the wording, you change from a plural noun to a singular form as an adjective. An experienced linguist should be able to define the terms better than I -- if that is indeed your question. – user8356 Dec 17 '20 at 14:20
  • 2
    If there are multiple artifacts involved(whether they're of similar type or not), then 'artifacts reduction' is also correct. – VKBoy Dec 17 '20 at 14:21
  • 5
    Does this answer your question? When are attributive nouns plural? The default situation is the use of the single-form noun (Boy Scouts not Boys Scouts, car lanes not cars lanes, donkey sanctuaries ...', though quite a few exceptions exist (systems analyst/s, dogs home/s, writers guild/s ...). Each pairing has to be examined to determine standard usage. Sometimes, there is an option. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 17 '20 at 14:48
  • 1
    But it's *not* "grammatically incorrect" to refer to *artifacts reduction!* It's just idiomatically less common. – FumbleFingers Dec 17 '20 at 15:22
  • 1
    Alternatively, one might say that it is grammatically incorrect, because an attributive noun is functioning as an adjective, and adjectives in English are not inflected for number. [There are always exceptions, as Cerberus's linked answer demonstrates, but that doesn't make the generality wrong.] – Andrew Leach Dec 17 '20 at 17:27

0 Answers0