0

What's the best way (for reader experience) to achieve the following? Let's say I am defining some kind of archetype, based on Eduardo Saverin (Facebook cofounder) ,and I call it an "Eduardo".

I want to repeatedly say:

  • Eduardos do xxy.
  • There are a lot of Eduardos in your company.
  • You'll encounter Eduardos every day.
  • Don't be an Eduardo.

"Eduardos" might be grammatically correct, but just is hard on the eyes. Eduardo's seems a little better but I think is grammatically incorrect.

I don't want a work-around, not right now. I am interested in opinions or experience with this kind of writing issue. It seems to be worse if the name ends in a vowel or if the name is uncommon. So if I used "Karen", then "Karens do xyz" is less awkward.

CJ Cornell
  • 224
  • Ugh right .. thanks .. I'll change this! – CJ Cornell Apr 28 '21 at 20:10
  • 6
    Apostrophes are for possesives. If you use them for plurals, it makes you look like you shouldn't be writing. – JRE Apr 29 '21 at 07:00
  • 1
    The best reader experience is to properly use the punctuation. – JRE Apr 29 '21 at 07:00
  • I get your point, and intellectually, I agree ... however ... from reader's perspective, experience ... "Eduardos" can be seen as a name (singular) ...

    so "you'll encounter Eduardos every day" (I mean you'll encounter many Eduardos - but it can be read as - you'll encounter this guy Eduardos, every day) then later Often Eduardos hate it when you don't respond right away" which, when read - seems grammatically incorrect (or awkward to the reader .. if they are reading Eduadros as a single person"

     – CJ Cornell Apr 29 '21 at 18:41
  • 4
    From a reader's point of view: Don't monkey around with the apostrophes. They have a specific meaning, and your proposal pokes holes in it and makes me have to stop and wonder just what you were thinking. I have to ask myself "Is this another author who doesn't know the rules for apostrophes, or did this author actually mean something when misusing the punctuation?"# – JRE Apr 29 '21 at 18:53
  • 4
    "Eduardos" isn't a name, as far as I know. It is the plural of "Eduardo." "Eduardo's" means that something belongs to a particular Eduardo. End of the discussion. – JRE Apr 29 '21 at 18:54
  • 2
    Your suggestion is "grammatically" incorrect and awkward to any English reader. – JRE Apr 29 '21 at 18:55
  • If the term isn't in widespread use, avoid it altogether. You can just about get away with "Don't be a Karen" but not this. – Comic Sans Seraphim May 04 '21 at 22:53
  • I seem to remember that Truss's answer, italicise and then add apostrophe-s to form plurals of words used as words, was upvoted last time. – Edwin Ashworth May 08 '21 at 18:41

3 Answers3

2

Courtesy of Lynn Miclea, Author

enter image description here

Hot Licks
  • 27,508
1

The reason it sounds odd is that your mind recognizes 'Eduardo' as a proper name, which it knows ought to be singular. If we switch to a class name that ends in a vowel — e.g. 'dingo' or 'alpaca' — the plural seems perfectly normal ('dingos', 'alpacas'). It is a little smoother with names that end in consonants, like 'Kens', 'Alberts', 'Sarahs'... You might be a little more comfortable using the 'potato' strategy: i.e., use 'Eduardoes' (adding an 'es', not an 's').

Ted Wrigley
  • 147
  • oh .. gee .. i think that is a little too erudite for my audience (who gets confused at "Eduardos" : ) – CJ Cornell May 03 '21 at 19:06
  • @CJCornell: Have you considered following the Latinate formula, using Salierii? Not sure if that helps... –  May 03 '21 at 14:51
  • Thanks for the helpful analogy.Actually, I am writing about "Salieri" (the antagonist in the movie Amadeus) - as a archetype. Thus sometimes have to refer to him as a "person" (Salieri is jealous) ... and sometimes as an archetype (Salieris often are not malicious) .. and while grammatically correct, t seems awkward. – CJ Cornell May 03 '21 at 14:37
  • @CJCornell In an academic paper, there is no reason for pluralize Salieri when you can use the singular to refer to the type: A Salieri is not often malicious. OR: The Salieri is not often malicious. – Lambie May 08 '21 at 19:43
  • @Lambie: That's good, thanks. – Ted Wrigley May 08 '21 at 19:53
  • No worries. I aim to please. At first, I couldn't understand what this whole thing was about then it hit me. Apples are good for you. Except a name is not an object.... – Lambie May 08 '21 at 19:57
-3

First of all, using a name to indicate an intentional stereotype often seems patronizing and unkind, and makes me suspect the validity of whatever the author has to say. It can work, but usually I think a different technique would be better But when I see it along with repeated mused of the greengrocer's apostrophe I simply dismiss the author as ignorant and not worth my time, and put the book or essay down, and probably never again read anything by the author. Don't do it!

David Siegel
  • 237