1

Could you please explain what rule do you use when you make "double" words like babysitter, headhunter, songwriter, calorie burner?

Why is the first word singular? Not babiessitter (If it means a person who sits with not only one, but with many babies)? Not songswriter? Something like body builder is singular because you have one body, but why are the others not plural?

You can change position and say "writer of songs", and now it is plural. It is because it would be harder to pronounce?

KillingTime
  • 6,206
maris
  • 11
  • 2
    If this is just about the plurality of such nouns, it's answered by When are attributive nouns plural? – Laurel Feb 08 '23 at 19:15
  • 3
    Generally speaking, nouns modifying other nouns can't be plural. That's why *shoes store is wrong, even though one always buys shoes in pairs. – John Lawler Feb 08 '23 at 19:24
  • 1
    I'm not sure that 'fieldsman', 'swordsman', 'batsman' even should be considered as [Npl + N] compound nouns. Though 'sportsman' looks a likelier candidate. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 08 '23 at 19:29
  • 1
    Note also that the rule about 'making up new words' is basically 'you can't'. Although nobody will object if you slip in the odd D-I-Y-ism in informal contexts (provided it can be clearly understood), a word needs currency too. Perhaps you are asking about the rules governing the morphology of existing [N + N] compound nouns? – Edwin Ashworth Feb 08 '23 at 19:38
  • The OED says fieldsman, swordsman, sportsman, etc, are derived from possessives, although as other questions say there are some compounds with a plural like singles bar and lice comb, and some which vary like pension(s) adviser. Whatever is easier and less ambiguous. – Stuart F Feb 08 '23 at 21:12
  • This is a hardy perennial from non-native speakers, who may be unaware of SE English Language Learners. The short answer is because the language is English, not French etc. – David Feb 08 '23 at 22:19
  • "Stuart F:Etymon agrees for 'swordsman' but avers that 'sportsman' comes from the plural form sports. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 09 '23 at 12:20

1 Answers1

1

It's because the first noun is in the function of an adjective. When a noun takes on the role of an adjective, it usually does so in its singular form.

Divizna
  • 561
  • "Function as" wrongly conflates mere parts of speech with actual syntactic functions (also called grammatical roles). But those two are not the same thing. These do not “function” as adjectives: they function as *modifiers.* "Adjective" not a syntactic function; "modifier" is. If they "functioned" as adjectives, they'd enjoy such adjectival properties as being modifiable by adverbs. But they cannot be; instead they are modifiable by adjectives. Why? Because they are nouns. Period. – tchrist Feb 09 '23 at 01:14