points of view/point of views

[francescaf]

Hello!
Can you please tell me which plural form of point of view is correct? Or are they both used?

This is my sentence: ... children get to consider very different point of views/points of view.

thanks!

 

[tepatria]

Points of view is correct here.

 

[panjandrum]

Points of view.
I've not seen points of views ... until I Googled and goodness me there are thousands of them

 

[francescaf]

I see. So the correct version is points of view.
See, I thought "point of view" had become a noun as a whole, as if it was written point-of-view, and the "s" therefore belonged at the end. But that's not the case, then.

 

[panjandrum]

English has lots of composite nouns like this that are apparently "nouns as a whole" (not noun as a wholes ) I'm struggling to think of an example in which the s doesn't go on the noun.

 

[GreenWhiteBlue]

Even with hyphenated "nouns as a whole", the s still goes on the noun, as Panj noted. For example, the plural of mother-in-law is mothers-in-law.

 

[panjandrum]

Thanks, GWB, for that assurance. I can stop struggling to think of an example.
You have, unfortunately, rather spoilt that cheery thought by introducing the concept of plural mothers-in-law.

 

[Teafrog]

I wasn't too sure about all this, so checked it out there. It seems that's one point, two points, etc - and they're all of one view: how differently you see it (whatever 'it' is) depends on which point of view you look at it from. The thing that seems to change is the perspective, e.g. the point.
Point of view(s) might therefore be something like a panoramic viewpoint, where you stand in one place (1 point) and view one or several views

 

[ewie]

Points of view.
I've not seen points of views ... until I Googled and goodness me there are thousands of them

 

[francescaf]

Thank you everyone for the great explanations!
And thank you Teafrog for a very useful link!

 

[Haylette]

I don't know how relevant this is, but know a fair few native English speakers who say "cup of teas" instead of "cups of tea". To me it sounds awful but, like "point of views", it must be used quite a bit.

 

[ewie]

I don't know how relevant this is, but know a fair few native English speakers who say "cup of teas" instead of "cups of tea". To me it sounds awful but, like "point of views", it must be used quite a bit.

I agree, Haylette. In rapid speech you're perhaps more likely to hear point of views than points of view ~ the tongue going faster than the brain. The brain (this is a theory) regards point of view (or cup of tea) as a single noun, and therefore 'computes' the plural to be 'add -s', before the 'intellect' remembers you need to add the -s in the middle, not at the end

 

[Joannes]

Thanks, GWB, for that assurance. I can stop struggling to think of an example.
You have, unfortunately, rather spoilt that cheery thought by introducing the concept of plural mothers-in-law.

I think you would find plurals like attorney generals and court martials, though -- in speech probably more often than in writing.

Compounds with man or woman in the first component are doubly marked: gentlemen farmers, women doctors, etc.

 

[Teafrog]

I don't know how relevant this is, but know a fair few native English speakers who say "cup of teas" instead of "cups of tea". To me it sounds awful but, like "point of views", it must be used quite a bit.

Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, imo.

I agree, Haylette. In rapid speech you're perhaps more likely to hear point of views than points of view ~ the tongue going faster than the brain. The brain (this is a theory) regards point of view (or cup of tea) as a single noun, and therefore 'computes' the plural to be 'add -s', before the 'intellect' remembers you need to add the -s in the middle, not at the end

I understand what you're saying, however I wouldn't call it 'rapid speech' but 'diluted speech' . If people want to keep dumbing down (butchering?) a language, that's one thing, and fine to recognise it. Copying it because it is becoming the norm is entirely a different thing. See my notes below…

I think you would find plurals like attorney generals and court martials, though -- in speech probably more often than in writing.

Compounds with man or woman in the first component are doubly marked: gentlemen farmers, women doctors, etc.

Some 'informal' pluralising of compound words are becoming part of regular speech after a few decade of use, so who knows where all this is leading to. Court Martials is one of them, now "courts martial" is being seen as formal (one day we might even have "martials art" ).

 

[ewie]

Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, imo.

I understand what you're saying, however I wouldn't call it 'rapid speech' but 'diluted speech' . If people want to keep dumbing down (butchering?) a language, that's one thing, and fine to recognise it. Copying it because it is becoming the norm is entirely a different thing. See my notes below…

Some 'informal' pluralising of compound words are becoming part of regular speech after a few decade of use, so who knows where all this is leading to. Court Martials is one of them, now "courts martial" is being seen as formal (one day we might even have "martials art" ).

I was, of course, not recommending that FrancescaF or anyone else copy this usage, merely that they be aware of it.
Teafrog, I stand by 'rapid speech' and beg to make this observation (at the risk of wandering away from the topic altogether): in the Middle English period, when the standard plural modifier -en (as in the 'surviving' children, oxen) was being almost universally replaced by -s, I dare say there were people then who referred to this as 'butchery'. Languages evolve ... that is part of their beauty.
Finally: though I admire the 'logic' and the 'sense' of points of view, courts martial, mothers-in-law, I do however feel that there is something 'unnatural' and 'awkward' about having the pluralizer in the middle of the 'word', and (neck on block moment) can foresee a time when they become entirely obsolete

 

[panjandrum]

Still on the theme of plurals of these compound nouns, I was looking in the OED at the various examples given for mother-in-law, with and without hyphens. Some of the earliest examples, without hyphens, add s to mother and to law - mothers in laws.
The other curious thought is that although the plural is mothers-in-law the possessive is mother-in-law's.

 

[nichec]

Still on the theme of plurals of these compound nouns, I was looking in the OED at the various examples given for mother-in-law, with and without hyphens. Some of the earliest examples, without hyphens, add s to mother and to law - mothers in laws.
The other curious thought is that although the plural is mothers-in-law the possessive is mother-in-law's.

My points of view:

When you have more than one mother-in-law, you have more than one mother, but not more than one law. (if you are in the same country, perhaps)

Surely you have many points in your view, but you can have many views too, I think.

So, I would say "mothers-in-law's points of view", I guess.

 

[Teafrog]

I was, of course, not recommending that FrancescaF or anyone else copy this usage, merely that they be aware of it.
Teafrog, I stand by 'rapid speech' and beg to make this observation (at the risk of wandering away from the topic altogether): in the Middle English period, when the standard plural modifier -en (as in the 'surviving' children, oxen) was being almost universally replaced by -s, I dare say there were people then who referred to this as 'butchery'. Languages evolve ... that is part of their beauty.
Finally: though I admire the 'logic' and the 'sense' of points of view, courts martial, mothers-in-law, I do however feel that there is something 'unnatural' and 'awkward' about having the pluralizer in the middle of the 'word', and (neck on block moment) can foresee a time when they become entirely obsolete

Point taken, ewie, you have argued your case very well with all your points of view . Time marches on, indeed , and … I stand by 'diluted speech' (different views on same subject…).

 

[Joannes]

The other curious thought is that although the plural is mothers-in-law the possessive is mother-in-law's.

Which is why English doesn't have a genitive in the 'case' sense of the word. But that's off topic.

 

[macforever]

I've just found this sentence, taken from a chapter called Opening doors to diversity:
"When a community is diverse there is the presence of different points of views and ways of making meaning which flow from the variety within it."
That "s", in my opinion, is wrong.