What is the plural for Rolex...

[72offsuit]

Collective noun singular, therefore, Rolex. "I recently purchased an entire Rolex collection from an estate." "I drive a General Motors automobile."

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by minute_man

But all these brand names are actual words or consist of actually used English words.
Rolex doesn't belong to any language; it's made-up and as to how, there's only speculation as far as I know.

Not buying that! :)

Ray-Bans? Fantas? Cokes? Bacardis? Veluxes? Not to mention all the brands associated with proper nouns: Steinways, Rolls Royces, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by Lumberjact

Not buying that! :)

Ray-Bans? Fantas? Cokes? Bacardis? Veluxes? Not to mention all the brands associated with proper nouns: Steinways, Rolls Royces, etc.

louis vuittons, Citroëns etc...

[Gerardus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

1 Rolex, 2 Rolex, 3 Rolex, etc. etc.
You wouldn't say I have two Mercedeses

[motoikkyu]

Plural of "box" is "boxes"; plural of "ox" is "oxen". It's obviously Rolexen.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Lumberjact

I don't know. I think for many brands, the aspiration is to become a noun. Surely that's when a brand has reached such levels of recognition that one need only mention the brand for the meaning to be understood. I'm thinking Harley Davidson, Budweiser, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, and Mustang, for example. Contrast with HP or Dell, which are usually followed by the word 'laptop' etc. When the brand ceases to become an adjective need of the defining noun, a high level of brand value has been achieved. What company would not wish or intend to achieve this?

Good points there.

However, even HD uses their brand name in conjunction with the word motorcycles (Harley Davidson motorcycles)
The same should theoretically apply to everything that is a brand.

Now let us assume that these brands you are talking about have reached the level of brand recognition that the brand value has indeed achieved the dizzy heights of coveted legendary status as to become an icon in it's own right.
What happens then for example, if these legendary brands diversify and start making other products????

There is a need for context in order to maintain clarity in any form of communication.
Think about the person who has never heard of a Rolex, and doesn't know what one is talking about when we are trying to communicate to them what it is we are talking about.
Assume you then show them a Rolex then they will think that all wristwatches are a "Rolex" regardless of the brand. That's just all wrong.
That's the absolute litmus test of the correct terminology.
Without the context the information the language is trying to convey potentially becomes unclear.

The problem stems from the marketing machine.
It has blurred the line between reality and mistruths to the point we are actually debating the point on this basis.

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The problem stems from the marketing machine.

It has blurred the line between reality and mistruths to the point we are actually debating the point on this basis.

Couldn't agree more!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KrismanX]

This has generated much more conversation than I had expected! Thanks for all the input everyone!

From all the banter and the poll, I am starting to think it's simply more formal to say "Rolex watches," and use "Rolexes" as an informal. Cheers, gents!

[El Cascarrabias]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Here's a clue: they come in boxes.

Yep!

Originally Posted by 72offsuit

Collective noun singular, therefore, Rolex. "I recently purchased an entire Rolex collection from an estate." "I drive a General Motors automobile."

"I bought his entire Rolex collection, however, I only shower with two of my Rolexes."

[RastabanStar]

Originally Posted by Dirt

HD uses their brand name in conjunction with the word motorcycles (Harley Davidson motorcycles)
The same should theoretically apply to everything that is a brand.

No one controls language that way. It's an evolving phenomena.

Saying I've got two Harley's is a perfectly normal and correct comment. Same with two Rolexes.

[DCgator]

Best way to find out correct answer is to ask a Torneau sales person.😬

[DPE]

Wow, this makes you think the plural for Rolex and then what would you say if you had more 2 cars that were both Lexus

[HogwldFLTR]

I thought the plural of Rolex was Rol-excess.

[KrismanX]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

I thought the plural of Rolex was Rol-excess.

Hahaha Ba-Zing.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by RastabanStar

No one controls language that way. It's an evolving phenomena.

Saying I've got two Harley's is a perfectly normal and correct comment. Same with two Rolexes.

As this is a grammar thread (kind of), it should be pointed out that the above should read "phenomenon" and "Harleys".

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

As this is a grammar thread (kind of), it should be pointed out that the above should read "phenomenon" and "Harleys".

Why let grammar get in the way of discussing grammar.

Actually, much of grammar correctness has come about through modifications over time. For example "geese" evolved from "gooses;" so language is in a state of flux and changes as words get used more frequently. The plural of a less common mammal's name, "mongoose" is "mongooses" as opposed to "mongeese." Pronunciations chance as well, the sailing term for example "Leeward" is pronounced "Leward." The word Daisy is the result of a contraction of two English words, the possessive of "Day," "Day's" and the word "Eye." It was originally the "Day's Eye" and became "Daisy." "cheers"

[kunlun]

For the Greeks, it could be Rolekoi