What is the plural of Rolex?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I would draw a distinction between grammar and usage. Grammar governs inflection*, not usage

Perhaps in America, that is the case () but generally speaking, in linguistics, “grammar (from Greek: γραμματική) is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language”

Much more than just inflection.

Agreed, as a common (or even concrete) noun, the plural of the word rolex would be rolexes, however the op’s question was “what is the plural of Rolex”

In that context, Rolex (note the capitalisation) is a proper noun (not a common or concrete noun) and as such has no plural, as the proper noun “Rolex” is not the watch on your wrist but specifically the company that manufactures it. The trade mark referent is actually somewhat of a red herring.

(I think )

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by brandrea

So there’s no wrong answer

There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as, and, but, or so.


So there you go.

Ding,ding....seconds out. Round 2!

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I would draw a distinction between grammar and usage. Grammar governs inflection*, not usage. It is grammatically correct to say "Rolexes," just as it is grammatically correct to say foxes, but not correct to say fox's, foxi, or foxices. Likewise, if the Maddox family were your neighbors, you might say to your wife, "I'm going to go ask the Maddoxes if I can borrow a cup of sugar." "Rolexes" conforms to the rules of grammar regarding the pluralization of proper names, and of words ending in -ex (or -ox, as the case may be). The same goes for "Omegas."

Use of "Rolexes" is technically not correct according to the strict application of the rule regarding the use of a trademarked name in a formal situation, such as an academic paper, news article, legal document, or anywhere else strict observance of the rule would be appropriate. However, this is not a grammatical rule, but a rule of proper usage. As I have said for the umpteenth time now, informal situations may not call for such strict application of the rule, and in some situations, the writer may deliberately wish to be less formal for reasons of style or tone, but would still want to follow general rules of grammar. In such a situation, "Rolexes" would be perfectly acceptable. Please see the Bond novel hypothetical in my previous post.


*Inflection: "the change of form that words undergo to mark such distinctions as those of case, gender, number, tense, person, mood, or voice"

I don't know where you're from, but I'm with you every step of the way in this argument.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as, and, but, or so.


So there you go.

Ding,ding....seconds out. Round 2!

Touche my friend

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Touche my friend

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

If you are Canadian, you ought to know,....it's touché.

[77T]

There is but one Rolex.
Just as there is but one IBM, Ford, etc.

As someone said, Rolex watches would be the plural for what we commonly discuss.

But...if you were talking about people with the surname “Rolex” (are there any?)...

When a family name ends in x or z, the plural utilizes “-es”, as in the Rolexes, or the Rodriguezes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by jerryhum

jokes aside, i think this is correct and this is what Rolex considers proper. Rolex is a singular proper noun. Rolex is the name of a company that makes Rolex watches. There are no "Rolexes."



But for fun, I like "Rolices" b/c Index --> Indices.

Rolices is Excellent !

[Brew]

Hypothetical question.

I'm in a hurry to get to dinner. My DJ and my SMP are on the nightstand, both ticking, ready to go. I grab the Rolex and go.

Is this incorrect usage?

[3581512]

I say Rolexes

[Rags]

Ok is Rolexes acceptable or not?

[Beelzy]

It's Roli.


Lol!

[Chilly Coconut]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Perhaps in America, that is the case () but generally speaking, in linguistics, “grammar (from Greek: γραμματική) is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language”

Much more than just inflection.

Agreed, as a common (or even concrete) noun, the plural of the word rolex would be rolexes, however the op’s question was “what is the plural of Rolex”

In that context, Rolex (note the capitalisation) is a proper noun (not a common or concrete noun) and as such has no plural, as the proper noun “Rolex” is not the watch on your wrist but specifically the company that manufactures it. The trade mark referent is actually somewhat of a red herring.

(I think )

Under this line of reasoning, it would be incorrect for all of us on this Forum to call the watch that is currently strapped to our wrist “a Rolex”. However, if you make the allowance that it’s ok to call it a Rolex (rather than a Rolex watch), then it would also be ok (proper, even) to call the plural of those watches, Rolexes.

Said another way, if Rolexes is incorrect, then calling a watch a Rolex is also incorrect......based on your argument above. In that case, it would also be incorrect to call a Ford automobile “a Ford”.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Rags

Ok is Rolexes acceptable or not?

Strictly speaking. No.

It would seem that Rolexes may be acceptable in a less formal context for the normalized consumption of the prolitariate.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chilly Coconut

Under this line of reasoning, it would be incorrect for all of us on this Forum to call the watch that is currently strapped to our wrist “a Rolex”. However, if you make the allowance that it’s ok to call it a Rolex (rather than a Rolex watch), then it would also be ok (proper, even) to call the plural of those watches, Rolexes.

Said another way, if Rolexes is incorrect, then calling a watch a Rolex is also incorrect......based on your argument above. In that case, it would also be incorrect to call a Ford automobile “a Ford”.

The reasoning is completely sound and can be argued with authority.

This is why I refer to any Rolex watch that I may be discussing by the model/reference number or by it's name whether it be an abbreviation or nick name.
For example I will refer to them as any one of the following which we have in our household. DSSD or D-blue or DJ31.
The Omega watches around here are either the Co-axial Railmaster and or Speedy Pro because the Omega reference numbering system is too complex.
The Seiko diver watch is the SKX 173.
The GS is the SBGW 253.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Agreed, as a common (or even concrete) noun, the plural of the word rolex would be rolexes...

I'm not sure what your point is here, unless you're setting up a straw man. I'm not arguing about the pluralization of "rolex" [sic] as a common noun. Indeed, Rolex is inherently a proper noun, and would never be treated as a common noun; nor would it ever be correct not to capitalize it. This seems to me to be a superfluous point, and a distraction from what we're actually discussing.

Originally Posted by Devildog

In that context, Rolex (note the capitalisation) is a proper noun (not a common or concrete noun) and as such has no plural, as the proper noun “Rolex” is not the watch on your wrist but specifically the company that manufactures it. The trade mark referent is actually somewhat of a red herring.

You have conflated two separate arguments here: (1) proper nouns have no plural; (2) Rolex only refers to the company, not the watches produced by the company. Let's dispose of point (1) first, since that's easy. To say that proper nouns can have no plural is absurdly wrong, as anyone halfway conversant in the rules of grammar knows without being told. Proper nouns are pluralized all the time: family names (Smiths, Joneses); nationalities (Germans, Brazilians); geographical regions (the Americas); etc. A few seconds on Google will bring up ample references on this point.

Disposing of point (2) is equally easy. We use brand names to refer to products every day: I wear a Rolex. I drive a Mercedes. Even Rolex (the company) does it.



Moving on. Far from being a red herring, the trademark rule is the only one I can think of that says Rolex should not be altered per number. I stand on my position that the rule - while certainly something that should be taken into consideration when writing in formal contexts - is one that writers have license to disregard, depending on the context in which they wish to use the name they want to pluralize.

Put another way: OP's question is, "What is the plural of Rolex?" If you stand on the trademark rule, then the answer is, "There is no plural of the name Rolex." If one attempts to provide an actual plural inflection of the name, according to the rules of grammar, then the answer is "The plural of Rolex is Rolexes."

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to drag off the carcass of this dead horse we've beaten senseless.

[Chilly Coconut]

^Well put. I agree.

[imgook]

Rollie rollie rollie

That's for if you have 3.

[Chilly Coconut]

Originally Posted by imgook

Rollie rollie rollie

With a dab of ranch?

[Rashid.bk]

At Basel presentations regarding Rolex, they always use Rolex, or Rolex watches for plural.
However, this is the pc era where everyone needs to be accommodated so...
All my Rolex happen to be divers...
All my Rolex watches happen to be divers..
All my Rolexes happen to be divers..
This is TRF where people put leather natos on pm watches and people say, it's your watch, as long as you like it.

I happen to take my guidance from the brand itself. I have not ever seen any Rolex literature where they use Rolexes. I'm led to believe if you were to do a presentation or event in direct coordination with Rolex, they would require you to use Rolex or Rolex watches for plural. Whether that has to do with trademark or not, it's the term they use. So with that I believe the correct usage is..
All my Rolex happen to be divers.
But it's your watch, call it what you like. I have no issues as no crime or harm is being done. Same if you want to wear pink socks and a thug life t-shirt to a formal dinner with Warren Buffet at the white house. How you look and represent yourself is completely up to you. I'll be in a suit and tie.

I think once upon a time I used Rolexes but it seemed odd and concluded based on a bit of research that Rolex is correct. People call the 116610LV the hulk and the BLNR - batman, then pepsi and smurf....Rolexes is kind of the same for me.

I'll caveat the whole thing by saying, you guys take this way too serious, it's just a watch...what really is more serious is how you say Sub-mah-rin-er vs those weird people that say Sub-mareen-er. Now that's a serious issue.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'm not sure what your point is here, unless you're setting up a straw man. I'm not arguing about the pluralization of "rolex" [sic] as a common noun. Indeed, Rolex is inherently a proper noun, and would never be treated as a common noun; nor would it ever be correct not to capitalize it. This seems to me to be a superfluous point, and a distraction from what we're actually discussing.



You have conflated two separate arguments here: (1) proper nouns have no plural; (2) Rolex only refers to the company, not the watches produced by the company. Let's dispose of point (1) first, since that's easy. To say that proper nouns can have no plural is absurdly wrong, as anyone halfway conversant in the rules of grammar knows without being told. Proper nouns are pluralized all the time: family names (Smiths, Joneses); nationalities (Germans, Brazilians); geographical regions (the Americas); etc. A few seconds on Google will bring up ample references on this point.

Disposing of point (2) is equally easy. We use brand names to refer to products every day: I wear a Rolex. I drive a Mercedes. Even Rolex (the company) does it.



Moving on. Far from being a red herring, the trademark rule is the only one I can think of that says Rolex should not be altered per number. I stand on my position that the rule - while certainly something that should be taken into consideration when writing in formal contexts - is one that writers have license to disregard, depending on the context in which they wish to use the name they want to pluralize.

Put another way: OP's question is, "What is the plural of Rolex?" If you stand on the trademark rule, then the answer is, "There is no plural of the name Rolex." If one attempts to provide an actual plural inflection of the name, according to the rules of grammar, then the answer is "The plural of Rolex is Rolexes."

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to drag off the carcass of this dead horse we've beaten senseless.

The adverts are incorrect, technically.

However I agree with your last two points. Particularly the last one

[Andad]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Indeed. I'm not kidding when I say I've considered more than once stopping my attendance of this forum due to the horrible writing, as well as lack of comprehension and diligence in reading that is so common here. Some might call me a snob, but it really is painful sometimes. It's bad enough I have to deal with this from my students.

I agree with you.

I remember reading one of your posts where you stated.

I'm not looking to by an in-demand Rolex any time soon,

I also thought about throwing in the towel about then.

Please reconsider your decision?

[RolexFan007]

Rolexes maybe

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

If you are Canadian, you ought to know,....it's touché.

I do but I don’t know how to write an accent aigu on my smart phone

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Devildog

The adverts are incorrect, technically.

However I agree with your last two points. Particularly the last one

Quite while your ahead Scott

[avega357]

Rolexi


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rolex fan 61]

Expensive!

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by tseiff

My ex is a b....
My exes are b....

Cqfd

You too, huh?i feel your pain

[bigfatpauli]

Rolex Watches. There is no plural of 'Rolex' as it a name.

[tseiff]

Originally Posted by arcadelt

Interesting. So you couldn’t say "in the room were three Peters, four Johns, two Cheryls and one Sarah"?

We used the rule from another language (French). And in English that doesn’t apply ... so Peters they are etc...

[s.m.b.]

Rolex watches or Rolexes.