This is going to keep me up all night

[conuly]

What is the plural of Spider-Man (and likewise Batman and Superman)?

Comments

[crystalpyramid]

Is there a reason it's not just Spider-Men (Batmen, Supermen)?

[mc776]

I can't think of one either.

[conuly]

Because they refer to people. Shouldn't that mean regularizing the plural?

[mc776]

...no?

I can't think of any basis in any English grammar or stylebook for such a rule that words referring to persons, proper noun or otherwise, must be made weak nouns.

[conuly]

It just sounds wrong to (ir)regularize it. Like there are whole groups of bat people (who share few if any similarities with Batman) rather than copycats or what have you.

[ysobel]

There can be only one!

(Names wouldn't be subject to irregular plural of their component parts, so *Men rubs me wrong, but I can't decide between *Mans -- like how Mr. Tom Wolf and his two sons would be Wolfs and not Wolves -- or *Man -- like how one deer plus one deer equals two deer.)

[adrian_turtle]

In some of the older comics, he was referred to as "the Bat-Man." The plural of that is "Batmen," whether the article and hyphen are expressed or implied. But in recent decades, his name has been "Batman." In that case, it would be "Batmans." But I agree that there can be only one...arguably several Robins, but only one Batman.

[conuly]

What about in Batman Beyond?

[janewilliams20]

Depends on whether you see those words as names or as titles, and that depends on context.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

In its older, military use, batmen. So I say we use that for the caped crusaders too.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

'Batman', 'Superman' and 'Spider-Man' are proper nouns; hence the capitalization. They're the unique (and heavily-copyrighted) titles of unique individuals. Therefore, if you're talking about robot Batmans, alternate-dimension Supermans or a dozen Spider-Mans at the comic con, you're talking about copies or duplicates of the sole original.

On the other hand, there could be swarms of spider-men who do not go web-slinging around the city in red and blue hoodie pajamas, or even green and purple hoodie pajamas of similar design. There could be battalions of super-men who don't have Kryptonian super-powers... although I think they might hesitate to call themselves super-men if they didn't, because people would always be asking if they could leap tall buildings, etc. or else singing 'Heil, Heil, Right In Der Fuhrer's Face' at them as they passed. And there could hypothetically be whole caves full of bat-men, bat-women, bat-boys and bat-girls.

Hell, since this IS the comics we're discussing, there could be bat-dogs, bat-cats, bat-snakes, bat-echidnas.... the laws of Science hold no sway in either the Marvel or the DC Universes, so one can stick any sort of wings on any creature and they'll work just fine. One could even stick them on Bruce Wayne, and then he'd be a bat-man, BUT he'd have a very hard time trying to be the Batman with them, because they wouldn't fit into either his costume or the Batmobile. Without the costume and the Batmobile and all, Bruce Wayne isn't the Batman - on the other hand, even with all the Bat-stuff, nobody but Bruce Wayne can be the Batman.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

They're unique individuals, but have been adapted for the screen on many occasions and therefore there are perfectly legitimate occasions on which one might want to use a plural. For example to discuss "my top three Batmen".

[conuly]

So you head towards "toss an s on the end"?

New question: Batman donates money to the zoo. Borrows the cash from his buddy, Mr. Wayne. Is it appropriate to refer, then, to the "Bat-bats"?