Please help a non-native speaker.
I see a lot of people write “ironmans”, but according to everything I’ve learned or in any way acquired a feeling for, I’d rather write “ironmen”. (Please excuse the dangling participle as well.)
Not sure if there is a right or wrong here but I would use the term as follows:
I competed in six Ironman’s in Lake Placid. (Actually I would say six Ironman races to be more clear, but you get the idea.)
Those six studs you see over at the bar are all Ironmen.
Hope that helps.
Ironmans when referring to races.
Ironmen when referring to a group of people that have done an Ironman.
Your inclination to pluralize the word as “Ironmen” is a good one, but so far the word doesn’t seem to have been standardized one way or the other. The word isn’t in my dictionary, but in my judgment either “Ironmen” or “Ironmans” should be acceptable. Muh’s distinction between the usage of the two forms sounds right to my ear, too.
One thing I can say for certainty, however. Anyone who tells you that the plural is “Ironman’s” doesn’t know the rules of the English language. Apostrophes are used for possessives, but not for plurals. It’s interesting that a lot of Americans will complain that non-native speakers don’t make enough effort to learn proper English, even though their own literacy is less than adequate.
run = runner
race = racer
marathon = marathoner
therefore,
Ironman = Ironmaner. Ugly, but grammatically correct.
By that logic, Lance Armstrong would be a “cycler,” not a “cyclist.”
.
Scrap the run = runner example. Ironman is a specific event within a broader category, just like the marathon. One who runs marathons is a marathoner, so why would one who competes in Ironmans not be an Iromaner? You can’t really argue against its grammatical accuracy, although you can probably come up with another suitable (though less precise) descriptor.
Calling someone “an Ironman” or “Ironmen” can be interpreted as a vague reference to strength or endurance outside the context of discussing triathlon specifically. “Ironmaner”, ugly though it may be, transcends that boundary by virtue of universal grammatical correctness and precision.
Not sure if there is a right or wrong here but I would use the term as follows:
I competed in six Ironman’s in Lake Placid. (Actually I would say six Ironman races to be more clear, but you get the idea.)
I’d get rid of the apostrophe 
I would argue that Ironman is a headless noun–like lowlife or computer mouse or Toronto Maple Leaf. Although I disagree with many of his philosophies and ideas in general, Stephen Pinker makes a good case for the irregularities of plurals in headless nouns, nouns made from names, and collective nouns.
In The Language Instinct, he argues that when the common form of such a word is singular, it is treated as if it has a regular plural, even if the final constituent of the word is usually pluralized in a nonregular fashion. More than one lowlife are lowlifes, not “lowlives.” The common noun maple leaf is pluralized as maple leaves; when it’s the name of a hockey team, its plural becomes Maple Leafs.
On a related note, where words have developed new meansing irregular plurals may become regularized. Like antennas is the plural when you’re talking about your stereo–but if you’re referring to a bug, it’s antennae. Computer mouse is sometimes considered headless and pluralized mouses, but you oftem hear mice. Why this is the case has no real proof, but Pinker suggests it’s b/c the computer mouse actually resembles a mouse, and so is more strongly metaphorical (not that I entirely agree with that, but I’m just saying…)
“One who runs marathons is a marathoner, so why would one who competes in Ironmans not be an Iromaner? You can’t really argue against its grammatical accuracy…”
**
Four problems with that:
-
From the meanings of its root words “Iron” and “man,” it’s obvious that the word “Ironman” is intended to refer not only to the race but also to the participant in the race. Cf. “policeman,” “fireman,” etc.–all refer to human beings.
-
Historically, if you’ll recall the origin of the first Ironman event (a story with which we’re all familiar), Collins stated: “Whoever finishes first, we’ll call him the Iron Man.” Taken literally, of course, that would mean that only the winner is an Ironman, but clearly the word itself was taken to refer to the participating athlete from the very start, and not just the race itself.
-
You’re assuming that English adheres to precise and consistent rules. Natural languages don’t do that, and especially not English.
-
Even if one did apply the -er suffix to denote the participant in the race, the word would be “Ironmanner,” not “Ironmaner.” (Cf. “runner,” not “runer.” In each case, if the “n” were not doubled, the word would be pronounced differently.)
All good points, particularly #4 (oversight on my part).
As for #3, also true, but when you can logically apply existing rules, I see no reason to stray. In fact, I think it’s best to err in that direction whenever a doubt exists, and I’m fairly certain adding the -er suffix is the proper application of the rule.
For #'s 1 and 2, I suppose it’s a judgment call. But to be situationally specific, we are talking about people who have completed the event (just as a marathoner has the marathon), not the abilities or qualities of those people. Like I said, within the triathlon bubble, it makes perfect sense to refer to those as Ironman or Ironmen, but outside of that context, it gets a little blurry. Not that “Ironmanner” wouldn’t either, but at least one could deduce the origin by following existing rules of English. (Then again, as point #3 is valid, maybe not. English words existing outside the bounds of common vernacular are akin to foreign language to many.)
So, to make sure this horse is good and dead, do you disagree that “Ironmanner” is not inaccurate or unsound? What word would you suggest as a more precise descriptor? Should visible or audible pleasantness supersede precision in some cases?
I would go with Ironman competitor or athlete.
“So, to make sure this horse is good and dead, do you disagree that ‘Ironmanner’ is not inaccurate or unsound? What word would you suggest as a more precise descriptor? Should visible or audible pleasantness supersede precision in some cases?”
English word formation (and other natural languages, as opposed to computer languages) really is not bound by rules in the universal sense; at best, there are some “rules of thumb” (heuristics). (There is much more regularity in syntax than in morphology, which is what enables linguists to develop rules such as in transformation grammar.) Ultimately, I think correctness in English word formation is determined by convention rather than rules: a word is correct if it is widely enough accepted as such. If you use a form such as “Ironmanner” in the middle of a discussion, your listeners (or readers) will be distracted from your meaning because of the unfamiliarity of your term. If you’re completing your IM and the announcer says “sphere, you are an IRONMANNER!!!”–you’ll probably be so surprised and bewildered that you’ll stop short of the finish line to ask, “What did he say???”
If I found that I’d typed “Ironmanner” into a post, then yes, I would consider it inaccurate, and I’d want to go back and edit it. I might change it to “Ironman,” or if that seemed too pretentious, perhaps “Ironman participant” or “Ironman finisher” or “Ironman competitor.”
If you’re completing your IM and the announcer says “sphere, you are an IRONMANNER!!!”–you’ll probably be so surprised and bewildered that you’ll stop short of the finish line to ask, “What did he say???”
Actually, he did say that per my pre-race request. It was a personal triumph for me and a watershed moment for linguists nationwide.
Points well taken. Effective communication is the primary function of language, I can’t refute your argument. Well said.
i kind of look at it like beer…
i always refer to beer ans simply beer…i had a beer last night…i drank 12 beer last night…i had too many beer last night…“beers” just sounds wrong…
Ah, transformation grammar. Brings back memories, it does.
The correct term is Ironmen but no one says it so it’s wrong by lack of use. I like the t term Ironmen.
Anyone who tells you that the plural is “Ironman’s” doesn’t know the rules of the English language. Apostrophes are used for possessives, but not for plurals.
I’ve been wondering about this, since many people (native speakers) make similar mistakes in my language. It seems that e.g. “in the 50’s” is a relatively common way to write about things that happened in a certain decade. An apostrophe doesn’t make sense here, either, and according to your general statement, it would be incorrect. Can anyone confirm this? (And, by the way, is there a good internet site/forum for English grammar?)
I believe the proper way would be '50s, not 50’s. The apostrophe is used in this case as a substitute for the remaining part of the word or series of numbers not fully expressed, and absent between the 0 and s as the s is being applied to show plurality, not possession.
I can’t recommend any particular website, but the books Eats, Shoots & Leaves is an entertaining read on the subject, complete with a full synopsis of grammar and punctuation rules. The Only Grammar Book You’ll Ever Need is written more in the desk-reference format, and lives up to its claim.
“I believe the proper way would be '50s, not 50’s. The apostrophe is used in this case as a substitute for the remaining part of the word or series of numbers not fully expressed, and absent between the 0 and s as the s is being applied to show plurality, not possession.”
Exactly: That first apostrophe in “'50s” stands for the missing digits “19” in “1950s.”
In pluralizing whole words (e. g., “Ironmans”), an apostrophe is definitely incorrect. In pluralizing acronyms or single digits or letters, usage seems to be more varied. But according to the Chicago-Turabian style manual, the apostrophe should really not be used in these cases, either.