The Instigator
Bran_man
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Book of MORMONS is the correct plurilization for the Book of Mormon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,187 times Debate No: 14734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Bran_man

Pro

This debate is merely on the pluralization of the term 'Book of Mormon'. This really aplies to any book entitled 'Book of *name*'

I have chosed Book of Mormon as my example because this is the example i hear most.

I do not look for in any way a debate on the validity of the B.O.M (book of Mormon), religion, or religious beliefs.

..My first debate. :]
~~~~~~~~

When pluralizing a proper noun, such as the title of a book one should use the format that follows: *name of book*'s. This should be used regardless of any apparet grammatic error.

The con may say, 'Well there is more than one book yet there is only one Mormon.'

Be that as it may the title 'Book of Mormon' is a proper title and should be left unchanged when pluralizing.

~~~~~~
Just a fun litte debate. Anyone wanting to debate may do so. No need for anger at any point during debate.
Puck

Con

"This debate is merely on the pluralization of the term 'Book of Mormon'. This really aplies to any book entitled 'Book of *name*'"

"When pluralizing a proper noun, such as the title of a book one should use the format that follows: *name of book*'s."

No. There is nothing possessive about "Mormon" to warrant a 's in this context.

Book of Mormon is in essence a linguistic entity in itself, it is a prepositional phrase and in English at least modifiers can't be pluralised. [1] The plural, as in, multiple books of, becomes either:

"Books of Mormon" Here book becomes pluralised to denote the multiplicity. Mormon > Mormons pluralises the incorrect component and renders the sentence meaning incorrectly and ungrammatical. It does however rely upon the reader to recognise what 'Book of Mormon' is to be correctly identified. Granted in America an unlikely issue, maybe more of one in other countries. No idea. So while Books of Mormon is accurate and appropriate it may not in all cases be sufficient to impart the desired meaning.

So the alternative and lengthier pluralisation requires something similar to "copies of" as in copies of the Book of Mormon wherein ambiguity is dispelled due unambiguous phrasing.

It's easy to see if you apply it elsewhere.

Book of Daniel.

Pro: Book of Daniels - pluralisation of Daniel is incorrect.

Books of Daniel. Again similar requirement of needing a reader familiar with "Book of Daniel" as an phrase to receive the meaning, not incorrect but not the best in all cases.

Copies of the Book of Daniel. Correct plurality in meaning and no ambiguity.

[1] http://www.chompchomp.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Bran_man

Pro

Bran_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Bran_man

Pro

Bran_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by devinni01841 6 years ago
devinni01841
Note on my vote... it should say 66% not just 66 :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Bran_manPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Bran_manPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and Conduct to Con; He refuted Pro's arguments and didn't forfeit any rounds.
Vote Placed by devinni01841 6 years ago
devinni01841
Bran_manPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: had to pick Con... Pro forfeited 66 of the rounds, and used no sources at all
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Bran_manPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04