# serrated three stripes mark



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

Should the boldfaced phrase in the following have been "three-stripe mark" or "three-striped mark"?

The toy company's designers have been faithful to the original sneaker, with the set replicating the shoe's shell toe shape and serrated *three stripes mark*.

Lego has created an Adidas sneaker, complete with laces and a shoebox

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I think only "three stripes mark" would be immediately understandable to readers (even without following the link, I know it refers to Adidas). If I were to change it, I would remove "mark". Usually in this sort of phrase, it is the head noun that is important. Here it isn't; it is the three stripes that are important, but I suppose that some people might not know that the three stripes is an Adidas trademark.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

There's a grammatical issue with "three stripes mark," as "three stripes" is functioning as an attributive compound adjective, but it shouldn't have the plural ending in that capacity.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Yes, I know about the grammatical "rule", but this particular rule is very flexible, and we have, for example, women drivers and the Schools Minister. I have no idea how the plural "women" came to be used as an attributive noun, and it seems to be going out of fashion ("lady" is always singular, except in expressions like "ladies man", which is arguably a possessive), but it is quite clear why "Schools Minister" (the minister responsible for schools) is preferred over "School Minister" (a school's religious leader).

In business, this "rule" tends to be ignored altogether, so you have "accounts department" and "sales figures".

From _The Guardian_ newspaper (Don't forget your teethbrush | Mind your language):
There's not much in the way of "official" guidance. The Chicago Manual of Style has it thus: "Sometimes an attributive becomes conventional in the singular (toy store), and sometimes in the plural (ladies room). Often we choose by ear and it doesn't matter (employee lounge, employees lounge)."​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The situation you describe is slightly different. For one thing, "women" is an irregular plural. Such plurals are known to be exempt from the said rule. For another, British English allows plurals in attributive position more freely than American English.
What's more, the case in hand is more complicated than a bare attributive noun; the noun "stripes" is part of a compound adjective beginning with a numeral, making it even more unlikely to use the plural "stripes." Consider "three-year-old boy" as opposed to "three-years-old boy."


----------



## heypresto

Wikipedia says:

*Three stripes*_ is a trademark of Adidas consisting of three parallel lines . . ._​​_According to another source, the three stripes mark was created by the Adidas company founder, Adolf Dassler . . ._​​_The musical artist Lady Sovereign references the Three Stripes trademark in her song "Hoodie" from the album Public Warning. The album was released in 2006 and had multiple remixes, again involving references to the Three Stripes trademark._​


So it looks as if 'mark' in the OP sentence means 'trademark.' And the trademark is called 'the three stripes'. 


So I don't see a problem with the OP sentence.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The last time I looked, Chicago was in America. The Chicago Manual of Style is probably the most prestigious style guide for the English language, and if they allow plural attributive nouns, then I don't see how you or I can say they shouldn't be used.

Of course, there are plenty of uses where there is already an established form which everyone follows, and I would no more say "a three years old boy" than I would refer to a "sport team" or a "sale department".

However, when you want to describe something new, you often have the choice. In general (except in business, it seems), it is better to use a singular form, but don't feel slavishly bound to this if the plural form sounds better. In this case, it seems that images tend to be a situation where plurals are commonly used. I cannot, for example, imagine anyone describing an ellipses as "a three dot symbol" (with or without hyphenation) or _The Raft of the Medusa_ by Gericault as "the shipwrecked mariner painting", but "a three dots symbol" and "the shipwrecked mariners painting" would be fine.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> The last time I looked, Chicago was in America. The Chicago Manual of Style is probably the most prestigious style guide for the English language, and if they allow plural attributive nouns, then I don't see how you or I can say they shouldn't be used.



Where in the Chicago Manual of Style do you see such examples?


----------



## heypresto

I'm sure you will find your question addressed in one of these topics: The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition, but you'll need to sign up for a free 30-day trial first.


----------



## PaulQ

heypresto said:


> So it looks as if 'mark' in the OP sentence means 'trademark.'


I think that is the problem - "mark" and "trademark" are completely different words with different meanings and likely, as in this case, to give rise to confusion - it did for me.

and serrated *three stripes trademark*.  and serrated *three stripes mark*.


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Such plurals are known to be exempt from the said rule.


There are no rules in English - just guidance and habits. You have already been pointed to Schools Minister, sports team, ladies room and sales department. None of those have an irregular plural. There are also clothes pegs, and alcoholic beverages are kept in a drinks cupboard or drinks cabinet.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Such plurals are known to be exempt from the said rule.


See my signature.

Consider

The {Modern Languages}[plural compound noun as modifier] Department is over there.
The modern {Language Department} [uncountable noun as modifier*] is over there.

* the 'uncountable aspect is indistinguishable from the adjectival as the adjectival cannot be inflected.

Now consider

Language is my forté.
Languages are my forté.

The uncountable and the plural are often interchangeable.


Uncle Jack said:


> but it is quite clear why "Schools Minister" (the minister responsible for schools) is preferred over "School Minister" (a school's religious leader).


The question is "Should "Schools Minister" (the minister responsible for schools) be "Schools*'* Minister" (the minister responsible for schools)?

The distinction occurs despite
*noun1's noun2* and *noun1 noun2* both meaning *noun2* associated in some way with *noun1.*

It's worth noting that *noun1's* is a determiner, whilst *noun1* is merely adjectival.

In *Schools* Minister, Schools is the dative of possession* = the minister *for* schools. In other Germanic languages, these words would be concatenated "Schoolsminister".

In *Schools'* Minister, *Schools'* is a genitive of association - the religious minister to some schools: the person who minsters to some schools.

* a loose term in which "possession" merely indicates some suzerainty


----------



## Edinburgher

The article linked from the OP does not contain any of the text quoted.  It relates to LEGO and has nothing to do with Adidas or serrated stripes.

Nevertheless, I find the plural "stripes" unobjectionable in this context.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> The article linked from the OP does not contain any of the text quoted.  It relates to LEGO and has nothing to do with Adidas or serrated stripes.
> 
> Nevertheless, I find the plural "stripes" unobjectionable in this context.



I posted the wrong link; the correct one has been posted.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> There are no rules in English - just guidance and habits. You have already been pointed to Schools Minister, sports team, ladies room and sales department. None of those have an irregular plural. There are also clothes pegs, and alcoholic beverages are kept in a drinks cupboard or drinks cabinet.



I have yet to see an example containing a compound adjective consisting of a numeral like two, three, and four, and a plural noun.

Could you provide such an example to show there are no rules in this respect?

Would you say "on a 90-degrees Fahrenheit day" or "on a 90-degree Fahrenheit day"?


----------



## Andygc

Four Ways Cargo Inc (an American trucking company that started with just four trucks - hence four ways).
Three Ways School is a coeducational special school with academy status, located in the Odd Down area of Bath in Somerset, England. It was created in 2005 from the amalgamation of three special schools in Bath (the three ways being the three schools).

Four Ways and Three Ways are not place names.

I won't be searching for any more. Those should be sufficient to make the point.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I posted the wrong link; the correct one has been posted.


Thank you.
Incidentally, I'd probably call it the *three serrated stripes* mark (not the *serrated three stripes* mark), because it's the stripes that are serrated, not the mark. It's amusing that the stripes on the Lego shoe are not, in fact, serrated.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Would you say "on a 90-degrees Fahrenheit day" or "on a 90-degree Fahrenheit day"?


If the "Fahrenheit" were taken out, I'd call it a 90-degree day, but with it left in, I think I might use the plural.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Four Ways Cargo Inc (an American trucking company that started with just four trucks - hence four ways).
> Three Ways School is a coeducational special school with academy status, located in the Odd Down area of Bath in Somerset, England. It was created in 2005 from the amalgamation of three special schools in Bath (the three ways being the three schools).
> 
> Four Ways and Three Ways are not place names.
> 
> I won't be searching for any more. Those should be sufficient to make the point.



They are not place names, but they are still names.

I'm looking for ordinary expressions containing the said attribute, not names.


----------



## Packard

The history of the stripes, which may be apocryphal, was that the original three-stripe design represented a mountain and that represented the challenges that an athlete had to surmount.  





I would write:

Adidas' copyrighted logo consists of a three-stripe design and is incorporated into several different patterns.  All the designs feature "adidas" in lower case and three stripes.


----------



## Edinburgher

My point is that on Adidas's actual shoes the (sewn-on) stripes have serrated edges.  In their ordinary logo, the edges are straight.  On the Lego shoes, the equivalent of the sewn-on stripes lack serrated edges. In other words, there is a problem here with the way the word "serrated" is used.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Here's the rule guidance over plural adjectives as I see it:

In principle, adjectives in English precede the noun and have no plural: One red lorry, two red lorries, two reds lorries.
Nouns used as adjectives follow the normal rules for other adjectives: they precede the noun and have no plural: One motor show, two motor shows, two motors shows.
There are certain fixed expressions where these principles are not followed.  Either the adjective follows the noun (e.g. _secretary general_) or the adjective is always in the plural (_the accounts department_).  Note that the plural doesn't match the noun - one department or several departments is irrelevant.  These exceptions may exist alongside the standard _general secretary, account manager_.
These exceptions are very rare.  There are an estimated 46,000 nouns in the English language.  I cannot think of more than a couple of dozen examples of plural nouns used as adjectives.
Compound adjectives like _one-man band_ and _six-foot wall_ are usually regular. Therefore _*three-stripe mark*_.


----------



## Packard

Edinburgher said:


> My point is that on Adidas's actual shoes the (sewn-on) stripes have serrated edges.  In their ordinary logo, the edges are straight.  On the Lego shoes, the equivalent of the sewn-on stripes lack serrated edges. In other words, there is a problem here with the way the word "serrated" is used.


Those "serrations" are the consequence of the fabric being cut with "pinking shears" or the production equivalent (a manually cranked pinker is available too).  That type of cut is designed to minimize fraying.  To a seamstress, this is a "pinked edge".  But zig-zag would work as will serrated.  The only "official" term I have ever heard was "pinked edges".  But for effective communication "zig-zag" or "serrated" probably works better than "pinked".








Pinking shears:


----------



## Edinburgher

Packard said:


> Those "serrations" are the consequence of the fabric being cut with "pinking shears" or the production equivalent. That type of cut is designed to minimize fraying.


If I'm not mistaken, the stripes are not actually made from material prone to fraying, so the serrations would seem to be purely decorative.
It looks as though the material around the back of the heel is of the same kind, but its edges are not serrated.

But my point was that, if you follow the link in the OP (which leads to a CNN article), there is a picture of the Lego "shoe", and its three stripes are clearly straight-edged, *and yet* the article contains the statement quoted in the OP, which is patently untrue.

Each of these Lego kits actually costs almost twice as much as a pair of Adidas shoes -- and the Lego kit makes only one shoe (but has enough parts to give you the option of making the left one or the right one. Buy two, build two left shoes, and give them as a present to your dancing partner. See if they get the message.


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> They are not place names, but they are still names.
> 
> I'm looking for ordinary expressions containing the said attribute, not names.


My point was that in another example that I could have mentioned, "Five Ways Shopping Centre", "Five Ways" is the name of a place in (the original) Birmingham. The immediately obvious expression is "Adidas's three stripes trademark". When not waffling on about irrelevancies such as pinking shears, the English speakers here seem to find that is perfectly acceptable.

PS
In America: "three strikes laws".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> My point was that in another example that I could have mentioned, "Five Ways Shopping Centre", "Five Ways" is the name of a place in (the original) Birmingham. The immediately obvious expression is "Adidas's three stripes trademark". When not waffling on about irrelevancies such as pinking shears, the English speakers here seem to find that is perfectly acceptable.



I found the following court document, where "three stripe mark" and "four stripe mark" are used.

Adidas-Salomon AG v. Target Corp., No. CV-01-1582-ST, 2002 WL 31971831 (D. Or. July 31, 2002):  Plaintiff filed an action regarding its three stripe mark and Original Superstar trade dress which is for a particular style of shoe.  Defendant had adopted a four stripe mark and similar style of shoe.  The magistrate’s findings noted there was a split in the Circuits regarding the whether or not a mark with acquired distinctiveness qualifies for protection under the FTDA and, relying on language from Avery Dennison v. Sumpton (see summary below), concluded that, in the Ninth Circuit, acquired distinctiveness does qualify.





Andygc said:


> PS
> In America: "three strikes laws".



Don't you think "three strikes law" is actually the name of a rule?


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Don't you think "three strikes law" is actually the name of a rule?


No.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> No.




Judging from the way the term is used with quotation marks by some people, it seems likely that it is treated as a name, rather than a common noun. Hence its exemption from the requirement on singular nounhood in compound adjectives.

California’s “three strikes” law is a sentencing scheme that gives defendants a prison sentence of 25 years to life if they are convicted of three violent or serious felonies.1 The law is codified in Penal Code Section 667.

California "Three Strikes" Law - Defined & Explained


----------



## heypresto

This Lexology page: Does Adidas lose its Three Stripes？uses three spellings:

The *three stripes trademark* at issue: (hereafter "_mark at issue"_)

A spokesperson from Adidas said _"This ruling is limited to this particular execution of the trademark and does not impact on the broad scope of protection that Adidas has on its well-known *three stripe mark* in various forms in Europe"._

In 2014, EUIPO approved the trademark registration for "lll" (*three stripes trademark *at issue)

A ruling made by the General Court of the European Union on June 19, 2019 upheld a decision by EU Intellectual Property authorities that *three-stripes trademark* owned by German sportswear giant was annulled due to _"devoid of any distinctive character"._


This site Why did adidas lose its three stripes trademark and what will happen next? uses two spellings:

Why did adidas lose its *three stripes trademark* and what will happen next?

I would suggest that the adidas *three stripe triangle* mark is distinctive and so unlike the bare *three stripe logo*, it is not susceptible to a non-validity challenge.


This site adidas' Three Stripes Trademark Is Invalid, Says EU Court has this headline:

EU COURT RULES THAT ADIDAS' ICONIC *THREE STRIPES TRADEMARK* IS INVALID


And you'll find there are many more examples of 'three stripes trademark'. It seems pointless to argue that they are all wrong.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Not that they're all wrong, but they reflect how "three stripes" is treated. Since it's described as "iconic," it seems likely that it's like "The Golden Arches," a graphic version of a name.


----------



## Andygc

Why do you wish to spend so much time and effort on arguing with native English speakers who find a few instances of plural nouns being used this way as being perfectly acceptable? 

We accept, happily, that the attributive "number-noun" combination normally uses a singular noun. We also know that, very occasionally, the noun may be plural. Why do you find that so difficult to accept?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Instead of saying (nihilistically) the traditional rule on using singular nouns in compound adjectives is anything but absolute, it's more useful to determine its scope of application.


----------



## Andygc

Given that there are no laws about English usage, how can it be nihilistic to say that there are exceptions to a convention? How can we possibly determine a scope of application? Here's a "rule" for you:

The attributive "number-noun" combination normally uses a singular noun. The noun may, very occasionally, be plural when it sounds right to native speakers.


----------



## heypresto

It applies . . . until it doesn't. I don't think there is a prescribed pin-downable scope of application.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

But the whole point of studying grammar is to offer an explicit account of what sounds right to native speakers.  Saying a rule applies until it doesn't is far from what linguists and learners consider useful.

Anyway, the compatibility with quotation marks seems correlated with the apparent exemption from the rule. Do you find it okay to say the "Golden Arches" logo, for example? If so, it might shed light on the scope of application of the rule.


----------



## heypresto

Can you not accept, like we do, that there isn't a rule that will apply every time? And there isn't a rule that will define when it does and when it doesn't.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you find it okay to say the "Golden Arches" logo, for example?


Yes. With or without the inverted commas/quotation marks.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> Can you not accept, like we do, that there isn't a rule that will apply every time?



Yes, I can. That's why I keep mentioning the scope of application.



heypresto said:


> And there isn't a rule that will define when it does and when it doesn't.



There might not be a rule that tells us when it applies and when it does not, but there is one or more properties that set utterances that fall under its scope apart from those that don't.




heypresto said:


> Yes. With or without the inverted commas/quotation marks.



Compatibility with quotation marks is one such property. 
Consider these anomalous examples: 

They are a  popular "two girls" band. 
They are a  popular "two-girl" band.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> They are a popular "two girls" band.


 Where did you see this?


----------



## Andygc

heypresto said:


> Where did you see this?


It doesn't really matter where he saw it. It adds nothing whatsoever to what we have already said. There is a conventional usage which isn't a rule, and which has occasional exceptions. There is no formula for deciding which exceptions will be acceptable other than "they sound OK to native speakers". This is now definitely an example of flogging a dead horse.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> Where did you see this?



That's a deliberately anomalous sentence.
Don't you see the implications of the paradigm on the rule?

a. They are a popular two-girl band. (resisting quotation marks and pluralization; conforming to the rule)
b. *They are a popular "two girls" band. 

d. The "two bulls locking horns" logo is well known among beer lovers. (permitting quotation marks and pluralization; exempt from the rule)
e. *The "two bull locking horns" logo is well known among beer lovers.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> It doesn't really matter where he saw it. It adds nothing whatsoever to what we have already said. There is a conventional usage which isn't a rule, and which has occasional exceptions. There is no formula for deciding which exceptions will be acceptable other than "they sound OK to native speakers". This is now definitely an example of flogging a dead horse.



That's not a scientific approach to the study of grammar.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's a deliberately anomalous sentence.


What's the point of creating "deliberately anomalous sentences"? If you know it doesn't make sense, why offer it as something to be discussed or analysed?



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Don't you see the implications of the paradigm on the rule?


I don't know what this means.

b and e are clearly wrong. 

As you can see from my post #28, and a few minutes googling, there are several ways the adidas mark are referred to in different contexts and sentences in the Real World. You just have to accept that, I'm afraid, and try not to impose a universally applicable 'rule' where there isn't one.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> What's the point of creating "deliberately anomalous sentences"? If you know it doesn't make sense, why offer it as something to be discussed or analysed?



Linguists commonly create unacceptable sentences to test a theory,  A theory is tested with its predictable consequences.



heypresto said:


> I don't know what this means.
> 
> b and e are clearly wrong.



Yes, they are. That's indicated by the asterisks prefixed to them.




heypresto said:


> As you can see from my post #28, and a few minutes googling, there are several ways the adidas mark are referred to in different contexts and sentences in the Real World. You just have to accept that, I'm afraid, and try not to impose a universally applicable 'rule' where there isn't one.



You just have to accept that when an exception occurs, there may well be something deeper than is suggested initially.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I think I might have a couple general principles that may help.

Where the attributive noun phrase is something that exists in its own right, not as a count or measure of something, then I do not think that anyone in modern English would make it singular. As an example, with FIFA World Cup qualifying matches taking place this weekend, we might be reminded of the Three Lions song, which no one would ever refer to as "the Three Lion song", because the song is called "Three Lions". You might read your child the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, which could easily be referred to as "the three bears story", but would never be called "the three bear story". The number of bears is immaterial in itself, except that this story happens to have three of them.

Adidas' three stripes fits into this pattern to some extent. It is only three stripes, and there is no two stripes or four stripes (which might lead to there being two-stripe shoes, three-stripe shoes and four-stripe shoes). However, I think the overriding thing here is that we don't tend to make attributive nouns singular with visual things. I cannot think of a single logo which is described with a singular attributive noun for something that is ordinarily plural (having said this, I am sure someone will now mention one). McDonald's golden arches logo has already been mentioned in this thread, and I see no need for capitalisation or quotation marks; "golden arches" works fine for me as a common noun, just that it remains plural when used with "logo". I also note that the examples I quoted earlier in this thread are also all visual.


Uncle Jack said:


> In this case, it seems that images tend to be a situation where plurals are commonly used. I cannot, for example, imagine anyone describing an ellipses as "a three dot symbol" (with or without hyphenation) or _The Raft of the Medusa_ by Gericault as "the shipwrecked mariner painting", but "a three dots symbol" and "the shipwrecked mariners painting" would be fine.



At least one native speaker in this thread would have used "three stripe mark", so either "mark" is not like "logo" or else the pattern I described for "logo" is just something I have imagined, but it would not have occurred to me to use "three stripe mark".


----------

