Opinion L.A.

The best in Southern California opinion journalism,
Monday through Friday

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Bottom Up?

July 22, 2008 |  9:20 pm

With 600 coffee shops closing across the country -- some to cries of caffeine-deprived protests -- I guess I shouldn't quibble about the details.

My colleague Sandy Banks wrote in The Times about one Starbucks closing near Martin Luther King Jr. and Vermont, and another at Crenshaw and Vernon. But it still didn't answer the question -- none of the stories of the shuttered shops has answered my question.

Is the plural of ''Starbucks'' also ''Starbucks,'' or is it "Starbuckses''? Like sheep and sheep, or moose and moose, rather than Jones and Joneses?

I say that I'm getting ''a Starbucks.'' A colleague asks, ''Can I get Starbucks for anybody?'' Michael Kinsley has written of ''Starbuckses,'' and so has the Associated Press.

Starbuck was the first mate in ''Moby-Dick,'' and there was only one of him. So maybe "Starbucks' is already plural. Now that I think of it, the ''Star'' part is incidental. As anybody who sets foot in the coffee establishment knows, it's all about the ''-bucks.''

 


Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments
1.

Why not just call it "Starf***s" and avoid all this confusion? :)

2.

I generally skirt the issue by referring to "Starbucks locations"



Advertisement

About the Bloggers
Opinion L.A. is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board.



Recent Posts
Chapter and verse on a litmus test |  November 24, 2009, 6:44 pm »
Dream (or nightmare) team |  November 24, 2009, 11:16 am »
Making a list and checking it seven times |  November 24, 2009, 11:13 am »
Thank thee, bishops |  November 20, 2009, 1:23 pm »

Archives