Plural of still-life

I'll go with 'still lifes'...

Despite all my training, qualifications, inbuilt pedantry etc. I think "still lifes" feels more correct. But "still life paintings" eases the pain!

On the other hand, if we had adjectives agreeing with verbs...

That's because it is correct, Ariadne...
What is there to be pedantic about?

Because it's pedants corner, I suppose. Oh, WTF. Was only being light hearted. Doesn't seem to work on GN these days.

I'm in the 'Still lifes' camp...

I'm sticking to still life for single or many......not sufficiently erudite to argue my case, also getting (very easy for me to become so, lately!)

I meant that the definitive answer must surely come from the Tate, not that my opinion was obviously correct!

Still lifes.

Glad the majority are with me in rejecting still lives. I think to treat it as an adjective and hence keep it in the singular is a bit problematic; to say "I have two still life on my wall" sounds pretty odd, and to say "I have two still life paintings on my wall" jars as well; what is a still life on a wall if not a painting? It would only make sense to be specific for the avoidance of doubt if it was not a painting but a mural, a tapestry or a frieze.

petallus

That'll keep you lot going!

I can't see this as an adjective at all. Still life painting? What about 'landscape painting' then, or 'portrait painting'? They sound very clumsy to me, and I'm sure people wouldn't naturally refer to them as such, but just 'landscapes' and 'portraits'. So why not 'still lifes'?

Exactly!

still life definitely a noun. Paint is the medium used to execute the work and it might not be paint so still life painting might not be accurate. When setting up the subject artists refer to the arrangement as a still life even before it is painted. "Still lifes" it is

I have " two still lifes on my wall and two landscapes as well as two portraits." I see it that 'still life, portrait and landscape' are descriptions of the type of paintings therefore they are adjectives only requiring the addition of an "s" to make the number I possess of them plural. Or am I mistaken? If so, I blame my English teachers back in the day,,,,,,,

If used on its own- landscape, portrait, still life it is a noun Jomarie. Used with the word painting it is an adjective. Some words depend upon the way they are used to decide the part of speech they become.

Exactly trisher. 'Village green' is a good example: village on its own is a noun and green on its own is an adjective. However, in this example they swap uses and village becomes the adjective describing the green.

Or maybe I should have said that village is usually a noun and green is usually an adjective.

"Green " is a noun in Scotland, meaning an area of grass often designated for clothes drying. Nothing to do with the colour.

Well, yes, Soutra, as it is in England too. But the noun evolved from the fact that the grass is green.

Green as an open green space is a noun in England too.

Then there are drying green, and bowling green.

No definitive conclusion yet then ?
Surely still = adjective and life= noun. Someone in this thread said the two words are not hyphenated, so not seen as a two-worded adjective. So I suppose you can pluralise life? I should have thought that would become lives. We don't all lead boring lifes - though I sometimes wonder - and can't get my head around why it should be still lifes. I would only use that in life's great, a bitch, whatever. In a gallery displaying still life pics I would refer to that room in the singular. Or at home would say I have a few still life pics on the wall.
Just not happy with still lifes and can't see any reason why it would be grammatically correct.

Try the sentence "He was a great artist most of his paintings were still lifes." It doesn't sound right if you say- "most of his paintings were still lives" - It isn't an adjective and a noun, it is what is known as a compound noun.

"most of his paintings were still lives" sounds as though "still" is being used as though they had not stopped being lives, not as though they were of things that were keeping still (iyswim) It seems to be an adverb attached to "were", instead of an adjective attached to life/lives. Perhaps the hyphen between still and life/lives would tie them together as one expression?

The English language gives plenty of opportunity for this kind of discussion.

I remember a proposal a long time ago that the language should be pruned of most of the long words, and their place taken by combinations of short ones - easier for foreigners to learn fewer words, it was suggested. But they had not taken into account that then all those combinations with unlikely meanings would all have to learnt separately, and not mixed up with similar combinations. (put in for promotion instead of apply, put up for sale instead of offer, put out about something instead of annoyed, put down for euthanased, put forward for proposed) I think when learning a foreign language I would rather have one word with one meaning.

Trisher your example makes perfect sense in that context. Should a compound noun not have a hyphen? I don't know, just wondered.