Bowlsful/ bowlfuls

It's bowlsful.

I suppose a purist would say that it's ''bowls full' I think that's how I would insist it's written.

As for 'on a weekend', 'on' is a preposition, it tells you about the placement of something. How on earth would you be able to get 'on' a weekend? I realise it's a dialect phrase, very common here in the NE, but it's incorrect.

(Don't get me started on 'different to' 👿)

Do professional proofreaders have to pass a grammar test? This one would fail for me...

Callistemon21

I'd change my proof reader.
Proofreader.

I think I would, too

I presume that 'bowlful' follows the same rule as 'cupful' in the plural:

cupful
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈkʌp.fʊl/ US /ˈkʌp.fʊl/
plural cupfuls or US also cupsful

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cupful

eazybee

The cookery mistress at school always insisted on spoonsful; don't remember any discussion about bowls.

I am sure there is a difference between a spoon “full of sugar” and a spoonful
I think it is that the latter is a measure while the former describes the spoon
As I said before, when in doubt, leave it out
A bowl of soup, a teaspoon/tablespoon etc of sugar, a cup of tea !

(Don't get me started on 'different to' 👿)

Me too!!

I too would just say a bowl of or three bowls of regardless of the quantity. We’re they full, three full bowls of.

JaneJudge

I would just say he had three bowls of soup

bowl is a funny word isn't it?

It is. And, if the correct pronunciation isn’t used, bowl and bowel would sound the same. 😀

you'd think it would be boal like coal or foal

and fowl is not like bowl

It is a strange word JaneJudge and the more I look at it on this thread the stranger it seems.

I keep seeing bowel now Kalu think I'll say dish of soup in future

Definitely bowlsful, although it does look odd after all the times it's been written on here!

Like others, I'd get round it by saying 'bowls full' or just 'bowls'.

After all, it's the bowls that are full, so if you can say 'bowls' alone and the sentence still make sense, then 'full' is the word that describes 'bowls'. Then we get on to 'hot cup of tea' or 'cup of hot tea'...

Bring pedantic, if you were to write that he ate "three bowls full of soup", you would actually be saying that he ate the bowl as well as the soup, wouldn't you?

The more I have thought about it, the more convinced I am that the bowlful, as a unit of measurement/quantity should be pluralized like any other ordinary noun - with the s on the end.

Grammatically, it is completely different from things like sisters-in-law

I would use bowlfuls both in speech and writing and bowls full in writing, but never bowlsful.

I am not sure whether there is a grammatical rule though.

Really, I would prefer Maw's option, He ate three bowls of soup, as after all no-one is likely to have offered anyone a bowl that was three- quarters empty.

oh no, not the eating of bowls now

I’d have just said 3 bowls of soup. 3 teaspoonsful sounds better than 3 teaspoonfuls -but is that just because it’s what I’m used to saying?

when I started secondary school we had an antiquated English teacher whose mantra was 'all right is not all right unless it is spelled as two words'. Nowadays everyone spells it as 'alright' without a second thought. I think that bowlsful has made much the same progression. I'm sure that it would originally have been two words, 'bowls full' and we've just got into the way of running them together. Having turned them into one word people are doing what seems to be the rule with a plural noun and putting the 's' at the end of the word.

My spellcheck objects to 'bowlsful', BTW. It offers me 'bowlfuls'

P.S I think that 'a lot' is going the same way., alot

grandtanteJE65

I would use bowlfuls both in speech and writing and bowls full in writing, but never bowlsful.

I am not sure whether there is a grammatical rule though.

Really, I would prefer Maw's option, He ate three bowls of soup, as after all no-one is likely to have offered anyone a bowl that was three- quarters empty.

I really think no-one needs more than one bowl full of soup.

In this case Callistemon it was cawl .

I would also opt for bowls rather than bother with how full they were to be honest.

Maizie

'a lot' is going the same way., alot
😱 Argh!!

MaizieD

when I started secondary school we had an antiquated English teacher whose mantra was 'all right is not all right unless it is spelled as two words'. Nowadays everyone spells it as 'alright' without a second thought. I think that bowlsful has made much the same progression. I'm sure that it would originally have been two words, 'bowls full' and we've just got into the way of running them together. Having turned them into one word people are doing what seems to be the rule with a plural noun and putting the 's' at the end of the word.

My spellcheck objects to 'bowlsful', BTW. It offers me 'bowlfuls'

P.S I think that 'a lot' is going the same way., alot

Going off on a tangent, I would also like to complain about the similar way that "any more" has started to be joined up into one word.

Really, I would prefer Maw's option, He ate three bowls of soup, as after all no-one is likely to have offered anyone a bowl that was three- quarters empty.

Now I’m concerned about the adverse effect of the 3 bowls on his bowels 😱

Bowlsful - it's analogous to bags full though bagsful does not exist. English is a dynamic language so either is ok in practice.

This has made me think of porridge and the Three Bears 🐻

I agree with those saying that bowlful is a distinct noun so the 's' goes on the end.

'Three full bowls of soup' would emphasise the quantity and avoid the problem.

Not 'alot' oh, no!!!!! 🤯

Now then - does one eat or drink soup?
Hmmm....

I think I would have it in a cup! 🤓