"a shoe shop" or "a shoes shop"???

Mr.white_beard   Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:51 pm GMT
I had a English test yesterday. It has a sentence that have a phrase "a shoe shop". Is that correct ? Can I use " a shoes shop"?
danny russia   Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:02 pm GMT
a > an
had - ok
has > had
have > had
a phrase > the phrase

Google returns twice as many results for "a shoe shop" than "a shoes shop", however the latter seems to be used quite commonly.

(I'm not a native speaker so cut me some slack I'm wrong)
Yep   Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:21 pm GMT
Both are correct, since they don't change the meaning of it.
For instance

Animal store = Animals store

Whereas

Electronics store != Electronic store since it may imply that the store is electronic...
Yep and Nope   Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:47 pm GMT
No, 'animal store' can also mean a store/stash of an animal rather than a store of animals.
Adge Cutler   Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:37 pm GMT
A shoe shop sells shoes. No one actually says shoes shop. Even though I've never seen a shoe shop sell an individual shoe, that's just how it is.

It seems to be normal to singularise the commodity - e.g. a hat shop, The Sock Shop, The Tie Rack, etc. The exception is a clothes shop, because we don't use the singular of clothes as a noun.
Yep   Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:56 pm GMT
>>>>No, 'animal store' can also mean a store/stash of an animal rather than a store of animals.

But that would make absolutely no practical sense.
Another Guest   Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:27 pm GMT
@ danny russia:
That's hardly a useful form in which to put corrections. The only reason I know what you're talking about is because I know already know what corrections should be made. Here's the corrections in the original sentence, with the corrections in caps:

"I had aN English test yesterday. It haD a sentence that haD THE phrase "a shoe shop". Is that correct ? Can I use " a shoes shop"?"

"Electronics" and "clothes" are not count noun, which is why one cannot refer to them in the singular. Otherwise, when a noun is used as an adjective, the normal usage is to have the singular form of the noun. Since "shoe" is modifying "shop", it is acting as an adjective, and thus the singular would be standard. Similarly, "toothbrush", not "teethbrush", etc.
Quintus   Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:35 pm GMT
>>we don't use the singular of clothes as a noun>>


The singular of "clothes" is "cloth". But you are right in the sense that we don't use it with the same meaning.

In any case, A. C. and A. G. had it : "shoe shop" is the standard form, not "shoes shop".
Native Speaker.   Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:37 pm GMT
Shoe shop is correct.
Uriel   Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:22 am GMT
No, it's just "shoe shop". We all know there will be more than one inside. Same goes for pet store, grocery store, tire store, hardware store, garden center, etc. -- the standard form generally uses the singular.

Electronics store is kind of an anomaly because "electronics" is a noun, but remove the S and "electronic" is suddenly an adjective -- there's really no singular noun version (we would switch to "component" for that). And dropping the S from "clothes" gets you the verb "clothe" -- the singular (albeit sort of a collective singular) form of "clothes" is actually "clothing", and the term "clothing store" is quite common.
Native   Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:23 am GMT
Or shoe store
Quintus   Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:36 am GMT
I suppose a defined modern singular form of "clothes" would be "article of clothing". Historically, more than one "cloth" gave us "clothes". The old terminology also gave us "cladding".


O.E. claðas "clothes," originally pl. of clað "cloth," which acquired a new pl., cloths, 19c. to distinguish it from this word. Clothing is from c.1200

[Online Etymology Dictionary]
Another Guest   Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:15 am GMT
"Clothes" and "clothing" are both uncountable nouns, which is a category separate from "singular" and "plural". There is no singular form of "clothes" because "clothes" is not a plural noun. There are at least four grammatical numbers in English: singular, plural, uncountable, and dual. "Clothing" is also uncountable.

The plural of "cloth" is "cloths" (although "cloth" is usually uncountable, and thus often doesn't have a plural either).
Quintus   Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:54 am GMT
Who's counting, A. G. ?

Seriously though, I suppose I should have said "article of clothing" is a working singular form of "clothes", not a defined one as such.

"Clothes" certainly must be a plural in some sense, otherwise lexicographers would never speak of "cloths" as having been coined (as late as Victorian times) as a "new plural", would they ?
Another Guest   Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:03 am GMT
Presumably, "clothes" originally was the plural of "cloth", but eventually the uncountable sense took over, and a new term had to be coined that can be used as a plural.