Life, Lives, and Falling Low

Question

I answered a thread today where one of the options I gave was that the word could refer to that scum of the Earth that in English are called "low-lifes". My spell checker objected to that use of "lifes", so I changed it to "low-lives", although it looked and sounded weird to me.

Shortly afterward, someone commented my post, to point out that the correct term is "low-lifes". I would like to agree with that, but now I'm not sure as to which one is really correct. One could argue that the expression refers to several people designated individually as "low-life", therefore it should be "low-lifes". But we all know that the correct plural form for "life" is "lives", therefore it should be "low-lives".

According to the Free Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary says that both versions are acceptable.

What do you think, and why?

Answer 1

Since I was the one who objected (offered an alternative) to your previous post.... Before doing so, I checked with my "Webster's New World College Dictionary". I had/have no doubt as to my own preference/experience but, on occasion my fellow-countrymen (countrywomen) surprise me with what they deem acceptable English. That dictionary offers no alternative.

Since you pursued the matter, I also checked with the O E D which says "usually 'low'lifes'", thus, not excluding the possibility of 'low-lives'.

I believe that MacFadden's reply addresses the fundamental issue: the plural of 'life' is 'lives' but it does not necessarily follow that a compound word (of which 'life' is a component) need obey the same rules.

The 'life' -> 'lives' is, of course a (mildly) irregular plural form but the word and its plural have been around for a long time. The earliest citation for 'low-life' in the O E D, on the other hand is 1792 (relatively recent, as such things go). The historical tendency of languages is towards regularity/consistency. Sometimes this involves abandoning old irregular forms in favor of regular ones but also (applicable to this case) new coinages are much more likely to employ regular inflections.

Back in the 80's I thought that spell-checkers were a great idea (I'm a lousy speller) but I quickly found that my vocabulary was much larger than that of the spell-checkers and they were objecting to words that they simply didn't recognize (rather than real errors). Current versions are much better than they were but, by no means, perfect. My immediate reaction to protestations from my spell-checker (Firefox) is to consult a (several) dictionary(ies). I'm still a bad speller, so most often I see that I've made a simple error/transposition but there are still occasions in which I uncover problems/limitations in the spell-checker.

Great answer. Thank you! - Gekkosan, Jun 12, 2010

Answer 2

I'd say a bunch of "low-lifes."

Answer 3

'Low-lives' sounds very odd to me. I think 'low-lifes' sounds better to me because the low-life is the thing that is becoming plural, not the life itself. You're not saying that there are several lives that are low. Lives aren't really ever described as 'low' outside the phrase. That is, it's not really an adjective describing a noun which is commonly used and therefore squished together when used in that context. My thinking is that low-life is just one word, and it's a noun; it's not like you're describing several lives as 'low', and leaving out the space because it's a common phrase. It wouldn't really make much sense in most contexts to describe a life as 'low' outside the phrase 'low-life'. I think that answer got a bit round about and repetitive, so sorry for that.

That was pretty much my reasoning when I wrote the word and had it marked as incorrect by the spell checker. - Gekkosan, Jun 11, 2010

great answer - Izanoni1, Jun 11, 2010

Answer 4

Apparently it can be both ways, but lowlives sounds very weird to me.

Also, if you type lowlifes (without the hyphen), the editor doesn't complain. When you hyphenate, the editor appears to consider the correctness of each word in the hyphenated phrase.

Ha, didn't notice you had a big ol' link yourself, Gekkosan. - webdunce, Jun 11, 2010

That's ok. This one is clearer. It is interesting to see that the word(s) exist(s) as a whole word, without the hyphen. - Gekkosan, Jun 11, 2010

Answer 5

I think I have used both. Do not ask me why but I think I would use "low lives" when talking about a group with the same disdained behavior or operating as a group (people who insist on using subject pronouns in defiance of all grammatical decorum) and "low lifes" when thinking of despicable individuals with varying misdeeds: gun runners,drug dealers,philanderers and people using subject pronouns in isolation)

Interesting, that you make such a distinction. Not sure I understand it fully, but I'm glad to at least learn about the dangerously criminal classification reserved for subject pronoun usage! - Gekkosan, Jun 11, 2010

Just trying to give a heads up. - nizhoni1, Jun 12, 2010

Answer 6

No creo que nunca en toda mi vida he oído "low-lives".

Answer 7

Low-lifes sounds ok to me, I think it sounds better than low-lives does actually... or at least, it did until I thought about it and now I'm not sure .

I think that my brain hurts...

jeje - 003487d6, Jun 11, 2010