+0
I read a sentence in a book that made me think for a while:

"Peddy is getting married to other woman".

Here other is followed by a singular noun, woman. If the author had written to another woman, would it imply that Peddy is already married and then got married to second woman? The sentece made me think because I always use other followed by a plural noun.

Looking forward to the answer!
Thanks.
1 2
Comments  
Hi Natybrazil

I'd say there is simply a typo in the sentence. It should probably be either "... to another woman" or "... to the other woman".
Without any further context, I would assume the intended meaning to be Peddy is getting married to a different woman.
natybrazil"Peddy is getting married to other woman".
It should be "another woman" (or "other women" would be grammatically correct, but hardly likely).*

However, the number of Google Book Search hits for "to other woman" puzzles me. Some, like "to other woman writers" are OK, but there seem to be too many others that aren't. It's a similar story for "with other woman" etc. Are they really all typos or OCR glitches?

There are a couple of special cases I can think of when it might be possible to write something like this. The first is in an abbreviated "bullet point" style of writing. For example, in a set of notes about a story you might jot down "Peddy marries other woman". The second is the deliberate use of a grammatically incorrect form to create a special effect; for example, to be insulting to or dismissive of this "other woman". This doesn't seem to be the explanation for all those hits though, so I don't really get it.

*Edit: Or, as Yankee says, of course, "to the other woman".
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Yes! In the story Paddy wants to get married to a different woman, not the one he was dating.

I'm glad you also think that it should be either to another woman or to the other woman.

Thanks!
Mr Wordy
However, the number of Google Book Search hits for "to other woman" puzzles me. Some, like "to other woman writers" are OK, but there seem to be too many others that aren't. It's a similar story for "with other woman" etc. Are they really all typos or OCR glitches?

Hi Mr Wordy

What do you mean by Some, like "to other woman writers" are OK? Shouldn't it be 'women writers'?
Yoong LiatWhat do you mean by Some, like "to other woman writers" are OK? Shouldn't it be 'women writers'?
The singular (compound) noun is "woman writer"; when it's pluralised it should, strictly speaking, be "woman writers". Compare with, say, "child prodigy", the plural of which is "child prodigies" not "children prodigies". Similarly, you would talk of "boy racers", never "boys racers". However, "women writers" (and similar compounds with "women") are so common and so accepted that it would be perverse to insist that they're incorrect.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Mr. Wordy, So, both woman drivers and women drivers are commonly said?
New2grammarMr. Wordy, So, both woman drivers and women drivers are commonly said?
I would have guessed that "women drivers" is more common, and Google Book Search (which we think is a better indicator of "good English" than web search) bears this out:

"women drivers": 819

"woman drivers": 225

I'm not sure why so many people naturally feel it ought to be "women", when in other cases (such as the ones I mentioned) they would never pluralise the modifier noun.
We use the plural men and women to modify plural nouns when they have a 'subject' meaning; man and woman are used to express an 'object' meaning.

Compare:

men drivers ( = men who drive)

women pilots ( = women who fly planes)

man-eaters ( = lions or tigers that eat people)

woman-haters ( = people who hate women)

(Practical English Usage by Michael Swan)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more