Introduction
Phrasal Plurality is the coinage of LITERARY DISCOURSE referring to the plurality of certain nouns in phrases. Among these nouns are “Chief of Staff”, “Commander in Chief”, and “Secretary General.”
Plurality
* “CHIEFS of Staff” NOT “Chief of STFFS.”
* “COMMANDERS in Chief” NOT “Commander in CHIEFS.”
Justification
It is instructive to note that the above nouns and similar ones are made up of key words and their modifiers – throwing more light on the key words. For that matter, plurality affects the key words NOT the modifiers. For instance, in “Chief of Staff”, the key word is “Chief”. The phrase “of Staff” only tells us that the “Chief” in question is NOT the Chief of our village, but the head of an administrative unit such as cabinet. Therefore, if we want to express many of them, it is logical to say “Chiefs”. This way, the modifiers can still qualify the plurality, which eventually becomes “CHIEFS of Staff.”
In the case of “Commander in Chief”, the key word is “Commander”, and “in Chief” serves as a modifier. Clearly, with the modifier, we know that the “Commander” in question is an officer or a head of state in supreme command of a country’s Armed Forces. So, the plurality of such an officer is “Commanders in Chief.”
Exception
It is significant to mention that some phrasal nouns are exceptions to this technique. Among them is “Secretary General” whose plurality is “Secretary GENERALS.”
Illustrative sentences
* Wunpini, Chalpang, and Azinpaga are former CHIEFS of Staff in Gbewaa Republic.
* Sapashini, Napari, and Achiri have been COMMANDERS in Chief of the Dagbon State Armed Forces.
Conclusion
Conclusively, it is important to state that phrasal nouns can be hyphenated (written with hyphens). Examples are “Chief-of-staff” and “Commander-in-chief.” Dear reader, do you know that conventionally, a “commander in chief” is a head of state? Yes, that is the case. And so, all COMMANDERS in Chief” are “HEADS of State” NOT “Head of STATES.”