Cigar names: singular vs. plural... driving me bananas!

[NSXCIGAR]

30 minutes ago, SirVantes said:

If you cleave to the commercial names as used on the boxes/labels, you run into the very uncomfortable practice, for English speakers, of having to refer to "smoking a Wide Churchills" or a "a Bolivar Royal Coronas".

It's absolutely uncomfortable, and that is why we'll all continue to use the vitolas, common names or colloquial terms to describe these cigars. Calling one PLPC a "Petit Coronas" or, as in your example, "Wide Churchills" or what appear to be plural names (but which I don't believe are) is confusing and cumbersome, despite it being technically correct. We are just trying to determine here what is technically correct, not what we should use or will use.

[SirVantes]

15 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

There actually appears to be very little if any inconsistency in this area. As long as one understands the difference between the name of the cigar and the vitola of the cigar, there should be no confusion. We are not talking about vitolas at all, which absolutely can be both singular and plural. Names cannot be, as there are both plural and singular names of cigars used by HSA, and it can only be one. So while a plural name could be singular, a singular name cannot be plural. So logically, they must all be singular if singular names are used, which they are. See "Partagas Princess". Also, again, HSA has never used the term "Petit Corona". Ever. It is not a vitola and is not the name of a cigar. Nor have they ever used the term "Lonsdale". There are cigars named "Lonsdales" but that is not a vitola nor is it a name. 

 

Not sure I understand the nuance.  There's the Upmann Half Corona - name Half Corona, vitola half corona.  So I supposed that's not any type of coronas that's been halved or made more petit(e).

[planetary]

17 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The boxes say "Piramides Extra". I, and Alex at CCW, would defer to the boxes. Another case of the online catalog being incorrect as they are with the Monte Especiales No. 2. And, ironically, it is a Piramides Extra vitola. 

Regardless, I'm not denying there are names that appear both singular and plural. In fact, that is my argument. You can't have both, and if clearly singular names exist, we know they must all be singular because while plural (or plural-appearing) names can be singular, singular can't possibly be plural.

That's clearly not true.  Consider:

But:

What we seem to have here is an indication that cigar labels refer to the product name (which can be plural or not), but that when there are quantities involved, one should apply the natural plural/singular forms.  So for the Edmundo product, we can have 25 Edmundos, or 1 Edmundo.  The same should go for the Bolivar Petit Corona, the Cohiba Lancero, or just about anything else.  Exceptions are when the names naturally resist pluralization (or singularization).  That would be fine, because we're at least on good conceptual ground in that case.

[NSXCIGAR]

4 minutes ago, SirVantes said:

Not sure I understand the nuance.  There's the Upmann Half Corona - name Half Corona, vitola half corona.  So I supposed that's not any type of coronas that's been halved or made more petit(e).

In this case, the name and the vitola are singular, and identical. This would mean that you could use the term "Half Coronas" to refer to multiple cigars, both by name and vitola.

[NSXCIGAR]

8 hours ago, planetary said:

That's clearly not true.  Consider:

But:

What we seem to have here is an indication that cigar labels refer to the product name (which can be plural or not), but that when there are quantities involved, one should apply the natural plural/singular forms.  So for the Edmundo product, we can have 25 Edmundos, or 1 Edmundo.  The same should go for the Bolivar Petit Corona, the Cohiba Lancero, or just about anything else.  Exceptions are when the names naturally resist pluralization (or singularization).  That would be fine, because we're at least on good conceptual ground in that case.

That right there is the first inconsistency I've seen in a cigar name in terms of plural vs. singular. Nice find. In this case, I would go by the box and online catalog as those are two sources as opposed to the only one and only this jar ever saying it. As this petaca (non-tubed) also states "Edmundo" I would say the jar is simply an oversight. Also, the jar is limited production and the boxes are continuous, regular production. 

So if there were more variation in names from singular to plural, I would be tempted to be swayed your way. This one it appears is likely an isolated oversight. A very rare one as well as labeling appears to be very consistent in name and packaging over the decades in terms of singular vs. plural.

[dvickery]

as long as I understand what a person is saying ... I care not at all how it is spelled .

derrek

[SirVantes]

41 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In this case, the name and the vitola are singular, and identical. This would mean that you could use the term "Half Coronas" to refer to multiple cigars, both by name and vitola.

By which I remain confused, and repeat my plea of inconsistency.  Either "coronas" is the singular form (similar to "nimbus") or the plural form (similar to "crowns").  It shouldn't be both, although it clearly is.  

Coronas are coronas, always with an "s", when used in the name, whether the modifier is Spanish (Petit) or English (Royal) or both (Extra).  Unless the Half Corona is not a modified coronas like its myriad cousins, which I think is crediting Habanos with a little too much creativity for the sake of saving consistency?  

My head hurts now...

[garbandz]

here you go..........the final word on the subject................

[NSXCIGAR]

7 hours ago, SirVantes said:

By which I remain confused, and repeat my plea of inconsistency.  Either "coronas" is the singular form (similar to "nimbus") or the plural form (similar to "crowns").  It shouldn't be both, although it clearly is.  

Coronas are coronas, always with an "s", when used in the name, whether the modifier is Spanish (Petit) or English (Royal) or both (Extra).  Unless the Half Corona is not a modified coronas like its myriad cousins, which I think is crediting Habanos with a little too much creativity for the sake of saving consistency?  

My head hurts now...

A cigar's name is a proper noun, thus normal grammatical rules don't apply. What's being argued is whether the cigar's name is "Petit Corona" and HSA is adding an "s" and using "Petit Coronas" to describe the multiple units inside the box or whether the name is simply "Petit Coronas", as the box says. My case against the plural name is that they frequently leave singular names intact on some models which tells me they are not describing box contents. The "s" on the end of cigar names should not be indicative of singularity or plurality at all. 

A vitola or common name is not a proper noun, so yes, if there's an "s" at the end, it would indicate plurality. 

Sometimes a cigar name and its vitola are identical, similar, or totally different. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Smallclub]

10 hours ago, SirVantes said:

 whether the modifier is Spanish (Petit) or English (Royal) or both (Extra). 

“Petit” is french, and btw “petite corona” sounds just ridiculous…

[El Hoze]

Another interesting example. HU Monarch vs Monarcas. Same cigar, different year. 

[NSXCIGAR]

8 hours ago, El Hoze said:

Another interesting example. HU Monarch vs Monarcas. Same cigar, different year. 

This is another very rare case, possibly the only example of regular production disagreeing in terms of plurality vs. singularity post-Revolution. Again, I'm discounting the Edmundo jars above as I believe this was nothing more than a printer's error or oversight on the jars, and the jars were limited production while the boxes and petacas are continuous, regular production.

Until the 2000s, this cigar was always called Monarchs, and the tubes always stated "Monarch". This would be an indication that Monarchs was, in fact, plural for this cigar, and one cigar would be called a Monarch. I believe the name was officially transitioned to Monarcas in 2007 as that is when the new-style tubes were introduced. The Monarcas would only have existed as such for only 2 years as the Monarchs/Monarcas was discontinued in 2009. And as you can see, the singular name was removed from the tubes with both the boxes and tubes reflecting "Monarcas" after 2007. Another indication that HSA intends the names, even ending in "s", to be singular. Perhaps they finally caught this in 2007 and eliminated the disagreement in name between the tubes and box. After 2007, one cigar should have had the name "Monarcas".

[JohnnyO]

They spelled Behike wrong, so what do you want from them? The original Taino spelling was Behique. But I'm sure those knuckleheads didn't research it

[CaptainQuintero]

The names on the boxes come out spelt differently half the time anyway, just put on a dodgy Spanish accent and make it up as you go along, no one will call you on it for fear of being wrong themselves!

[JohnnyO]

BTW....in Cubanese Churchill is pronounced "chu-chi", maybe that's how your 1000 flowers got misspelled

[NSXCIGAR]

On 5/7/2017 at 3:57 PM, planetary said:

What we seem to have here is an indication that cigar labels refer to the product name (which can be plural or not), but that when there are quantities involved, one should apply the natural plural/singular forms.  So for the Edmundo product, we can have 25 Edmundos, or 1 Edmundo.  The same should go for the Bolivar Petit Corona, the Cohiba Lancero, or just about anything else.  Exceptions are when the names naturally resist pluralization (or singularization).  That would be fine, because we're at least on good conceptual ground in that case.

I was just able to confirm that this Edmundo Jar was not official HSA production, but likely a LCDH or private special commission. So we are back to only one example of discrepancy between singular and plural names post-Rev: the Monarchs. And this discrepancy was cleaned up in the cigar's final 2 years. 

Again, HSA is certainly no bastion of consistency and precision. But in this area, they seem to be remarkably consistent. If HSA/Cubatabaco had been inconsistent with plurality and singularity over the decades, I'd be much more willing to simply disregard the whole thing and say it's impossible to assign plurality or singularity to the names. But it appears the opposite is true--there's an extremely high degree of consistency here. 

[PigFish]

I think I can add something to this conversation.

The key here (IMHO) is that the Vitola de Galera is NOT “the name of a cigar,” but a name of a cigar’s “shape.”

The Vitola de Galera is therefore not plural even if ended with an ‘S’ just like my last name!

Why do I believe this? Well here are some examples:

The name Petit Bouquet exists. It is not Petits Bouquets. The name Seoane exists and it is not Seoanes. How about Laguito No. 1? It is not Laguitos No. 1’s…

Marevas for example is ‘a’ shape, not a group of ‘shapes.’ The Coronas is a shape (length and girth) and not a collection of ‘shapes,’ etcetera. Once a formal name is set for particular cigar, all bets are off.

I therefore believe that it is correct to say, “I smoked a coronas, marevas or petit coronas,” meaning that you smoked just one cigar. I smoked a mareva, is not correct unless there is a specific cigar named a mareva...

When I view the specific page on the Habanos website, it appears to display different ‘vitola names’ than the official names that they show on the same site as a part of their catalogue. It contradicts Habanos official literature as well. I believe this page lost something in the way of detail at it authoring, likely due to the person that wrote it. He/she may know a great deal about websites but little about Cuban cigars. MHO!

As Habanos SA is not known for being a competent operation, the name confusion on their site is not surprising. I will simply finish my examples with it is time to smoke a Habanos cigar, not a Habano cigar!!!

-Piggy

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, PigFish said:

 

I think I can add something to this conversation.

The key here (IMHO) is that the Vitola de Galera is NOT “the name of a cigar,” but a name of a cigar’s “shape.”

The Vitola de Galera is therefore not plural even if ended with an ‘S’ just like my last name!

I'm glad you brought this up Ray, as I was thinking about it as well, and upon further review, I agree vitolas are also proper nouns, and therefore adhere to the same rules as cigar name. They are capitalized and should be classified as "names". Some have singular forms like Seoane and Laguito No. 1, and some have plural-appearing forms like Coronas. As I've previously asserted with the syllogism that what appears to be plural can be singular, but what appears to be singular cannot be plural, therefore all names and vitolas must be singular. "One Coronas" or "a Coronas" would therefore be the correct nomenclature. Used in a sentence this would look like "I have one Partagas Lonsdales. It is a Cervantes vitola." This is much easier to see with a vitola like Cervantes. No one has ever referred to one cigar as a "Cervante", but we've all referred to a Petit Coronas as a "Mareva". 

Again, I am in no way suggesting we all stop singularizing plural-appearing names and vitolas here. I know I won't be. We're simply trying to ascertain the official and correct nomenclature. I think we're getting there...

[SirVantes]

I suppose it is easier/more natural with names like Cervantes, where one could assume derivation from a name that already ends with an "s".  It is "one Cervantes" because it was named after the author of Don Quixote, and it is "one Dantes" because it was named after Edmundo and not the author of the Divine Comedy.

But the Lonsdale/s is derived from the Earl of Lonsdale.

And then there's the Cervantes' close cousin - the Dalia.  Or it is the Dalias?  Was it named after the flower?  Or maybe Dalias in Andalucia (Cervantes is associated with Andalucia).  Any idea on the way to the light on that one?

Anyway, I can live with there being no absolute consistency.  It is not a science after all.

[PigFish]

... just inventory your Coronas with your fishes and sheeps... -LOL

-the Piggies

[PigFish]

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm glad you brought this up Ray, as I was thinking about it as well, and upon further review, I agree vitolas are also proper nouns, and therefore adhere to the same rules as cigar name. They are capitalized and should be classified as "names". Some have singular forms like Seoane and Laguito No. 1, and some have plural-appearing forms like Coronas. As I've previously asserted with the syllogism that what appears to be plural can be singular, but what appears to be singular cannot be plural, therefore all names and vitolas must be singular. "One Coronas" or "a Coronas" would therefore be the correct nomenclature. Used in a sentence this would look like "I have one Partagas Lonsdales. It is a Cervantes vitola." This is much easier to see with a vitola like Cervantes. No one has ever referred to one cigar as a "Cervante", but we've all referred to a Petit Coronas as a "Mareva". 

Again, I am in no way suggesting we all stop singularizing plural-appearing names and vitolas here. I know I won't be. We're simply trying to ascertain the official and correct nomenclature. I think we're getting there...

Coronas is to Partagas as Corona is to Partaga. Any one here enjoy a Partaga today?

-tP

[NSXCIGAR]

11 hours ago, SirVantes said:

I suppose it is easier/more natural with names like Cervantes, where one could assume derivation from a name that already ends with an "s".  It is "one Cervantes" because it was named after the author of Don Quixote, and it is "one Dantes" because it was named after Edmundo and not the author of the Divine Comedy.

But the Lonsdale/s is derived from the Earl of Lonsdale.

And then there's the Cervantes' close cousin - the Dalia.  Or it is the Dalias?  Was it named after the flower?  Or maybe Dalias in Andalucia (Cervantes is associated with Andalucia).  Any idea on the way to the light on that one?

Anyway, I can live with there being no absolute consistency.  It is not a science after all.

Derivations or etymology of names is irrelevant. What is important is what the name actually is on the box and in the catalog. Again, it's easy to get thrown off because there is an "s" on the end of these. But this doesn't mean plural, even though it appears plural. There is simply no such thing as a "Corona" in Cuban Cigar lexicon. The singular, and only name, is "Coronas".

Think if someone's given name ends in "s", like Marcos. It does not necessarily refer to multiple people named Marco, especially if "Marco" has never been used. We know if there is no "Marco", then Marcos must be singular. If a "Marco" did exist, then yes, one could state that it is possible that Marcos is plural. But that is not the case. As "Marco" has never been seen, nor has the name "Corona" ever been seen officially.

I understand that HSA/Cubatabaco has often been all over the place over the decades, but on this issue they have been remarkably consistent. Only one cigar out of close to 1000 models post-Rev has shown any inconsistency here, and even that one--the Monarchs--was corrected in its final years. So while HSA gets beat up quite a bit for typos and other errors, a typo is a just an isolated mistake. The singularity of cigar names is something that has been extremely consistent and uniform over a very long period of time--enough for me to conclude that it's clearly one way or another by design.

[SirVantes]

. There is simply no such thing as a "Corona" in Cuban Cigar lexicon. The singular, and only name, is "Coronas".

 

, nor has the name "Corona" ever been seen officially

 

I can live with there being no absolute consistency.

[planetary]

The difference between "Marcos" and "coronas" is that the former is a proper noun, and the latter is the plural form of the Spanish word "corona."  Using "corona" in a sentence makes sense, and as @SirVantes just pointed out, is even used by HSA itself, inconsistently.

Even if one were to agree with the claim that cigar names are proper nouns, I maintain that that they are plural because they are rooted as being descriptors for box contents.  That's why they are most often plural forms of words which have singular forms. Not always, but often.  Therefore (I continue to claim), it makes sense to refer to singular forms, when it's natural to do so.

[jp1979]

Here are some different ones, interesting one is the RyJ. Short Churchills then 25 Unidades.