Is it common to use the borrowed noun-adjective form for borrowed French phrases?

Lately, something has struck me. I’ve been hearing several expressions in English, some clearly borrowed from French and preserving their noun-adjective form. Some examples are:

Attorney General
Secretary General
Court Martial
Notary Public

I suspect there are more that I have missed. However, in each of the 4 cases listed above, I feel ‘OK’ saying them the ‘English’ way; that is, adjective-noun, which is the way we almost always do things except for these borrowed phrases. One might receive a statement from the General Attorney, or be sent to a Martial Court. My father is actually a lawyer and does indeed describe himself as a Public Notary. Doing things this way makes the plural sound a lot more sensible in English, too; which sounds better: General Secretaries, or Secretaries General?

How common is it for people to flip these borrowed phrases around and say them the more standard English adjective-noun way? Might it be clearer in the long run if we did so?


The point about these phrases is not whether they came from French (which I find dubious), but that they are unique titles. There are dozens of general attorneys, but only one Attorney General. Similarly with Secretary-General (of the UN) as opposed to General Secretary of a union or organization, and Surgeon General in the US. Court martial is harder to see, but it may be an obsolete conceit that all sitting military courts are part of one Court Martial (as Henry said), in the same way that the Supreme Court may consist of any number of judges, and may even hear two cases at once, while remaining formally one Court. (“Court Supreme” sounds like a dessert, and lawyers hate being made fun of.)
I don’t know about Notary Public, but it doesn’t seem unlikely that (for example) only one lawyer in each town was originally allowed to use the title.

Source : Link , Question Author : Jedd , Answer Author : Tim Lymington

Leave a Comment