Improve your bloody grammar!

[Tatari_okan]

Sauron created one ring to rule all the other rings.
He's the lord of the rings and that's the title.

It doesn't make sence for two reasons. First of all, if the book took its name from its villain, how come the villain didn't win in the end? Secondly, if the villain is main character, why the entire story isn't told by his view? Lord of the Rings is the Hobbit, Frodo in my opinion. Because he could resist the power and temptation of the ring, he didn't became a slave to the ring, he became the lord of the ring.

...it wasn't the point of my question but thanks anyway.

I'm pretty sure it was. You were asking if the name is correct to be plural when there's only one ring, which there isn't.

Game of Thrones is correct because it doesn't actually refer to a single, proper noun throne. It's merely a game involving thrones (not multiple thrones but thrones in general).

Okay, you are maybe right about the Lord of the Rings but isn't the Iron Throne is meant by Game of Thrones?

So, "s" in thrones is meant for it is a non-spesific general throne, it doesn't give throne a plural meaning. I guess I take my answer, thank you.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Just because a book is named after a villain, doesn't mean the villain has to be the protagonist. Nor does it mean he has to defeat the good guys and win. The Lord of the Rings is a snappier title than The Hobbit Who Resisted The Lure of the One Ring. The title is accurate because Sauron made many rings, ten for men, seven for dwarfs and three for elves, and he is lord of them all through his mastery of his own ring of power.

Similarly, Game of Thrones refers to a game being played by multiple rulers or people who want to rule; thrones isn't necessary referring to physical objects but alluding to those who have power to govern lands.

 

[Radalan]

Because he could resist the power and temptation of the ring, he didn't became a slave to the ring, he became the lord of the ring.

Well no, in the end he wasn't able to resist it no longer. So technically if it wasn't accidentally destroyed by Gollum, Frodo would have become a slave.

If the title was spelled incorrectly I'm sure it would have been pointed out several times during past seventy years or so.

 

[Seff]

It doesn't make sence for two reasons. First of all, if the book took its name from its villain, how come the villain didn't win in the end? Secondly, if the villain is main character, why the entire story isn't told by his view? Lord of the Rings is the Hobbit, Frodo in my opinion. Because he could resist the power and temptation of the ring, he didn't became a slave to the ring, he became the lord of the ring.

Wow...

 

[Sir Saladin]

It should be titled Frodo and Sam, a Tale of True Love.

Also, the movie Star Wars needs a new title because it wasn't about stars warring against each other. Duh.

How about People Wars in Space?

 

[Radalan]

How about People Wars in Space?

But they're not all people. 

 

[Bluehawk]

That's specieieieist.

 

[Moose!]

It doesn't make sence for two reasons. First of all, if the book took its name from its villain, how come the villain didn't win in the end? Secondly, if the villain is main character, why the entire story isn't told by his view? Lord of the Rings is the Hobbit, Frodo in my opinion. Because he could resist the power and temptation of the ring, he didn't became a slave to the ring, he became the lord of the ring.

Wow...

 

[Sir Saladin]

How about People Wars in Space?

But they're not all people. 

Yes they are.

 

[Radalan]

How about People Wars in Space?

But they're not all people. 

Yes they are.

Droids ain't no peoples and two of them be quasi-main characters.

 

[Moose!]

How about People Wars in Space?

But they're not all people. 

Yes they are.

Droids ain't no peoples and two of them be quasi-main characters.

C-3PO and R2-D2 would both qualify as persons in my book.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Even if they don't qualify as being people they weren't the ones waging the wars were they? They didn't even do much fighting, it was more like bickering.

 

[Anthropoid]

Also worth noting that, a good deal of the combat takes place on planets not "in space."

How about People Wars in Space?

But they're not all people. 

Yes they are.

Droids ain't no peoples and two of them be quasi-main characters.

C-3PO and R2-D2 would both qualify as persons in my book.

"Entities Engaged in Collective Violence Throughout the Galaxy" just not quite the same ring to it as "Star Wars."

 

[Meevar the Mighty]

Maybe that's because they don't mean the same thing.

Star Wars an abbreviation of "Death Star Wars". The Lord of the Rings is about the ring that is the lord of other rings. Game of Thrones uses "throne" in the more general sense, being any seat; the series is a homage to the game "musical chairs".

 

[Sir Saladin]

As far as "Death Star Wars" goes I suppose you may be right but most people aren't going to know about that and besides, it should be "The Death Star War" then. On the other hand, a ring cannot be a lord no matter how magically powerful it is.

 

[Vieira151]

It doesn't make sence for two reasons. First of all, if the book took its name from its villain, how come the villain didn't win in the end? Secondly, if the villain is main character, why the entire story isn't told by his view? Lord of the Rings is the Hobbit, Frodo in my opinion. Because he could resist the power and temptation of the ring, he didn't became a slave to the ring, he became the lord of the ring.

Wow...

My feelings precisely.

 

[crodio]

This is not a strictly grammatical question, and not even in English, but this is the best place i found to ask it, so if anyone knows a bit of Russian there's something i would like to understand:
How do russians form their names?
Do they still use that name+patronymic+surname (nobility title? What happened with this part after the Bolsheviks?)
And, how do, uhm... hypocorisms? nicknames? ...work?
For example:
Dimitri -> Mitia? -> Mitka?

What are the uses and the difference between Mitia and Mitka?

Should i move this to the Russia thread?
Also, feel free to correct any grammatical error in this post, please.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

The last part: "Mitka" is diminutive, literally, "little Mitia." Latter's more affectionate.

 

[Kissaki]

It doesn't make sence for two reasons. First of all, if the book took its name from its villain, how come the villain didn't win in the end? Secondly, if the villain is main character, why the entire story isn't told by his view?

Hmmm... What's your feeling about "Jaws", then? Clearly named after the villain (the shark), should it be told from the shark's perspective?

"Blub blub blub CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP blub blub"

Yeah, no. And a happy ending for the shark? What about King Kong? Dracula? The Mummy?

 

[FrisianDude]

/thread

Poor oxford comma.