Okay…. Paganini is a famous violinist. And this nudie chick with a violin has boobies. Guys like to make crude names for boobies such as…. well, boobies…. but also thinks like ta-tas or wa-bas or ga-bas or…. na-nas seems like something a guy would say.
So this is a violinist, like Paganini, with her na-nas on display…. so … Paga-na-na.
By the way, when my little sister was breast feeding and the age of two and a half she called the na-nas (short for nurse). When she was old enough to wean but was not liking the idea she would persistantly tug and pull and if she managed to get them out she called them “Ha-ha”s….. Then when it came time she could touch them but not suck them they became “Hand ha-ha”….. Meanwhile I was about 15 or 16 and had to observe all this….. *sigh*…..
Some people use an apostriphe s to pluralize complex objects (such as hyphenates. The idea is similar to using parenthesis is mathematical formulae. Read complex-noun’s and (complex noun)s The whole thing is pluralized, not just the single element.
Yes, that’s not quite what’s happening here. But I think it’s ballpark.
James, I think you’re over-complicating this: Plenty of people use the apostrophe when they pluralize words, both large and small, because they’re not very bright. He Who Must Not Be Named does it all the time.
People who should know better sometimes do it too. If one talks of letters bs and cs it looks strange and “b”s and “c”s or b’s and c’s are easier to parse. na-na is not a word so much as a sound guys grunt out and the plural na-nas probably is indecipherable.
Anyway no matter what the reason, and whether we trying to excuse it or condemn it, it’s pretty clear in this case it is meant as a plural.
I think James’ explanation as to why it’s becoming prevalent has valid points. na-na is a hyphenate and people *do* have issues pluralizing hyphenates.
@ Bill – I haven’t either, but if Melcher had altered the name to “Paga-ta-tas”, some nitpicker would probably have objected on the grounds that they were not “bodacious”.
“I think you’re over-complicating this: Plenty of people use the apostrophe when they pluralize words”
Using an apostrophe-s to pluralize is incorrect. I’m making the case that doing it for complex-noun/hyphenates, apostrophe-s to pluralize is correct and proper.
I would use apostrophes for plurals of individual letters, like I’s or a’s, although in practice I usually just avoid the situation. I typically enclose letters in single quotes, like ‘a’.
Many cases are more style situations rather than hard and fast rules, like whether to use “James'” or “James’s”. I favor the latter, reserving ending apostrophe for plural nouns rather than singular ones that end in ‘s’. So if you had a house occupied by “James Green” and family, I would write “James’s house” or “the Greens’ house”.
I think James is saying you heard them called “na-nas” just now; In this cartoon (or my post).
(You will not be able to claim you never heard them called that tomorrow because you just heard them called that today.)
….
My impression is guys don’t need words to have ever been used. The just guffaw and say basso voce “Oh, yeah, I’d like to see her fleegle-diggle-mangs” and the meaning is understood.
So now you can no longer honestly say, you have never heard them refered to as na-nas nor as fleegle-diggle-mangs.
“I think James is saying you heard them called “na-nas” just now; In this cartoon (or my post). ”
Strictly speaking, in the caption. Although, he may have HEARD it any number of times without understanding to what the term was being used to refer. (boy, that’s a clumsily-constructed sentence, but I’m not going to go make it better.)
[I messed up my original post. The lines “I can’t believe I forgot Hey Jude. I don’t get do-overs, but I couldn’t resist making a fixed version.” were supposed to be preceded by: “Here is what he included as a header:”]
The Arlo Page 
Okay…. Paganini is a famous violinist. And this nudie chick with a violin has boobies. Guys like to make crude names for boobies such as…. well, boobies…. but also thinks like ta-tas or wa-bas or ga-bas or…. na-nas seems like something a guy would say.
So this is a violinist, like Paganini, with her na-nas on display…. so … Paga-na-na.
By the way, when my little sister was breast feeding and the age of two and a half she called the na-nas (short for nurse). When she was old enough to wean but was not liking the idea she would persistantly tug and pull and if she managed to get them out she called them “Ha-ha”s….. Then when it came time she could touch them but not suck them they became “Hand ha-ha”….. Meanwhile I was about 15 or 16 and had to observe all this….. *sigh*…..
LikeLike
Yes, but what’s with that final apostrophe?
LikeLike
“what’s with that final apostrophe?”
Some people use an apostriphe s to pluralize complex objects (such as hyphenates. The idea is similar to using parenthesis is mathematical formulae. Read complex-noun’s and (complex noun)s The whole thing is pluralized, not just the single element.
Yes, that’s not quite what’s happening here. But I think it’s ballpark.
LikeLike
James, I think you’re over-complicating this: Plenty of people use the apostrophe when they pluralize words, both large and small, because they’re not very bright. He Who Must Not Be Named does it all the time.
LikeLike
This URL says it all:
https://nypost.com/2019/12/01/apostrophe-protection-society-shuts-says-ignorance-and-laziness-have-won/
LikeLike
People who should know better sometimes do it too. If one talks of letters bs and cs it looks strange and “b”s and “c”s or b’s and c’s are easier to parse. na-na is not a word so much as a sound guys grunt out and the plural na-nas probably is indecipherable.
Anyway no matter what the reason, and whether we trying to excuse it or condemn it, it’s pretty clear in this case it is meant as a plural.
I think James’ explanation as to why it’s becoming prevalent has valid points. na-na is a hyphenate and people *do* have issues pluralizing hyphenates.
LikeLike
For the record… I’ve been 8 years old, and I’ve never called them — or heard them called — na-nas.
LikeLike
@ Bill – I haven’t either, but if Melcher had altered the name to “Paga-ta-tas”, some nitpicker would probably have objected on the grounds that they were not “bodacious”.
LikeLike
“For the record… I’ve been 8 years old, and I’ve never called them — or heard them called — na-nas.”
Yes you have, at least once.
LikeLike
“I think you’re over-complicating this: Plenty of people use the apostrophe when they pluralize words”
Using an apostrophe-s to pluralize is incorrect. I’m making the case that doing it for complex-noun/hyphenates, apostrophe-s to pluralize is correct and proper.
LikeLike
Now I have a Sheryl Crow earworm:
“Na na. Na na na na. Na na na na. Na na.”
LikeLike
I was somehow spared this
but I can’t get this one out of my head
LikeLike
Praytell when, James.
LikeLike
Bill, I suspect that James fell into the use/mention trap.
LikeLike
In Roth’s “Call it sleep” they were Ne Ne’s. (As in nay nay.)
LikeLike
I would use apostrophes for plurals of individual letters, like I’s or a’s, although in practice I usually just avoid the situation. I typically enclose letters in single quotes, like ‘a’.
Many cases are more style situations rather than hard and fast rules, like whether to use “James'” or “James’s”. I favor the latter, reserving ending apostrophe for plural nouns rather than singular ones that end in ‘s’. So if you had a house occupied by “James Green” and family, I would write “James’s house” or “the Greens’ house”.
LikeLike
“Praytell when, James.”
Scroll up.
LikeLike
““Praytell when, James.””
I think James is saying you heard them called “na-nas” just now; In this cartoon (or my post).
(You will not be able to claim you never heard them called that tomorrow because you just heard them called that today.)
….
My impression is guys don’t need words to have ever been used. The just guffaw and say basso voce “Oh, yeah, I’d like to see her fleegle-diggle-mangs” and the meaning is understood.
So now you can no longer honestly say, you have never heard them refered to as na-nas nor as fleegle-diggle-mangs.
LikeLike
“I think James is saying you heard them called “na-nas” just now; In this cartoon (or my post). ”
Strictly speaking, in the caption. Although, he may have HEARD it any number of times without understanding to what the term was being used to refer. (boy, that’s a clumsily-constructed sentence, but I’m not going to go make it better.)
LikeLike
Wait, wait…
I thought that only GUYS had fleegle-diggle-mangs.
(wink,wink,nudge,nudge, say no more)
LikeLike
Kilby, DO ta-tas have to be inherently bodacious? If so, why would the adjective be used at all?
LikeLike
Aren’t fleegle-diggle-mangs what the Swedish Chef is making for dinner tonight?
LikeLike
@Bill: It could also have been this:
Or this:
As always, there’s an XKCD for that
I also recently learned that Mahna Mahna was originally from an Italian sexploitation film.
LikeLike
Does anyone remember Charlotte Moorman?
LikeLike
…and here is the fixed version of the XKCD.
I can’t believe I forgot Hey Jude.
I don’t get do-overs, but I couldn’t resist making a fixed version.
LikeLike
LikeLike
[I messed up my original post. The lines “I can’t believe I forgot Hey Jude. I don’t get do-overs, but I couldn’t resist making a fixed version.” were supposed to be preceded by: “Here is what he included as a header:”]
LikeLike
“Hey Jude” is a pretty serious oversight. Not so much for “The memory remains” by Metallica.
LikeLike
I still think it’s this:
LikeLike