“Their names are both Trevor” would sound the most unambiguous to me.
The trevors are named trevor.
Them be Trevors
This is the one grammatically acceptable time to use Thar
I would just say “They’re both named Trevor.”
What if there’s more than two Trevors?
They’re all named Trevor.
Both of their names is Trevor?
Their names are Roberts Paulsons
Trevor’re their names.
“They’re both named Trevor.”
They’re named Trevor.
Both don’t sound right as they are ambiguous. “Their name is Trevor,” sounds like it is talking about a single person. “Their names are Trevor” feels incomplete. “They are both named Trevor” or “Their names are Trevor and Trevor” solves that ambiguity.
Their names is Trevor
My interpretation: “their name is Trevor” is grammatically correct, but semantically means their collective name is Trevor, not that they’re both called Trevor.
“Their names are Trevor” is incomplete because the subject implies a plural while the object is singular. This could work if you were to list multiple names: “their names are Trevor and Trevor.”
Both correct, it depends whether you are saying,1 “They both have names and their names are Trevor” or “They both have the same name and that name is Trevor”.
So the real question is are you talking about their shared name or both of their names separately?
We are all Trevor
On this blessed day
Speak for yourself
I am all Trevor
“Their names are Trevor.”
Both their names are Trevor
When would you use both their vs both of their in this scenario? Your’s makes sense but I would have put an of, and I’m wondering if it’s just a waste of letters.
Both are valid. One might be more likely to feel more natural to say depending on where that person is from or how they were taught, that’s it.
These are our Trevors.
As somebody who worked in a place with 5 Dougs, I would say their names are Doug. Beyond that, they get descriptors. Angry Doug, Cool Doug, Vac-Former Doug, Smiley Doug, and Doug 2.
Doug
DougDoug
DougDougDoug
DougDougDougDoug
Douglas
who is Doug 1?
Doug 2 was technically Doug 5. But we didn’t have a descriptor for him. Well, we could have called him “Blood Pressure Doug” but that’s kind of insensitive. And he wasn’t around long enough to figure out a better one.
Did the blood pressure get him then? sad sad end for Doug (2 | 5)
No! He just hated the job. Thank you for that, I got a good laugh. He came from a very structured place, where he had a very specific job. We were much smaller, and the scope of our positions covered a lot more, and our workflow was not what he was accustomed to.
