Good point. However, the term "athlete's foot" is normally assumed to refer to a disease, not to a foot aflicted by it (IMHO). So the plural would likely be used to refer to more than one type of that disease (like how you say "one fish" and "two fish" but to talk about lots of types of coral fish you say "coral fishes").

more than one type i would guess would be something like: "he had various different athlete's foot infections" where "athlete's foot" would be an adjective describing the type of infection(s).

As for more than one foot being infected i still think it would be "athlete's foot", (e.g. "he has athlete's foot on both his feet")

More than one athlete with the infection would still be "athtlete's foot", (e.g., "they all have athletes foot")

multiple athletes? I would think it would be the same thing, (e.g., "they all have athlete's foot on both their feet", or "all of their feet have athlete's foot infections")

for multiple different infections on multiple althletes on both their feet, i would guess "they all have various strains of athlete's foot infections one or more of their feet".

Then again i am not an english teacher (so i could be wrong), but like BronzeWing says here i cannot think of a sentence where you would use anything but "athlete's foot" or "athlete's foot infections". (yeah i spent to much of my day already thinking about this)

-enlil

> i cannot think of a sentence where you would use anything
> but "athlete's foot"

Athletes' feet are often disgustingly sweaty.

Or do you mean more than one athlete with an affected foot? That would be athletes' foot.

Actually, that would probably be "athletes' feet" unless there was only a single infected foot among them... but in that case, it would simply be "athlete's foot" because you couldn't rightly say that the infected foot belonged to more than one athlete...

Of course, the answer is "athlete's foot" anyway. :-)

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";