“Their names are both Trevor” would sound the most unambiguous to me.
They’re Trevor.
We are all Trevor
On this blessed day
Speak for yourself
I am all Trevor
Trevor’re their names.
“Their names are Trevor.”
They’re named Trevor.
I would also like to know the answer to this question. Edit; I think it’s “their name is Trevor”
Are you specifically pointing out that both of their names are Trevor? Just because you know two Trevor, are you talking about both them?
“They’re both named Trevor.”
A lot of posts but no-one has yet to say.
They’re named Trevors
Clears the whole thing up.
No one has said that because it wouldn’t be correct. They are (both) named Trevor.
They’re named Trevors
It’s clearly plural
That’s not how it works or each would be named Trevors.
What? If you saw them walking down the street together would you say
There go the Trevors
Or there go the Trevor?
Different contexts. ‘There go the Trevors’ would be correct as you’re referring to a group comprised of two people named Trevor. You’re essentially saying ‘there goes the people whose name is Trevor.’
Saying ‘they’re named Trevors’ is incorrect as neither individual is named Trevors. You’re taking about the singular name that each possesses. A singular name doesn’t become plural.
You wouldn’t say, for example, of two blue cars, ‘both cars are painted blues.’ You would say ‘there goes the two blues’ or ‘the blues.’
It’s perfectly correct. There are two people named Trevor.
So the plural is named Trevors.
Are you trying to suggest the correct plural of named Trevors is Trevi?
They’re named Trevi is completely wrong.
Nobody is suggesting Trevi but you.
They’re named Trevors will never be correct. The plural of Trevor is clearly Trevors, but the context of yours is referring to a singular name. Trevor functions as a singular name, not as a plural noun. The name doesn’t change because multiple individuals possess it. It’s the same reason we’d say, for example, two cities named Liverpool but two Liverpools.
Why would either one of them be named the plural of Trevor?
Yaharr, thar be Trevors!
The trevors are named trevor.
Them be Trevors
This is the one grammatically acceptable time to use Thar
As others have said, neither is good English.
That being said, you’re referring to two people, so are is the less incorrect version in that specific example. I’m way too long out of grammar classes to remember the right terminology for the underlying “rule”, but it comes down to what the target is.
They are Trevor is a more compact version of they are both Trevor, which is again the short version of they are both named Trevor.
So, it comes down to sticking as close to that as possible. Their names are Trevor, because there’s a single name, but plural people. Both people possess the name Trevor. Trevor is their name.
That’s usually the way to figure out the least wrong/closest correct way to say something. You shift the wording until you get something that scans right to your brain, and most of the time you’re as close as you’ll get with conjugation of “to be”
And it’s weird as fuck that “to be” is so transformed. Is, am, was, were, are, been, being, and even weird shit like “be going to” and “going to be”. Like, wtf English? Why you gotta bring extra words to the party like that? You really need a second verb to conjugate a verb?
There’s some weird etymology shit going on there somewhere between old English and it’s roots. Hell, the fact that “to be” is even necessary is a little weird. Like “ser” in Spanish. It means the same thing, but lacks the weirdness of to as a butt buddy. Mind you, that shit conjugates weird too! Yo soy muy mindfucked by Spanish too, and I bet tu eres mindfucked tambien. Like, really, go look up the conjugation of ser. It isn’t as wonky as to be, but it’s getting there, especially in the imperfect tenses.
I don’t even speak Spanish worth a damn, much less any other languages, but I bet every language has some fuckery like that in it. I’m just really gobsmacked at the verbal gymnastics of the two I’m familiar with. But the English version of the underlying idea is just an extra layer of tomfoolery.
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.”
