Re: -es vs -en in English

On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Sally Caves wrote:

> >
> > Well, I think that this shows the basic, most common pattern, and nothing
> > much to do with the inherent qualities of English. Invaders start to
> > rule, and then adopt the language of the people they conquered. See what
> > happened to the Manchu speaking conquerors of China.  Of course, the
> > demographics must be right: the invaders must be a minority.  And the
> > capital of the conquering people must be moved into the conquered
> > territory. I don't think William's ancestors would ever have spoken
> > English if he'd staid on the continent. The spread of Indo-Aryan languages
> > in Nepal is occasioned not just by the conquest of Prtvi Narayan Shah,
> > but also by the spread of Khas people throughout the mountains. If half
> > of France had moved to England, drowning the Anglo-Saxons in Frenchiness,
> > then English would never have survived.
> >
>
> Are there any s-plurals in Dutch?
Sure, dochter - dochters (daughter-daughters) - lots of words ending
in /er/ take their plural in <-s>, even though there's often a possible
(funny or formal sounding) plural in <-en>.  And then there's appel-appels
(again, appelen is possible, too, though a bit stilted).

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org