Re: OT: English and schizophrenia

Hi!

John Cowan <cowan@...> writes:
> > Oh, I wouldn't say it's that irregular.  Of those 9 different patterns,
> > only three or four are very productive (-(e)n, -e, null and -s for foreign
> > loans).
>
> Pinker (in _Words and Rules_) claims that only -s is productive;
> in tests of both German-sounding and foreign-sounding nonsense nouns,
> most German-speakers are comfortable only with -s endings.
Well, no, I think for feminine words ending in -e (`Blume' etc.), the
productive standard plural is -n, and -s sounds weird.  And for
masculine -er ending rubbish words, I'm sure -(null) is the standard
plural (and, of course, -n in dative plural) and -s sounds weird, too.
This is like `computer' behaves.

But maybe most other rubbish words trigger -s plural, like most loans.
Especially if no native sound pattern is audible.

However, at least three are productive then.

**Henrik


>
> In English, we are used to the idea that regularity = normality;
> weak verbs are the regular forms, and -s nouns ditto.  But
> the German noun evidence is that the regular form, the one applied
> by rule, is actually used only in about 1% of the cases.
>
> BTW, -s is used not only for foreign loans, but also for
> all sorts of rootless forms, like letters of the alphabet
> and conversions (die Ichs und die Es's, e.g.)
>
> --
> John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
> One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
>         --Douglas Hofstadter