Re: USAGE: THEORY/USAGE: irregular English plurals (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number of symbols

Quoting And Rosta <a-rosta@...>:

> Jan van Steenbergen:
> >  --- And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > > man:men, woman:women, foot:feet, goose:geese, tooth:teeth,
> mouse:mice,
> > > > child:children, ox:oxen, fish:fish, shrimp:shrimp, deer:deer,
> sheep:sheep,
> > > > moose:moose, elk:elk, salmon:salmon, herring:herring, bison:bison,
> > > > calf:calves, half:halves, hoof:hooves, elf:elves, knife:knives,
> > > > life:lives, wife:wives, loaf:loaves, self:selves, shelf:shelves,
> > > > thief:thieves, leaf:leaves, scarf:scarves, wolf:wolves.
> >
> > Wouldn't "brethren" belong to this category as well?
>
> Yes, actually.
>
> My sense is that in contemporary English, _brethren_, like _police_,
> lacks a singular, and hence does not belong in the above list.  But
> _brethren_ and __police_ remain irregulars in not taking the -s
> plural.
That's not my experience.  Inasmuch as I've ever heard the plural
"brethren" used at all, it has always been used in circumstances,
often in religious orders, where the singular "brother" was quite
accessible.  It's just that "brethren" as a plural is very very
sociolinguistically restricted.

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier          "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers

Reply