Re: USAGE: THEORY/USAGE: irregular English plurals (was: RE: [CONLANG]

Muke Tever wrote:
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:55:13 -0400
>
>From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@...>
> > > As for animals, the bare plurals are arguably regular, due to a
> > > productive rule saying that nouns denoting animals of a certain type
> > > (huntable?) take bare plurals; certainly the list is open-ended, a
> > > telltale sign of productivity.
> >
> > I think the criterion is herdable (or self-herding) rather than
>huntable,
> > but foxes are huntable, and goats herdable, so I think we have an
>irregular
> > survival rather than any sort of rule.  I cannot think of any modernly
> > discovered animal which has a zero plural.
>
>But I think the zero plural can be extended to all fish?
Two shark? Don't think I've heard that.

As for the "modernly discovered animal" bit, I'm almost positive I've seen
"wildebeest" used as a plural. I dunno when the word was borrowed, but can
maximally only been a few centuries ago.

                                                          Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com