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

>From: Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: THEORY/USAGE: irregular English plurals (was: RE: [CONLANG]
>Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:38:03 -0400
>
>On Mon, 20 May 2002 21:08:33 -0400 John Cowan <jcowan@...>
>writes:
> > > 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.
>
> > --
> > John Cowan <jcowan@...>
>-
>
>Personally, i find myself quite often using forms like "sheeps", "deers",
>and i'm pretty sure at least some of my friends do the same thing.
Well, I heard somewhere that "oxen" (like "children") comes from the old -en
Germanic plural. Likewise, I think a number of Indo-European langages have
irregular plurals, though perhaps not many survive. German comes to mind.
Did all modern plurals come from irregulars way back when?

Jake

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