Re: THEORY: derivation question

Lars Henrik Mathiesen scripsit:

> "pl. dwarfs, also dwarves."
I think that "dwarves" simply didn't exist until JRRT coined it,
half unconsciously as he says.

> Anyway, the point stands that if analogical pressures hadn't applied,
> all of these would have had plurals in -ves only.
Actually, "dwarves" is analogical too, according to JRRT:
the true etymological plural is "dwarrows" or "dwerrows".
In fact, I'm a little puzzled where the final "-f" comes from,
I would have expected "dwarg".

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.