Re: THEORY: derivation question
| From: | Tom Wier <artabanos@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, March 28, 1999, 2:51 |
|---|
John Cowan wrote:
> > 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".
Close. ME "dwerf, dwergh", OE "dweorg, dweorh".
D'you think it has to do with the same phenomenon that resulted
in the /f/ in "enough"? The <-ow> plural is natural enough, considering
the OE <-g>.
=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
There's nothing particularly wrong with the
proletariat. It's the hamburgers of the
proletariat that I have a problem with. - Alfred Wallace
========================================================