Live data from Hacker News

Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

grammarphobia.com

121–130 of 247 posts

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#121
post #5

Because some dude or gal somewhere some time ago thought it would be funny that generations to come would need to learn irregular forms of some random words! Why would grammar rules apply all the same to all the words, not that logical is it? /s

That is not in any shape or fashion how languages are made. Language will never be logical, because humans are not logical.

Many years ago, one of my Russian professors said, "All languages are about 85% logical and 15% illogical. That's how you know humans made them."

P.S. Russian is much easier to spell than English, but its verbs of motion are a real clusterfuck.

P.P.S. I have met more than one Russian who said, "Only foreigners decline numbers correctly."

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#122
post #2

Worse imho is the "glasses", "pants", "pliers", "scissors", etc thing. Single object with plural name just because it happens to be made of two similar parts. Most objects are made of multiple parts though and they get a singular name just fine. That and the "double u", why not "we"??

I can live with "glasses", "pants", "pliers" and "scissors", but "data" drives me crazy because even native speakers seem to be completely inconsistent when it comes to its number. EDIT: Now that I think about it there is another one that is hard for me, even it I know it is the correct form in English: visa (singular) and visas (plural). In my mother tongue it follows the same pattern as datum and data, it's Visum (…

My recent peeve is Americans who use 'bespoke' instead of 'custom.'

And 'in agreeance' instead of 'in agreement.'

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#123
post #2

Worse imho is the "glasses", "pants", "pliers", "scissors", etc thing. Single object with plural name just because it happens to be made of two similar parts. Most objects are made of multiple parts though and they get a singular name just fine. That and the "double u", why not "we"??

The W is called "double-u" because it dates from the era when U and V were the same letter (the consonant and vowel versions diverged) and there was no W letter, but only a doubled-U. The phrase, "I want a veal sandwich on Tuesday" would have been spelled, "I uuant a ueal sanduuich on Tuesday" (or, alternatively, "I vvant a veal sandvvich on Tvesday"). This is also why u, v, and w are consecutive in the alphabet. Thi…

& is made up of the letters E and T (et, and!)

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can live with "glasses", "pants", "pliers" and "scissors", but "data" drives me crazy because even native speakers seem to be completely inconsistent when it comes to its number. EDIT: Now that I think about it there is another one that is hard for me, even it I know it is the correct form in English: visa (singular) and visas (plural). In my mother tongue it follows the same pattern as datum and data, it's Visum (…

In Australia, is the singular of darta "dartum"? (Genuine question for any Aussies)

We use the spelling datum/data. We pronounce it 'dar-ta' not 'day-taa'. I want to say we pronounce it 'day-tum' not 'dar-tum' but both sound fine to me, possibly thanks to all of the exported American English we consume or possibly just because we're weird.

I appreciate the apparent strangeness of this, but it's certainly not unique within the language.

That's English! :)

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#125
post #2

Worse imho is the "glasses", "pants", "pliers", "scissors", etc thing. Single object with plural name just because it happens to be made of two similar parts. Most objects are made of multiple parts though and they get a singular name just fine. That and the "double u", why not "we"??

The W is called "double-u" because it dates from the era when U and V were the same letter (the consonant and vowel versions diverged) and there was no W letter, but only a doubled-U. The phrase, "I want a veal sandwich on Tuesday" would have been spelled, "I uuant a ueal sanduuich on Tuesday" (or, alternatively, "I vvant a veal sandvvich on Tvesday"). This is also why u, v, and w are consecutive in the alphabet. Thi…

In Swedish, V and W were treated as the same letter and mixed together when sorting (in the phonebook, in database software, etc) until 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_alphabet#Uncommon_lett...

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#126
I can't believe they discussed plurals in English and missed the most interesting piece!

The -s endings came after Norsemen conquered England, and the introduction of it was from their language, connected to old French. This also is why in English, you have words like "ox/cows" and "beef": the Norsemen who were nobles essentially influenced the English to use their words for the animals since they were served as food to them (beef), while the English people who slaved in the fields raising the actual animals (cow) continued to use their ancestors' words for the live animals. This is why we have different words for the meat of the animals (beef, poultry, mutton) vs. the actual animals (cows, chicken, sheep).

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#128
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The W is called "double-u" because it dates from the era when U and V were the same letter (the consonant and vowel versions diverged) and there was no W letter, but only a doubled-U. The phrase, "I want a veal sandwich on Tuesday" would have been spelled, "I uuant a ueal sanduuich on Tuesday" (or, alternatively, "I vvant a veal sandvvich on Tvesday"). This is also why u, v, and w are consecutive in the alphabet. Thi…

In Swedish, V and W were treated as the same letter and mixed together when sorting (in the phonebook, in database software, etc) until 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_alphabet#Uncommon_lett...

In Persian, the same letter makes the oh/oo sound and the v sound. Weird.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The W is called "double-u" because it dates from the era when U and V were the same letter (the consonant and vowel versions diverged) and there was no W letter, but only a doubled-U. The phrase, "I want a veal sandwich on Tuesday" would have been spelled, "I uuant a ueal sanduuich on Tuesday" (or, alternatively, "I vvant a veal sandvvich on Tvesday"). This is also why u, v, and w are consecutive in the alphabet. Thi…

& is made up of the letters E and T (et, and!)

Yes, which is why the & character is supposedly called the "empersand" in Scotland, for "'et', per-se 'and'".

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#130
The evolution of language fascinates me. English has a fascinating history. 1000 years ago Old English and Althochdeutch (Old High German) were almost interchangeable (AFAIK). The really fascinating part was the period after 1066 for several centuries where English wasn't the court language of England.

Now this period and lack of centralization is probably responsible for the many dialects (which now are mostly just different accents for other reasons). But the language changed so much over this period. Middle English is largely readable (but weird) to the modern reader. Old English is basically a different language.

In this period English lost of what I like to call the bullshit like gender of (non-person) nouns. Case of nouns (other than pronouns) also basically disappeared. It still had the formal/informal distinction of the second person that so many other European languages had (but we lost that later). Verbs and nouns became way more regular.

None of this happened with German (although Germany as a country didn't really exist until the 19th century and was at best a collection of city-states prior to that) but German in its various forms was still the ruling language (although Latin always had a certain preeminence what with the Holy Roman Empire and the Electors and all).

Compare modern German grammar (where nouns and adjectives have to agree with case, number, gender and article). It strongly suggests that the ruling class seems to embody conservatism and traditions, which is unsurprising given that the status quo is pretty good if you're the ruling class.

You see this in England where the precursor to modern French was the court language of England for hundreds of years. This has the effect of keeping commoners out (even more than they already are by virtue of hereditary title).

It's almost like without central control English became more democratized.

Obviously the printing press had a massive effect in standardizing spelling (other posters have mentioned that u and v were largely interchangeable).

Radio (and later TV) had a massive effect on standardizing pronunciation.

But still English has rapidly changed. One example I remember is if you go back and listen to early speeches by Churchill you'll here him say "nazi" not as "natsi" but as "nazzi" (much like the non-American ss in "aussie"). But by later in the war (IIRC) the "ts" phenom had pretty much been imported into English.

Another thing I read was the mathematical model for how verbs become regular [1]. Basically, the less a verb is used, the sooner it becomes regular but how long it takes is quite predictable. Apparently "to wed" is the next verb to become regular. "To be" should take about 44,000 years.

It makes you realize just how rapidly language changes and how grammar really is descriptive not prescriptive and why it's completely pointless to get your pedantic about "literally", less vs fewer, "very unique" and so on.

[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/09/2...

Post reply on HN