Live data from Hacker News

Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

grammarphobia.com

131–140 of 247 posts

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

#131

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…

Old English had [a plural ending in S](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Old_English/Nouns#Strong_Nouns) that predates Norman invasion.

You might be able to argue the Normans influenced the normalization towards plurals endings in S, but languages are generally pretty resistant to borrowing grammatic features wholesale versus, say, borrowing vocabulary.

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is that the -s plural is from the Vikings/Norse Which is interesting, because modern Swedish has an -n plural (among other plurals) and no -s plural. Compare ögon (eyes) and öron (ears) with their old english eyen and earen. I guess it would follow that Swedish had a lot of Angle Saxon influence in its evolution.

It’s actually more that the Old Norse and Old English had different endings and the Vikings didn’t bother to figure out the English system. I don’t think they know whether the -s is from a Norse ending or whether the Norse settled on -s for other reasons. The simplified version eventually spread because England was a mixture of various ethnicities for centuries and you’d have different variants of English from one to…

> I don’t think they know whether the -s is from a Norse ending or whether the Norse settled on -s for other reasons

I think you misunderstood... Modern Swedish doesn't have the -s ending at all for plurals. My point is that somehow that got lost.

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

#133

The book The Unfolding of Language[1] describes the forces that shape how language evolves. One is extending the use of a pattern (e.g. "en" for plural), even in cases like this one where it wasn't technically appropriate. Another is the use of metaphor. E.g. "discover" used to mean "to remove the cover of", but now its meaning is purely metaphorical and the literal meaning has been mostly lost. Another is laziness:…

I was amazed to discover that oranges used to be called "noranges" but "a norange" was corrupted into "an orange".

Same with "a napron" -> "an apron"

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

#134
post #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…

There's a lot of misonceptions in here, some major, some minor.

English derives from a more coastal dialect of Germany, and is closest to Frisian and Dutch (the latter more by convergent evolution). Modern German comes from a High German dialect, which is much more different (although still West Germanic). In 1000, English and Frisian would likely have been mutually intelligible--particularly since they would have been visiting the same markets as traders--but the same would not be true for English and Dutch or English and Germanic.

Old English lost its inflection and became highly synthetic. This is primarily due to the influence of Old Norse, a North Germanic language, and the process would have begun some time before the Norman invasion in 1066. Note that a large Danish population settled in England in the 800s (the Great Dane Army invaded, and Alfred the Great ultimately let the settlers they brought with them stay), and they eventually brought Swein Forkbeard into England in response to Æthelred the Unready, which eventually leads to William's conquest in 1066 after several successive kings find themselves dead with no sons. The loss of inflection made it easier for North Germanic and West Germanic speakers to understand each other, since the roots were largely the same but the inflectional bits were different.

Your characterization of the Holy Roman Empire is wildly inaccurate. While there were several independent cities of the Holy Roman Empire, there were several large duchies and kingdoms--most notably Brandenburg, Bohemia, Saxony, the Palatinate (the four secular electors), as well as Bavaria and Austria. It was by no means "at best a collection of city-states."

Regularization is not an inherent process of language evolution. Actually, English isn't really systematically regularizing: American English has transformed the past participle of "dive" from "dived" to "dove", and there is effectively a movement to make the plural of "octopus" into "octopi" as opposed to the correct, regular "octopuses" (or the actual Greek plural "octopodes").

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

#135

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 (…

My recent peeve is Americans who use 'bespoke' instead of 'custom.' And 'in agreeance' instead of 'in agreement.'

Bespoke and custom are different, so if they are interchanging them without understanding the difference then I can understand that would annoy

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

#136

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…

Old English had [a plural ending in S]( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Old_English/Nouns#Strong_Nouns ) that predates Norman invasion. You might be able to argue the Normans influenced the normalization towards plurals endings in S, but languages are generally pretty resistant to borrowing grammatic features wholesale versus, say, borrowing vocabulary.

Would have to guess the Norsemen being referred to here at the people who came in the 800s and 900s, not the Normans who came later

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

#137

The book The Unfolding of Language[1] describes the forces that shape how language evolves. One is extending the use of a pattern (e.g. "en" for plural), even in cases like this one where it wasn't technically appropriate. Another is the use of metaphor. E.g. "discover" used to mean "to remove the cover of", but now its meaning is purely metaphorical and the literal meaning has been mostly lost. Another is laziness:…

I was amazed to discover that oranges used to be called "noranges" but "a norange" was corrupted into "an orange".

And "an ewt" became "a newt", so it goes both ways.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

& 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'".

> "'et', per-se 'and'"

I'm having trouble parsing this. What was the meaning of this phrase?

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old English had [a plural ending in S]( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Old_English/Nouns#Strong_Nouns ) that predates Norman invasion. You might be able to argue the Normans influenced the normalization towards plurals endings in S, but languages are generally pretty resistant to borrowing grammatic features wholesale versus, say, borrowing vocabulary.

Would have to guess the Norsemen being referred to here at the people who came in the 800s and 900s, not the Normans who came later

OP seemed to be referring to Normans. The whole cow (English) -> beef (French) is a classic linguistic example to cite with regard to them.

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

#140
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"??

Grammatically plural nouns denoting single objects is something that occurs in multiple European languages (and perhaps others), not only English. English French Slovak pliers pinces kliešte pants pantalons nohavice scissors ciseaux nožnice All plural. The singular "kliešť" exists, but it refers to an insect: the tick. The word "nohavica" is used when referring to just one of the pant legs. (E.g. one being rolled up,…

It’s funny to compare Slovak with Polish — you could also use “kleszcze” for pliers (and “kleszcz” is also tick), but it sounds archaic — today you’d say “szczypce” or “kombinerki”, which are also nouns without singular form. Also, “pants” are called “spodnie”, which also lacks singular form, but “nogawa/nogawka” still means a pant leg.
Post reply on HN