Live data from Hacker News

Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

grammarphobia.com

141–150 of 247 posts

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

#141

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…

You mean Normans, not Norsemen.

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

#142
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article; the -en in this particular case arose after the loss of the case system, in a hypercorrection during a period when -en and -s were the two main plural endings.

I did, I was speaking about -en vs -n. Why -en for children and not just -n. Have I missed something?

Plain -n isn't used anywhere in English that I know of for a plural; the consonant cluster childrn would be improbable.

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

#143

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…

Here's some of the first chapter of Ivanhoe https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ivanhoe/Chapter_1

* * *

Wamba, up and help me an thou beest a man; take a turn round the back o' the hill to gain the wind on them; and when thous't got the weather-gage, thou mayst drive them before thee as gently as so many innocent lambs."

"Truly," said Wamba, without stirring from the spot, "I have consulted my legs upon this matter, and they are altogether of opinion, that to carry my gay garments through these sloughs, would be an act of unfriendship to my sovereign person and royal wardrobe; wherefore, Gurth, I advise thee to call off Fangs, and leave the herd to their destiny, which, whether they meet with bands of travelling soldiers, or of outlaws, or of wandering pilgrims, can be little else than to be converted into Normans before morning, to thy no small ease and comfort."

"The swine turned Normans to my comfort!" quoth Gurth; "expound that to me, Wamba, for my brain is too dull, and my mind too vexed, to read riddles."

"Why, how call you those grunting brutes running about on their four legs?" demanded Wamba.

"Swine, fool, swine," said the herd, "every fool knows that."

"And swine is good Saxon," said the Jester; "but how call you the sow when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung up by the heels, like a traitor?"

"Pork," answered the swine-herd.

"I am very glad every fool knows that too," said Wamba, "and pork, I think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Norman, and is called pork, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the nobles; what dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?"

"It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool's pate."

"Nay, I can tell you more," said Wamba, in the same tone; there is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynheer Calf, too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner; he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment."

"By St Dunstan," answered Gurth, "thou speakest but sad truths; little is left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, leaving few here who have either will or the power to protect the unfortunate Saxon. God's blessing on our master Cedric, he hath done the work of a man in standing in the gap; but Reginald Front-de-Boeuf is coming down to this country in person, and we shall soon see how little Cedric's trouble will avail him. ---Here, here," he exclaimed again, raising his voice, "So ho! so ho! well done, Fangs! thou hast them all before thee now, and bring'st them on bravely, lad."

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

#144
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's because in the Arabic script, from which the modern Persian script is derived, doesn't differentiate between vowels sounds like oo/oh and their related semivowels.

In Arabic, oo and v are both bilabial sounds (produced using both lips). In Persian, v is pronounced more labio-dentally (bottom lip, top teeth), which is perhaps what causes the confusion.

But the lack of written distinction for these sounds is common in many scripts including Indian, Greek, and older Latin.

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

#145

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…

You mean Normans, not Norsemen.

After googling, yes I believe so. I'm not a scholar (on this anyway) these are just tidbits I've remembered throughout the years.

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

#146

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".

Oh! That suddenly makes the Spanish "naranja" seem way more connected!

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

#147
post #29

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 (…

Data is a plural of datum, if you're considering the individual pieces, but it's more commonly used (in my experience as a US native) as a collection singular like sand. Ex the sand has formed a hill, the data has filled the hard drive.

One more datum and it'll blow!

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

#148

This only goes so far back. I believe they actually came from German. Oxen in German is Ochsen German still actively uses the -en plural, and all nouns in the dative plural must use -n. So, Ochsen -> Oxen, Maenner -> Men (Slightly unrelated) So if you look at Scotland and Ireland, they've get some really interesting things in their dialects. die "Kirche" in German is a "church", in some dialects in scotland, it's a "…

I wouldn't be surprised if it went father back. Farsi, another Indo European language has the -en/an ending, for human nouns. Child/Bache -> children/bachegan, brother/boradar -> brethren/boradaran, Daughter/dokhtar -> dokhtaran. I'm not sure if they share the same derivations but seem related.

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

#149

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…

You mean Normans, not Norsemen.

Must do, actual Old Norse is similar to Old English and have similar plural endings and a generally similar grammar. Many irregular verbs share a common ancestor and are similar even today.

Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian have kept more of the insanely complex rules for pluralisation actually.

Post reply on HN