Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

grammarphobia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 247 posts

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

#161

Post by vorg »

philwelch wrote: post #101
anitil wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native speaker I refuse to say 'these data' or the word datum. I prefer 'this data' for plural and 'this piece of data' for singular. Yes I know its wrong in some sense, but I think that ship has sailed

I've also seen "data point" used when a singular form is required. I think in common usage, "data" is a mass noun like "mayonnaise" rather than a plural.

> in common usage, "data" is a mass noun like "mayonnaise"

Were you also commenting on its pronunciation? I'd instead say: "data" is a mass noun like "mahyonnaise" and "tomahto sauce".

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

#162

Post by bmn__ »

andrewbinstock wrote: post #70
weinzierl wrote: post #11

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 (…

The visa thing sounds like a back-formation unique to your mother tongue. The word "visa" is the past participle of videre (Latin for "to see"). So it is not a plural in its formation/derivation.

You're mistaken. The verb is vidēre, videō, vidī, visum.

There is also the noun vīsum, -ī, plural visa with the primary meaning the seen [thing], appearance, perception. This is the word that was borrowed into English and other languages.

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

#163

Post by V-2 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #140
kazinator wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Kleszcze" may sound archaic, but it's technically a correct term (to denote a very specific type of tool). So DIY nerds wouldn't agree with you.

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

#164

Post by Double_a_92 »

cven714 wrote: post #133
LeoPanthera wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

And "a notter" -> "an otter"

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

#165

Post by V-2 »

kazinator wrote: post #105
Aardwolf wrote: 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,…

In Polish it's the same story with "drzwi" (or "doors" - same thing as in English) as well as... "skrzypce" ("violin"). For some unfathomable reason it, too, is made to sound like a plural noun.

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

#166

Post by Sharlin »

kmm wrote: post #36
amaccuish wrote: post #3

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 "…

Curiously, Kinder and children are completely unrelated. Child comes from the Proto-Germanic kelþaz which further came from the Proto-Indo-European stem gel-. On the other hand, "Kind" comes from Proto-Germanic kinþa, which comes from a Proto-Indo-European stem ǵenh₁- meaning "to produce, to give birth", whence also "genesis", "genealogy" and "gonad". German definitely did not cause those curious plurals. We know for…

> EDIT: How do you type asterisks here? Escaping with a backslash doesn't work, nor does using three in a row

You can't, if you want to use more than one in the same comment. A workaround is to use a similar glyph such as UNICODE SMALL ASTERISK ﹡.

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

#167

Post by kpil »

drsim wrote: post #156
kpil wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian have kept more of the insanely complex rules for pluralisation actually. Danish isn't insanely complex to pluralise (native English speaker who recently learned Danish). The choice is either add -e or -er with some exceptions. https://www.duolingo.com/comment/6279406/Plural-Endings-in-D...

Well, the Danish are more relaxed about most things...

Swedish is a bit more complex with arbitrary assigned neutral or uterum gender and definite articles.

But you'd probably be understood using -er in spoken Swedish for a large group of words. Written Swedish is more tricky.

https://medium.com/@mailmyswedish/plurals-in-swedish-76f1de9...

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

#168

Post by oeuviz »

lmoml wrote: post #139
linkmotif wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How come the same situation is present in other languages(e.g. French, Serbocroatian)? Improbable that it were always the Normans.

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

#169

Post by seszett »

kazinator wrote: post #105
Aardwolf wrote: 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,…

Hmm. For the French part, "ciseaux" is true (the singular "ciseau" is what is called a chisel in English) but the rest is wrong.

A pair of pants is un pantalon, and a pair of pliers is also just une pince.

"Lunettes" (glasses) would be another word that is usually plural. Juste one lunette is a scope for just one eye (or some circular object with a hole in the middle).

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

#170

Post by febeling »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #119
justinpombrio wrote: post #104

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 "brid" -> "bird"
Post reply on HN