Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
grammarphobia.com
Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
1–10 of 247 posts
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#2Worse 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"??
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#3This 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 "kirker". Or in old dialects in Ireland, "children" is sometimes spoken as "childer".
EDIT: I retract my theory on the relationship between children and kindern :)
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#4Worse 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"??
In other languages, there is a number (dual) that deals with cases like this. It's been dropping from most languages where it's used. In Russian it's mostly gone, but alot of the endings remain.
Also lot's of languages when borrowing from English do away with the plural if it's obvious. Like in french, a pair of jeans is just un jean, singular.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#5Because 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
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#6Worse 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"??
For the sake of being a contrarian, there are two pieces of "glass" in a glasses.
I do wonder if simpler english will ever catch on
I do wondr if simplr nglsh wil evr cach on.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#7This 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 "…
The article explains that "children" is a fancified form of "childer" which matches the German "Kinder". The dative has nothing to do with this.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#8Because 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
English is made up of words from many other languages. It only got a set of rules after the fact, which is why there are so many exceptions.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#9This 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 "…
The article explains that "children" is a fancified form of "childer" which matches the German "Kinder". The dative has nothing to do with this.
I was referring to where the -n came from. After research it seems it came from the old case system, which originally came from german, not sure if it's the dative plural, was just a theory. Here's more about that:
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#10Worse 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"??
Figuring out those things requires too many maths. ;-)