Does English really need the s-suffix when it already has many, few and numbers?
e.g.
many Fords - many Ford
few balls - few ball
ten websites - ten website
e.g.
many Fords - many Ford
few balls - few ball
ten websites - ten website
Does English really need the s-suffix?
I suppose English doesn't really need any inflection at all. Plurals can often be deduced from the context, and the -s on the 3rd person singular verbs could be omitted entirely.
The -ed on verbs can be eliminated after the 'have', and the simple past could be replaced by the form with 'did'. The -er and -est endings on adjectives could be replaced with the 'more' and 'most' forms. The 's could be replaced by the 'of' form of possessive.
The -ed on verbs can be eliminated after the 'have', and the simple past could be replaced by the form with 'did'. The -er and -est endings on adjectives could be replaced with the 'more' and 'most' forms. The 's could be replaced by the 'of' form of possessive.
<Obviously it does or that -s wouldn't be there. >
it is redundant though, isn't it?
it is redundant though, isn't it?
Does English need it? Yes, because that is how it forms plurals.
Does a hypothetical language similar to English need it? Nope, it can convey the same idea in other ways.
Does a hypothetical language similar to English need it? Nope, it can convey the same idea in other ways.
"[I]t is redundant though, isn't it?"
No, because it's a requirement of the language and must therefore be included.
No, because it's a requirement of the language and must therefore be included.
There can be some confusion as to whether 's' is required at the end of a word or not. Today I was listening to the radio and they were discussing Down's syndrome. At the end of the discussion it was pointed out that the syndrome was named after someone called 'Downs' and strictly speaking it should be described as Downs's syndrome.
See Google
Sorry, I got that wrong, it is meant to be 'Down syndrome' after John Langdon Down. So grammatically it is 'Down syndrome' but everyone calls it 'Down's syndrome.
Wouldn't it be so much easier just to call it trisomy 21?
See Google
Sorry, I got that wrong, it is meant to be 'Down syndrome' after John Langdon Down. So grammatically it is 'Down syndrome' but everyone calls it 'Down's syndrome.
Wouldn't it be so much easier just to call it trisomy 21?
Robin,
In that case, "Down's Syndrome" is correct. It is the syndrome that "belongs" to this guy because he discovered it, much like we say "Einstein's Theory of Relativity".
In that case, "Down's Syndrome" is correct. It is the syndrome that "belongs" to this guy because he discovered it, much like we say "Einstein's Theory of Relativity".
It's also not surprising that "Down Syndrome" might well come out as "Down's Syndrome".
When spoken, "Down Syndrome" and "Down's Syndrome" are pretty nearly homophonous.
This is similar to "ice tea" and "iced tea".
When spoken, "Down Syndrome" and "Down's Syndrome" are pretty nearly homophonous.
This is similar to "ice tea" and "iced tea".
Yes, you need to pluralize, because as soon as you bring a verb in there, you need subject-verb agreement.
Ten website were built.
vs.
Ten website was built.
Which one would be correct in your hypothetical English? They both make a mess of the grammar.
Ten website were built.
vs.
Ten website was built.
Which one would be correct in your hypothetical English? They both make a mess of the grammar.
<<Which one would be correct in your hypothetical English? They both make a mess of the grammar.>>
Ten website be build.
Tense-like constructs:
simple:
present -- do build
past -- did build
future -- will build
present perfect -- have build
past perfect -- did have build
future perfect -- will have build
passive:
present -- be build
past -- did be build
future -- will be build
present perfect -- have be build
past perfect -- did have be build
future perfect -- will have be build
The progressive causes problems, unless we allow being, doing, having, etc.:
present -- doing build
past -- did doing build
future -- will doing build
present perfect -- having build
past perfect -- did having build
future perfect -- will having build
Ten website be build.
Tense-like constructs:
simple:
present -- do build
past -- did build
future -- will build
present perfect -- have build
past perfect -- did have build
future perfect -- will have build
passive:
present -- be build
past -- did be build
future -- will be build
present perfect -- have be build
past perfect -- did have be build
future perfect -- will have be build
The progressive causes problems, unless we allow being, doing, having, etc.:
present -- doing build
past -- did doing build
future -- will doing build
present perfect -- having build
past perfect -- did having build
future perfect -- will having build
English needs more 's' morphology! How about
'Can I have some greens apples please?
'The houses were builts a year ago'
'Can I have some greens apples please?
'The houses were builts a year ago'
OK
'Be me able have some greens apples please?'
As long as the 's'sss remain.
'Be me able have some greens apples please?'
As long as the 's'sss remain.