why is it women and men and not womans and mans?
English. is killing me.
English. is killing me.
Plural of man and woman
You could also ask the question: Why is cars and hats instead of kerren and hetteren.
We're lucky that English plurals are pretty simple. Imagine some language with a dozen genders, scores of cases, and several numbers (none, singular, dual, plural, multitudious, infinite, unspecified/inderterminate, negative, etc.). Adjectives could have a few thousands of inflected forms, with no single pattern of inflection, and lots of ablaut, suppletion, and irregularities. Just be thankful that you're learning English and not some langauge with ghastly morphological complexity.
We're lucky that English plurals are pretty simple. Imagine some language with a dozen genders, scores of cases, and several numbers (none, singular, dual, plural, multitudious, infinite, unspecified/inderterminate, negative, etc.). Adjectives could have a few thousands of inflected forms, with no single pattern of inflection, and lots of ablaut, suppletion, and irregularities. Just be thankful that you're learning English and not some langauge with ghastly morphological complexity.
<< There's no explanation for why languages change; they just do. >>
Sure there's an explanation: imperfect language acquisition. Humans are great at learning language, but, for various reasons, they're lousy at making it adhere to rigid and consistent rules.
- Kef
Sure there's an explanation: imperfect language acquisition. Humans are great at learning language, but, for various reasons, they're lousy at making it adhere to rigid and consistent rules.
- Kef
If there were such rules, there would be humans complaining about that the language is too artificial and lack naturality.
If there were such rules, there would be humans complaining about that the language is too artificial and lacks naturality, of course.
Because in Old English there were different plural endings -en, -s, and probably many others. But -s ended up displacing -en in almost all words, excluding a few ones: man, child, woman...
I wonder why just a few of the older forms survived. And what was it about those particular words that meant the plural didn't get replaced with an 's' ending.
Personally I think it's a shame that a greater variety of plural forms didn't survive in English.
Personally I think it's a shame that a greater variety of plural forms didn't survive in English.
I personally like -en endings, they have a kind of a stronger Germanic taste, but the fact that English uses -s with almost all words makes it an easier language for learners.
It's precisely this sort of anomaly which makes English not only a very exciting and beautiful Language but also very irritating and annoying purely because of all its inconsistencies and irregularities. Alart from that it's a very easy Language to learn - at least I would think it is as I can't speak as a foreigner whose native tongue isn't English. Just think of all the horrors and nightmares (comparatively speaking) which other Languages contain in the form of case endings, gender formations and a whole lot of grammatical declensions as well as having to remember which personal pronouns you have to use. This includes other Languages of the UK (the minority Languages other than the dominant English) - in the Celtic Languages you must remember to use the correct gender and case forms, and also when addressing a person you have to decide which one to us depending on wthether you know the person well or not - the foraml as opposed to the informal.
Fortunately English no longer has all that sort of bother. The biggest bugbear with English is pronunciation and, as has been pointed out, all the irregularities which probably have their origins lost in the mists of time.
House = houses, but mouse = mice; cows = cows but sheep = sheep; box = boxes but ox = oxen; pie = pies but die = dice; child = children (a throw back from Old English); foot = feet; tooth = teeth; goose = geese; etc etc etc.
You just have to learn and remember all the irregularities until they become automatic, much as the speakers of other Languages automatically know which definite arcile to use in connection with all the masculine, feminine and neuter words and all that sort of caper. So don't ever grouse about English!
btw the plural of grouse is ....... grouse. Have fun.
Fortunately English no longer has all that sort of bother. The biggest bugbear with English is pronunciation and, as has been pointed out, all the irregularities which probably have their origins lost in the mists of time.
House = houses, but mouse = mice; cows = cows but sheep = sheep; box = boxes but ox = oxen; pie = pies but die = dice; child = children (a throw back from Old English); foot = feet; tooth = teeth; goose = geese; etc etc etc.
You just have to learn and remember all the irregularities until they become automatic, much as the speakers of other Languages automatically know which definite arcile to use in connection with all the masculine, feminine and neuter words and all that sort of caper. So don't ever grouse about English!
btw the plural of grouse is ....... grouse. Have fun.
Damian
I don't think English is quite as straightforward as you are making out. True it doesn't have gender, much verb conjugation or noun declension. However, these things, however cumbersome, are often just a matter of memory and/or following systematic rules. What about the use of tense and aspect in English? In my opinion this is much harder to systemise than, for example, the adjective endings in German.
I don't think English is quite as straightforward as you are making out. True it doesn't have gender, much verb conjugation or noun declension. However, these things, however cumbersome, are often just a matter of memory and/or following systematic rules. What about the use of tense and aspect in English? In my opinion this is much harder to systemise than, for example, the adjective endings in German.
As someone pointed out, Old English had many ways to express plurality (also for various cases).
Normalization has always occurred even prior to the Old English period.
More rapid normalization happened in Middle English where forms were moved to -s/-es (<O.E. -as) for the usual plural marker.
Had a standard not become fixed through print, etc. in English, the natural progression might have culminated in a plural of "mans/womans" for man/woman. However, the frequency of use and the above standardization and ascendency of English largely solidified the remaining radical plurals as we see them today.
Just be thankful we don't still say:
"shoon" for shoes
"kine" for cows
"beek" for books
"eyen" for eyes
and "fleen/flean" for fleas
Normalization has always occurred even prior to the Old English period.
More rapid normalization happened in Middle English where forms were moved to -s/-es (<O.E. -as) for the usual plural marker.
Had a standard not become fixed through print, etc. in English, the natural progression might have culminated in a plural of "mans/womans" for man/woman. However, the frequency of use and the above standardization and ascendency of English largely solidified the remaining radical plurals as we see them today.
Just be thankful we don't still say:
"shoon" for shoes
"kine" for cows
"beek" for books
"eyen" for eyes
and "fleen/flean" for fleas
I don't think we should be thankful, I think it's a shame. How much less boring those examples are!
<<I don't think we should be thankful, I think it's a shame. How much less boring those examples are! >>
Do you mean a shame that we lost them?
Do you mean a shame that we lost them?
>>I don't think English is quite as straightforward as you are making out. True it doesn't have gender, much verb conjugation or noun declension. However, these things, however cumbersome, are often just a matter of memory and/or following systematic rules. What about the use of tense and aspect in English? In my opinion this is much harder to systemise than, for example, the adjective endings in German.<<
I have to strongly agree here. Yes, English may not have that much morphological complexity compared to, say, German or Icelandic, but it more than makes up for it with its syntactic and semantic complexity, particularly in the area of the English verbal system.
I have to strongly agree here. Yes, English may not have that much morphological complexity compared to, say, German or Icelandic, but it more than makes up for it with its syntactic and semantic complexity, particularly in the area of the English verbal system.