Re: [tied] Re: substratums

"Don't we?" Do you mean ordinary speakers or linguists pressed to give gramatical advice? It's hard to say what makes the former prefer this or that form. If functional simplicity were always given precedence, we'd have given up "sheep" and "geese" in favour of "sheeps" and "gooses" a long time ago. Aren't the old forms stupid? If we managed to get rid of them, they'd soon be forgotten like "kye", "beech" and "een" for "cows", "books" and "eyes". My theory is that speakers are normally conservative and try to conform to the norm (if they know how) rather than try to "repair" their language so that it will be simpler and more logical. If children say "sheeps", we correct them rather than applaud their rationality. As a result, the norm evolves rather slowly, as if _against_ our best efforts to perpetuate it. You may say "substratums" as a matter of principle, but you wouldn't do so at a time when such forms still attracted social stigma. Who wants to sound ignorant and uneducated?

Of course only an ignoramus (and a snob at that) would attempt to use unetymological plurals like "ignorami" or "octopi". I prefer "cactuses" and "formulas" to "cacti" and "formulae", but I won't say or write "phenomenons". Perhaps I'm inconsistent, but so is everybody else in one respect or another :).

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Ash

To: y_cybalist

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 6:31 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: substratums

Hmm, don't we give precedence to functional simplicity over personal taste? Besides, my point was not just with this one word, but any Latin word whose inflection is kept track of in English (via the plural.) Remember, English doesn't have inflections, not Latin inflections at least, so isn't it stupid to plural Latin words (that too inconsistently) as it was pluraled in Latin? Isn't this an anomaly: radius -> radii, while virus -> viruses how about ignoramus? Looks like people my point didn't seem to interest people here (except good old Piotr of course.) Wonder if am quibbling; is it that irrelevant to this list..? Ash Subject: Re: substratums > I find "-ums" clumsy, which is entirely a matter of personal taste. But then I prefer the handier term "substrate", pl. "substrates". > Piotr ----- Original Message ----- From: Ash > Or better, you could just say 'substratums.' Logically speaking, there is no reason why Latin plurals need to be used in English too, when the latter has a simple, regular device, the good old -s. At least, distinguished linguists as I see here could take that stand. Ash
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.