Re[2]: [tied] Re: Middle English Plurals

At 11:32:36 AM on Thursday, January 8, 2004, Piotr
Gasiorowski wrote:

> 08-01-04 14:30, tgpedersen wrote:

>> It isn't. It's the language with generalised plural <-s>
>> that's fitter than its opposite, a conservative,
>> complication-preserving, s- shunning and _as a
>> consequence_ of that n-loving language.

> Is there anyone on the group (apart from Torsten) to whom
> this convoluted drivel makes any sense?

Taking into account what he's written elsewhere in the
thread, I *think* that Torsten is making two claims:

* A language with a single, uniform plural formation is
fitter than one with multiple plural formations.

* If one of two competing varieties has some simple
distinguishing characteristic (e.g., uniform plural in
<-es>), speakers of the other will bend over backwards
to avoid that characteristic (e.g., by maintaining a
variety of plural formations).

Brian