One clarification of my point before I proceed, in case some people missed it: the whole point is, why Latin plurals (and cases, and conjugations, and gender and deponents and what not) in English as they were used in Latin? What we emprunt are the words (roots, pre- and suffixes.) Everything else done on them is using English (or modern) devices.
I didn't mean to discuss only some stray cases such as virus and substratum.
[Piotr:]
> "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".
[Ash]
Yes, one may equally stand against the Old English plural relics, as in sheep and geese.
Whether OE or Latin, or some other language, these irregularities can be done away with.
-
[Piotr]
> 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?
[Ash]
But since linguists are (hopefully) not fraught with the risk of attracting censure, or at least, being labeled ignorant, can we hope there would be some push to natural usage from their quarters?
English, of course, is not academie-regulated (and I am not suggesting it,) It functions rather democratically, if I can say so. Demoglottally?? If everyone finds it odd to change, who will bell the cat? Why not people of this category, the linguists et al. (Only don't do it while writing an English exam, but I hope most folks here are past that stage ;-)
Is it expecting too much? Or being too impractical by hoping or urging for something like this?
-
[Piotr]
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 :).
[Ash]
Even 'formulas' from 'formulae' and the kind were a break from existing norm. Now my question is, from a linguistic standpoint, leaving political and other forces aside, what can possibly be a positive prod to encourage this regularizaiton? I have special hopes on English: since it has given up such a huge bulk of its older devices, I am inclined to place a little more hope on it for all its potential for tradition-ridding.
--
> I thought I had the answer to the question as to why we don't
see the Latin plural of "virus" used -- that it is fourth declension
so the nom. pl. is spelled like the nom. sing. But wrong again!
Checking my Allen & Greenough
<snip snip snip>
> To sum up, since <vi:ri:> is not even an authentic Latin plural, everyone should feel free to regularise it in English.
[Ash]
This is exactly what I expected. Why take recourse to Latin or other language originals, when there is a simpler way, just -s every word to plural it! Isn't the usage of Latin plurals the result of a prudish attitude?
--
[David]
One more thing on "substratums." I personally find the "mz" ending a
little difficult to say. Is this an idiosyncracy, or could it be general
among English speakers and influence the decision to retain the Latin plural?
[Ash]
Aw c'mon! When you can say bums, customs, poppadums and conundrums, why do you recourse to Latin for some words? The difficulty or the sense of it, I suspect, stems not from some assurance somewhere that there is a Latin plural out there for the taking, but perhaps from the need to explain it now. But objectively, aren't all these just as pleasing or awkward, just as easy or difficult? How about the tons of -isms in the language, aren't they worse by this count?
I would endorse such "urplurals" on just one ground: that form itself confers a special sense to it irrespective of the presence of the singular form either in the "empruntee" (original language) or in the "emprunter" (borrowing language.)
Such words are fine, because it can be supposed that they are in fact borrowed in their plural form directly, such as data and literati (even when the singular exists with a slightly or largely different sense.) This is in principle the same as emprunting a verb form and using it as a noun (ignoramus, exit) or any such cross-functional usage.
Thank you,
Ash
PS: In the lighter vein...
A friend of mine (who's from India) was telling me about this incident that took place in a chemistry class:
The teacher enters the class, walks up to the blackboard, and writes "Formulae." He turns to the students to start his lecture, but in a moment turns back. Shaking his head, he erases the word, and writes "Formulas." Again after a pause, not satisfied with himself, he effaces that word too, and finally confidently writes.. "Formulaes."
!!!
PS 2:
To digress, there is some interesting discussion taking place regarding IE origins a Germanic-L@... You might want to take a peek at it.