From: tgpedersen
Message: 29240
Date: 2004-01-08
> 08-01-04 12:44, tgpedersen wrote:es>
>
> > Yes, yes. And still you offer no analogy to selection pressure in
> > your model, and I do. Therefore my theory is more expressive and
> > should be preferred over yours.
>
> Not in this case, at any rate, since you haven't demonstrated why <-
> should have been "fitter" than <-en> as a plural marker. Perhaps itwas,
> but I'd love to see just why.It isn't. It's the language with generalised plural <-s> that's
>But assuming that they were equally fites>
> (in purely functional terms), the initially greater frequency of <-
> (among the 200 most frequent OE nouns about 30% were strongmasculines
> with plurals in <-as>, while only about 10% were weak nouns withplurals
> in <-an>) accounts for its later success without any extraassumptions.
> Loanwords from Old Norse and French may have helped <-es> toexpand, not
> because French also had an s-plural (incidentally, in the 15thcentury
> the process of dropping /-s/ in French was well under way), butbecause
> borrowed nouns normally tend to join the most productivedeclension, so
> their absorption significantly increased the proportion of -es-plurals
> in English.Nice example, but rendered invalid by the example of High German,
>