08-01-04 14:47, tgpedersen wrote:
> For your own illumination, browsing through a textbook of modern
> Dutch would be a good idea. Specifically on the plurals: The standard
> is <-(e)n>, pronounced '-&', come about by the merger of <-e> with <-
> en> through the loss in speech of <-n>, <-s> being used mainly after
> <-en>, <-er>, <-el>, and <-eren> in a small group of neuters. I
> wouldn't be surpried if the wyves language had a similar grammar.
(Apart from the fact that <-(e)n> isn't really diminant in Dutch.) I
doubt it. We have many good records of 15th-century Southern dialects
(including Kentish, which, incidentally, was Caxton's own native
dialect). At the time, the -en-plural correlated mostly with (a)
inherited weak nouns: <een> ~ <eyne> 'eyes', <eren> 'ears', <even>
'eaves', <peasen> 'peas', <oxen> 'oxen' <been>, <foen> 'fors', <ashen>
'ashes', <shoon> 'shoes', etc. (b) some stems belonging originally to
the OE minor declensions: <kine> ~ <kyen> 'cows', <dehtren> 'daughters,
<sistren> 'sisters', <brethren> 'brothers', <children> 'children',
<eyren> 'eggs', etc. Many of the second group were historically double
plurals, with <-en> added to the ME reflex of an non-productive plural
formation. So, for example, <ky + -en> (OE pl. ky: from sg. cu:),
<child(e)r + -en> (OE pl. cildru from sg. cild), <ey(e)r + -en> (OE
æ:gru from sg. æ:g). Otherwise, <-es> was overwhelmingly dominant.
Piotr