Re: [tied] Re: Middle English Plurals

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? <-es> was as archaic as <-en>, and as
I have pointed out before, <-es> was generalised _alongside_ <-en> also
in the South. It was only after the other competition had been
eliminated that the further spread of <-es> began to oust <-en>.

Piotr