Re[2]: [tied] Middle English Plurals

At 5:59:55 AM on Thursday, January 8, 2004, tgpedersen
wrote:

> The way I see it the wyf did understand, but was offended
> by their language, especially the plural -s, which as
> Piotr pointed out, was current all over England and which
> she therefore must have been able to understand.

Ah, I see: you think that Caxton either didn't know what he
was talking about or was lying. You greatly underestimate
the regional diversity of 15th century English.

> BTW, how can a response be a non-sequitur? Are you sure
> you didn't mean to say 'irrelevant' or the like?

In current English the term can be and often is applied to
'a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically
from anything previously said' (quoted from M-W on-line) and
by (common if technically inaccurate) extension to a
response that doesn't actually respond.

> I should modify my position here. The competition was not
> between generalised plural -s and generalised plural -n,
> but between generalised plural -s and the older irregular
> system, by which plural -s becomes a bone of
> contentention, a shibboleth, and therefore avoided in the
> conservative dialect (which therefore changes, without
> "wanting to").

Plural <-es> was not avoided in the southern dialects.

Brian