Re: [tied] Re: Middle English Plurals

08-01-04 21:09, Brian M. Scott wrote (trying to read Torsten's mind):

> * A language with a single, uniform plural formation is
> fitter than one with multiple plural formations.

> * If one of two competing varieties has some simple
> distinguishing characteristic (e.g., uniform plural in
> <-es>), speakers of the other will bend over backwards
> to avoid that characteristic (e.g., by maintaining a
> variety of plural formations).

I see. This explains why the speakers of Middle Estuary English didn't
go very far to generalise <-en> in opposition to <-es>. They would have
made their system of plurals too simple in that way. But why did they
eventually generalise <-es>? Did they change their minds about wanting
to be unlike Northerners? If you are right about Torsten's underlying
claims, their behaviour was irrational. Any sane dialect would have
switched to <-en>, optimising both the contrast with the competing
variety AND its own fitness ;-).

Piotr