[tied] Re: Middle English Plurals

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Brian:
> > * 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 wouldn't pay heed to his shiboleth theories. Besides,
> it's not as if English has adopted a single plural suffix
> either. We have many pluralen.. or is it plurali? In fact,
> I think I'm going to make my own tribe right now and
> will only allow people to join if they reject the s-plural
> and accept -yonk as the true plural of the new order.
>
>

Thank you Glen, for the demonstration. As you mention there are many
subtribes within Anglophonia that will cling on to amoebae, ethnoi,
seraphim etc etc, for the same reasons that order-preservers do
similarly in other languages.

Torsten