--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> The two gentlemen (a German and
> an Anglosaxon I suppose) can't show that the s-plural disappeared in
> Dutch which they really really want to do, and the Low German s-plural
> in their tale 'receded' and then 'reappeared' (note that they never
> commit themselves to stating that it disappeared).
>
Didn't it disappear & then reappear in Dutch? In Oudnederlands the
plural is formed with various vowels, -on, is in some cases unmarked,
etc.; to the point: there's an 11c <nestas>, but it's considered to be
regional. Do you have examples to the contrary?
Sure, Middelnederlands has -s in loanwords and occasionally in
monosyllables; skipping ahead: the continued strong influence of
French and the relatively recent influence of English seem to be
responsible for -s plurals in modern Dutch in loanwords. Booij and Van
Santen (1998: 91) single out 2 types of foreign words in Dutch:
bastaardwoorden and loanwords, the former with a higher degree of
nativisation and usually taking the -en plural ending. Geerts et al.
(1984: 61) claim that -s is _assigned_ to nouns with end in a
consonant and in the donor language also have the -s plural. Whether
is it re-taken by loanwords or borrowed together with the foreign word
remains undecided. Gerritsen (1986: 62) claims that "borrowed nouns
mostly do not follow rules that determine whether a Dutch word has an
-s or an -(e)n plural, but are restricted to -s, with some exceptions
which use both options." (A study of c. 200 recent borrowings from
English into Dutch shows that in 90% of cases the -s plural is assigned.)
Malgorzata