From: tgpedersen
Message: 62920
Date: 2009-02-08
> However, I did overlook the strong influence of the French onThere was a move towards seeing English as a Creole language arising
> English, which perhaps could have strengthened the <-(e)s> plurals
> on their way to becoming the predominant plural formation (I don't
> know, of course, just speculating -- of course there must be many
> papers on this issue).
> However, this would be counter to what Torsten was saying, ifErh, not quite.
> I understood him correctly:
> according to his argument, the non-native French would be inclinedRight.
> to use the <-s> plural on virtually all nouns,
> where the natives would have a variety of plurals,Right.
> and then by shibboleth this overfrequent <-s> plural would be feltRight.
> to be incorrect and foreign,
> leading to drives to correct it and eventually hypercorrect itWrong. That's what Caxton's wyf wants to do. But, historically she's
> until there would be no more <-s> plurals.
> This seems to be the exact opposite of what occurred in English, soAnd that is exactly what happened in German. No Saxon in England would
> I don't think English offers support for Torsten's shibboleth
> hypothesis (or for that matter German).