0
Su Cheng Zhong Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies

About English plural 's'

'Five books' is a piece of idea. From the word 'five' we know it means more than one book. The question is why we put an extra 's' to denote it is a plural? If we don't put this 's', shall somebody mistake what we mean to say? This is another example of double expressing. Of course the following question would be why and when shall we double express and why and when we express the same idea one time or three times. For five books, it is easy to get an integer number. Yet, if we want to express something in fraction, it would be a nuisance. 1.23 pies comparing 0.23 pie, are they two different things? Something like 1.0000001 dollars, we put 's', while 0.99999 dollar we don't. Beside this, we have to know the different among 1.0001 percent, 0.999 percent, 101 percent, 99 percent etc. There is no logical reason but just rote. Sometimes, a number we can't see it directly such as log7.8+sin46/tg7=? Voltage(s). In other case, a question itself is about whether a certain value is greater than one or not. If a teacher ask students, that A/B apple(s) is (are) greater than one apple or not, it would be very hard for the use to put 's' or not. For either put or not will tell the answer too. As for the negative number, there is some thing more to learn. In positive number we know that the number greater than one, we put 's' as plural, while for the negative number, we put 's' after the number less than -1 and when it greater than -1 we won't. That means to say, when the absolute value smaller than one, we don't put 's' and when the absolute value greater than one we put. Do you think we can explain this to a toddler? If not then, what we tell them is an unstable knowledge and no one can remember an unstable knowledge as well as a stable knowledge. All these troubles are from the ancient usage of 's'.
  

Top answer

I got your point. Fair enough. However, the plural ending 's' is not COMPLETELY redundant in modern English.

  • I got your point.
  • Fair enough.
  • However, the plural ending 's' is not COMPLETELY redundant in modern English.
  • In some contexts it is really the only element indicative of number.
  • Consider some nouns which have irregular plural forms: I like the sheep you painted yesterday (1 sheep?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

30 Answers
0
I got your point. Fair enough. However, the plural ending 's' is not COMPLETELY redundant in modern English. In some contexts it is really the only element indicative of number. Consider some nouns which have irregular plural forms:

I like the sheep you painted yesterday (1 sheep? 2 sheep?)

If (when?!) the plural ending disappears in all nouns, we will have much more examples
0
I doubt the plural ending -s will vanish at all, I'd rather say it'll become more common, also for words that have no special plural form by now, like e.g. "sheep".
0
>>>>> All these troubles are from the ancient usage of 's'.


The '-s' is not ancient.
The -s actually is a simplification of forming the plural.

English, as most Germanic languages, used to form plurals differently - rests of these old forms are still kept in:

sheep - sheep (no special plural ending)

ox - oxen (weak plural by adding
0
I do not claim that the plural ending 's' will definitely disappear. However, looking at the direction the English language is heading, the disappearance would come as no surprise.

Over approximately 1500 years, the mammoth set of inflections of the Old English has virtually been discarded leaving only 's' (plural nouns, 3rd person singular verbs, and saxon genitive) in modern English.
0
>I like the sheep you painted yesterday (1 sheep? 2 sheep?)
I think it is better:
I like sheep you painted yesterday (for plural)
I like the sheep you painted yesterday (for single)
0
>man - men
>The plural -s came over from the Romance languages and replaced the former ways of building the plural. You could say that the -s did a good job on simplifying the English plural system.
I think the irregular plural can save one 'phonetic pattern' comparing with the regular plural. You may repeat several time of 'mans', 'womans' and 'gooses' etc. to find it take longe
0
>I do not claim that the plural ending 's' will definitely disappear. However, looking at the direction the English language is heading, the disappearance would come as no surprise.

>Over approximately 1500 years, the mammoth set of inflections of the Old English has virtually been discarded leaving only 's' (plural nouns, 3rd person singular verbs, and saxon genitive) in modern
0
Dear Su Cheng Zhong,
Though you are quite right in some of your arguments, there are some comments I'd like to add. First of all, "I like sheep you painted yesterday" grammatically is not correct, as you know, it needs a definite article. SEcondly, you do not need to teach this complex irregular forms to a toddler, he'll hear them and grab them without your interference. And finally, if you
0
SCZ wrote:
I think the irregular plural can save one 'phonetic pattern' comparing with the regular plural. You may repeat several time of 'mans', 'womans' and 'gooses' etc. to find it take longer time then 'men', 'women' and 'geese'. So it is stil an example for memory exchange speed. We spend time to remeber them in order to get faster speed.


The question t
0
The "-s" is the most common suffix left in English by now, it took over several functions:

a) plural indicator: one apple - two apples
b) 3rd ps sg inflection indicator: sing - he sings
c) genitive ending: Jon's house


In my opinion, the -s in b) will certainly disappear sometime, it was already mentioned, that it is very often dropped already. In Scandinavian la

Related Questions