Why "children," not "childs"? (2016)
The article explores the historical reasons behind the pluralization of certain English nouns, specifically focusing on the use of the suffix '-en'. It explains that in Old English, some nouns formed their plurals with '-n' instead of the more common '-s'. Over time, this '-en' pluralization was extended to other words, leading to the modern usage of terms like 'children' and 'brethren'.
- ▪In Old English, nouns like 'oxen' and 'children' formed their plurals with '-n' rather than '-s'.
- ▪During the Middle English period, the '-en' pluralization was extended to words that originally did not have this ending.
- ▪The only original '-n' plural from Old English that has survived is 'oxen', while most others have been replaced by '-s' plurals.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Categories English English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Spelling Usage Word origin Why “children,” not “childs”? Post author By Pat and Stewart Post date March 2, 2016 Q: Your recent post about why “chicken” is singular has left me wondering where “-en” plurals such as “oxen,” “brethren,” “children,” “men,” “women,” and the archaic eyen come from. A: In Old English, nouns that followed certain patterns formed their plurals with -n rather than –s. These included the one you mention, eyen (“eyes”), as well as earan (“ears”), tungan (“tongues”), fon (“foes”), housen (“houses”), shoen (“shoes”), treen (“trees”), and oxan (the original plural of “ox”).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Grammarphobia.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Grammarphobia
