Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
In terms of words having some currency in the modern standard language, "brethren" is pretty much the only other one... "Kine" was once the umlauted-and-en-suffixed plural of "Cow". AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are m-en and wom-en. There is also doz-en, which may be used as a plural. If you want to indulge in dubious semantics, sev-en or t-en are possible plurals of one. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dozen" isn't the plural of "doz" but from the French "douzaine", cf "dixaine", "vingtaine", "centaine" etc. Nor is "seven" the plural of "sev"; it is cognate with Latin "septem". Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that that's an English word borrowed from German that still takes its original-language plural, cf. phenomena, bureaux etc. Oxen, children and brethren all use an English plural form. It may not be the dominant form, but it's still a legitimate English plural, because there are no such words as oxes or childs. There is brothers, but that means something different from brethren. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be thought in the 19th century that "chicken" was originally the plural of "chick" and somehow became singular. It is now considered that "chick" is derived from "chicken", not vice versa. One example of the German loanwords mentioned earlier is aurochs; the German plural "aurochsen" is sometimes used in English, though as the article states aurochs is the usual English plural. jnestorius(talk)21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt this has been covered here time out of mind, but there are reasons for the -en plurals. Nouns taking the weak declension in Old English took an -en plural, whereas strong nouns took -s, and when the latter form (favoured in the North) prevailed, only "oxen" survived. "Children" and "brethren" are different: double plurals, in that the -en was added to a word already in its "irregular" plural form. I love Caxton's little anecdote about the bunch of merchants becalmed in the mouth of the Thames, who go ashore to buy supplies and can't get the poor housewife to understand "eggs". "I'm sorry,", she says, "I don't speak French." Only when they ask her for "eyren" does she understand. Karenjc21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An old favorite with linguists. The full story:
“
And that comyn Englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother. In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a shippe in Tamyse, for to haue sayled ouer the see into Zelande. And for lacke of wynde, thei taryed atte forlond, and wente to lande for to refreshe them; And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally he axyd after eggys; And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude spoke no Frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but wolde haue hadde egges, and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstod hym wel. Loo, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges or eyren? Certaynly it is harde to playse euery man by cause of dyuersite & chaunge of langage.
'Child' did not originally take an -en plural; it was originally child, later childra.Children was a Middle English leveling with brethren, which also had an -r-.kwami (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely Caxton; it's from the prologue to his translation of the Aeneid. Just Google for a handful of words from the above text, putting them in quotation marks, for example [1], to find all sorts of online sources. —Angr13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
