LL-L "Morphology" (was "Currency") 2002.02.05 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 05.FEB.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Aviad Stier" <aviad2001 at hotmail.com>
Subject:

Sandy Fleming wrote:
Talking about English, because Scots plurals might be flexible
enough to accomodate the official recommendations, I think the
problem with a sentence like "to buy some euro" is that it
implies that this "euro" is uncountable. This isn't the way
money is spoken of in English.

With sheep, on the other hand, the uncountable form is "mutton".
The distinct word makes it a bit of an exception (along with such
words as "beef" and "pork" that also came from French), so these
are irregular forms, the regular forms being "lambs" (countable),
"lamb" (uncountable), "chickens", "chicken" &c. I think what these
words have in common is that they're animals (countable) which get
converted into food (uncountable).

The only English word I can think of that follows the "official"
euro pattern is "fish", but I think again that this has something
to do with it being edible - it may have once been "fishes" being
caught and made into "fish" but the uncountable form started to be
used for the countable form. This may be why the plural of "sheep"
is also "sheep", except that the original uncountable plural has
disappeared because after spreading to the countable form it was
replaced with the new uncountable "mutton" (just my conjecture).

(end quote)

It is indeed very interesting that so many animals in English are Germanic
while grazing in the field, but become French once on the plate: pig/pork,
cow/beef, deer/venison, calf/veal, sheep/mutton, and, in a slightly
different manner, chicken/poultry. You notice that most of those animals
have a regular plural, so I don't know if this is the explanation. Seems to
me like it might have something to do with the fact that they're mostly
things that come in herds or groups: same for shrimp (like fish), airplane
and aircraft, antelope, plaice, trout, salmon, herring (well, fish again),
and more. I wonder if 'hair' didn't start off like that, too, with both
'hair' and 'hairs' being plural. For cows you also have the collective
plural "cattle", but I can't remember a similar name for any other animal.
Aviad Stier
Brussels, Belgium

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

Sandy wrote:

> With sheep, on the other hand, the uncountable form is "mutton".
> The distinct word makes it a bit of an exception (along with such
> words as "beef" and "pork" that also came from French), so these
> are irregular forms, the regular forms being "lambs" (countable),
> "lamb" (uncountable), "chickens", "chicken" &c. I think what these
> words have in common is that they're animals (countable) which get
> converted into food (uncountable).

But don't the French-derived mass nouns "mutton," "beef" and "pork" only refer
to meat rather than to the actual animal?  In other word, don't they just
refer to different types of edible matter?  As far as I can tell, the only
mass noun for animals is "cattle" in reference to domestic bovines (= wealth).

> The only English word I can think of that follows the "official"
> euro pattern is "fish", but I think again that this has something
> to do with it being edible - it may have once been "fishes" being
> caught and made into "fish" but the uncountable form started to be
> used for the countable form. This may be why the plural of "sheep"
> is also "sheep", except that the original uncountable plural has
> disappeared because after spreading to the countable form it was
> replaced with the new uncountable "mutton" (just my conjecture).

I agree.  Compare the Low Saxon (Low German) case: in some dialects the
singular for 'sheep' is _Schaap_ [SQ:p] and the plural is also _Schaap_ [SQ:p]
(though some dialects have plural _Schapen_ ['SQ:pm=]).  I believe that in the
_Schaap_/_Schaap_ dialects, the plural lost the final _-e_. i.e., used to be
*_Schape_ ['SQ:pe].  Or have the singular and plural form always been
homophonous?  Perhaps, because I would expect the plural to have been umlauted
to *_Schäpe_ > *_Schääp_ (or *_Scheep_) on account of the supposed _-e_ (cf.
_Schäper_ ~ _Scheper_ ['SE:p3] ~ ['Se:p3] 'shepherd').  Hmm ... but then
again, German has sg. _Schaf_ and pl. _Schafe_ (not *_Schäfe_), and some Low
Saxon dialects have  _Schapen_ (not *_Schäpen_).  Can he make up his mind?
Apparently not.

Incidentally, Low Saxon also has sg. _Fisch_ [fIS] and pl. _Fisch_ [fIS].  It
also has a mass noun for domestic animals (including cattle, swine and sheep,
but mostly referring to cattle): _Veh_ [fE.I] or _Vehwark_ ['fE.Iva:k] (as
opposed to countable bovines: _Koh_ [k_ho.U] 'cow' vs _Köh_ [k_h9.I] (<
_Köhe_) and _Rind_ [rI.nt] vs _Rinner_ ['rIn3].

Low Saxon also has sg. _Swien_ [svi:n] and pl. _Swien_ [svi:] (or is the
latter derived from *_Swiene_?) for pigs.

So what about English sg. _swine_ and pl. _swine_, and sg. _deer_ and pl.
_deer_, folks?

Oh, and then there is the Low Saxon reluctance to use the "proper" plural
forms in the cases of _Mann_ [ma.n] 'man' vs _Manns_ [ma.ns] 'men' and _Fru_
[fru:] ~ _Fro_ [fro.U] 'woman' vs _Fruuns_ [fru:ns] ~ _Froons_ [fro.Uns],
using _Mannslüüd'_ ['ma.nsly:.(d)] and _Fruunslüüd'_ ['fru:nsly:.(d)] ~
_Froonslüüd'_ ['fro.Unsly:.(d)] instead, thus "menfolk" and "womenfolk."

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================