LL-L "Grammar" 2007.09.05 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  05 September 2007 - Volume 01
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

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

Hello, (silent) Lowlanders!

I find it interesting that there are signs of ambivalence regarding plural
use in certain cases, and I wonder if plural use is on its way out in such
cases.  These are cases in which perception of two or more parts seems to be
shifting to perception of units of which these are parts.  In the case of
English, I wonder if tendencies toward singular choice goes back to European
immigrant languages, especially on the North American east coast.

On the way to work this morning I was struck by the sight of a sign saying
"Stair" pointing to a set of ten or more stairways down a hill side.  Many
Americans say "stair" for what others call "stairway," "set of stairs" or
just "stairs."  I think the ambiguity arises from different perceptions of
the meaning of "stair": to some it is a step or stair in a stairway, and to
others it is the set of stairs itself.  I wonder if this latter meaning is
inspired by singular-form words for "stairway" such as Dutch trap, Low Saxon
Trapp ~ Trepp, Treppe (German) and trepl (Yiddish).

Many Eastern Americans (e.g., Martha Stewart) say singular "scissor" for
what others call "scissors." ("Hand me the small scissor please.") Again,
here we have singular Dutch schaar, Low Saxon Scheer, German Schere and
Yiddish sher(l).  The English case is similar to that of Scandinavian, e.g.,
Danish sakser ("saxes") for instance, while the Dutch, Low Saxon, German and
Yiddish equivalents denote sets. These equivalents are related to English
"shear," which is usually used in plural form too ("shears").

Another such case is "trousers," "pants," etc. In early medieval times
European males wore pairs of separate hose, thus long stockings, and their
shirts or tunics came to be tucked into these in the crotch area, then the
codpiece was invented (for added "security"), and finally someone had the
bright idea to develop hose (pantaloons, trousers, etc.) into garment sets
connected at the crotch.  But in most languages the plural (for want of the
by then vanished dual) remained, hence "trousers," etc.  Some related
languages, however, developed singulars from this because by now such a
garment had come to be seen as a single set.  Thus, in older Low Saxon you
say plural Büxen, these days mostly singular Büx, older and dialectical
German Hosen, nowadays mostly singular Hose in Standard German (but still
plural hoyzn in Yiddish), and always singular broek in Dutch.  International
English fashion jargon now uses singular forms here ("That's a very stylish
pant," "Let's do a loose jean with that outfit," etc.), and I think it's
just a matter of time until it comes to be generally accepted, for I hear
more and more people talk like this.

Are there any further examples and ideas about this topic out there?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070905/af6800f4/attachment.htm>