Re: USAGE: THEORY/USAGE: irregular English plurals (was: RE: [CONLANG]
| From: | Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 5:02 |
|---|
On 20 May 02, at 21:08, John Cowan wrote:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > which leaves just man:men, woman:women, foot:feet, goose:geese,
> > tooth:teeth, mouse:mice, child:children, and, arguably, person:people,
> > as the utter irregulars among the indigenes...
>
> Yes, I think person:people belongs here, although we also have
> person:persons and people:peoples in different senses.
Heh :) I sometimes like to confuse English learners (who have learned
person/people) by pointing out that "peoples" is also a valid English
word. ("What? A double plural?")
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
Reply