foot -> feet is ablaut, changing the vowel in the root, also in break-broke, etc.
-i is a non-native plural suffix, e.g. cactus-cacti, octopus-octopi (from Latin), it's very unusual to loan these purely grammatical elements (morphemes)
Alternatively, labubu-labibi is a case of a changed transfix (singular: u_u, plural: i_i), or of vowel harmony. Either way, all very exotic for English standards :D
I've always wondered how non-native suffices come to be- do you know? To take the example, octopus is almost exactly the Greek original word. It's understandable that octopodoi isn't intuitive in English. But why not stick with octopuses, or the Greek/English-mix octopodes (I know both of them are a thing, too). How did a third language come into it?
In the case of English, it's because of the knowledge of and prestige of Greek (and Latin). The higher more educated classes, who were traditionally taught classical languages, preferred to stick to the original declension, and they could spread this preference through grammars, dictionaries and schooling - but only to a certain degree. So it's a somewhat artificial phenomenon, and it tends to have only a limited spread outside of those who were taught Latin and Greek (so people do spontaneously say octopuses, and sometimes they try to make a classical plural that is nonetheless "wrong": octopi).
Similar stuff happens in some other European languages, I could list a few examples from my native Croatian where Latin grammar is supposed to be used, according to the wishes of some classical philologists, even when it clashes with all rules of native grammar (and, as expected, the latinate grammar is not used by anyone outside of a handful of academics).
At worst, such usage could be interpreted as social signalling of superiority (class + education). Obviously, nobody expects people to use "original purals" in cases such as gulag-gulagi, or wunderkind-wunderkinder, because Russian and German aren't all that sexy, even though German is much closer to English than Latin or Greek are.
But there are more natural cases of loaning inflectional morphemes, in communities with a very high degree of bilingualism. I'll admit I could only copy-paste some passages from books regarding this, I don't have much knowledge of languages outside of Slavic and English.
It's because -us is the Latin second declension nominative singular, and its nominative plural is -i. People educated enough to know the -us/-i pattern (cactus/cacti, alumnus/alumni, stimulus/stimuli) but unaware that "octopus" is Greek and has an irregular stem are likely to misapply the Latin pattern.
I don't really understand the connection, since French has plural adjectives and English doesn't. And in my head, that was also why the above list is the way it is- English doesn't have plural adjectives, so of course you denote the plural through the noun. If it were French, it would be more like attornies generals. Not to mention that some adjectives go before the noun in French, and for those, it's still both the adjective and the noun being made plural at the same time. I'm not a linguist, and also neither native in English nor French, can you explain?
Lots of modern English words came from French, especially Norman French.
These modern English phrases that follow this “noun then adjective” are French loan phrases (I think). Or, they were constructed to look like French loans, because French was the language of the nobility, a “higher” way of speaking than dirty, peasant English.
44 Comments
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 24 pts · 336d
Two labibi.
Foot -> feet
Book -> beek
Labubu -> labibi
Easy.
Cort@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 336d
lunarul@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 336d
Wouldn't it be labubi?
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 336d
Technically though it is permissible to modify other morphemes to aid pronunciation.... or avoid childish names for body parts.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 335d
shoop>sheep
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 336d
Interesting, a combination of native Germanic ablaut and loaned inflection!
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 336d
Yup. Totally and exactly my intention... those things you said.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 336d
foot -> feet is ablaut, changing the vowel in the root, also in break-broke, etc.
-i is a non-native plural suffix, e.g. cactus-cacti, octopus-octopi (from Latin), it's very unusual to loan these purely grammatical elements (morphemes)
Alternatively, labubu-labibi is a case of a changed transfix (singular: u_u, plural: i_i), or of vowel harmony. Either way, all very exotic for English standards :D
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 336d
TY. Your first reply made me it and look up those terms!
This is exactly why I subscribed here today.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
I've always wondered how non-native suffices come to be- do you know? To take the example, octopus is almost exactly the Greek original word. It's understandable that octopodoi isn't intuitive in English. But why not stick with octopuses, or the Greek/English-mix octopodes (I know both of them are a thing, too). How did a third language come into it?
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 335d
In the case of English, it's because of the knowledge of and prestige of Greek (and Latin). The higher more educated classes, who were traditionally taught classical languages, preferred to stick to the original declension, and they could spread this preference through grammars, dictionaries and schooling - but only to a certain degree. So it's a somewhat artificial phenomenon, and it tends to have only a limited spread outside of those who were taught Latin and Greek (so people do spontaneously say octopuses, and sometimes they try to make a classical plural that is nonetheless "wrong": octopi).
Similar stuff happens in some other European languages, I could list a few examples from my native Croatian where Latin grammar is supposed to be used, according to the wishes of some classical philologists, even when it clashes with all rules of native grammar (and, as expected, the latinate grammar is not used by anyone outside of a handful of academics).
At worst, such usage could be interpreted as social signalling of superiority (class + education). Obviously, nobody expects people to use "original purals" in cases such as gulag-gulagi, or wunderkind-wunderkinder, because Russian and German aren't all that sexy, even though German is much closer to English than Latin or Greek are.
But there are more natural cases of loaning inflectional morphemes, in communities with a very high degree of bilingualism. I'll admit I could only copy-paste some passages from books regarding this, I don't have much knowledge of languages outside of Slavic and English.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 335d
This was so interesting to read, thank you! It felt like a mishap that just stuck rather than a natural development, but I never knew for sure!
Shihali@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 334d
It's because -us is the Latin second declension nominative singular, and its nominative plural is -i. People educated enough to know the -us/-i pattern (cactus/cacti, alumnus/alumni, stimulus/stimuli) but unaware that "octopus" is Greek and has an irregular stem are likely to misapply the Latin pattern.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 334d
I thought as much, but was never sure. Could've developed more naturally, like from Romans in Britain, for all I knew.
lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 336d
Las bubu. Like those monsters who insist on "attorneys general".
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 336d
It follows a rule about compound nouns that is taught quickly around the 7th grade.
Nougat@fedia.io · 4 pts · 336d
It follows French, where the adjective comes after the noun.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
I don't really understand the connection, since French has plural adjectives and English doesn't. And in my head, that was also why the above list is the way it is- English doesn't have plural adjectives, so of course you denote the plural through the noun. If it were French, it would be more like attornies generals. Not to mention that some adjectives go before the noun in French, and for those, it's still both the adjective and the noun being made plural at the same time. I'm not a linguist, and also neither native in English nor French, can you explain?
Nougat@fedia.io · 2 pts · 335d
Lots of modern English words came from French, especially Norman French.
These modern English phrases that follow this “noun then adjective” are French loan phrases (I think). Or, they were constructed to look like French loans, because French was the language of the nobility, a “higher” way of speaking than dirty, peasant English.
QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 335d
I thought the overwhelming majority of English words have Latin roots? That's what I was always taught in Latin classes
Nougat@fedia.io · 1 pts · 335d
Well … yes, but a lot of them went Latin > French > English.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
I still don't really understand how that pertains to why the plural -s goes with the noun in fixed phrases like attorney general
Nougat@fedia.io · 1 pts · 335d
Because English doesn't pluralize adjectives. English is a mutt of a language, and it doesn't always make sense.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's just what English does, and I don't see what it has to do with french.
DeltaWingDragon@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 333d
Relevant SMBC
pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 336d
Or alternatively, due to turning the singular Spanish article "la" into the plural "las".
blarth@thelemmy.club · 11 pts · 336d
For the uninitiated
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 7 pts · 336d
Always two there are, no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.
lvxferre@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 336d
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 336d
Wtf, they made a gay language??
FATALRPG@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 336d
kureta@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 336d
there are two labubi
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 5 pts · 336d
Like sheep. Two Labubu.
Hegar@fedia.io · 5 pts · 336d
It sounds sumerian so I think labubuene maybe?
lvxferre@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 336d
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 335d
WTF is it with humans and plastic dolls of inexplicable attraction very decade or so?
Resol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 334d
There are two very terrifying plush dolls.
RegularJoe@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
one menu -> two menus.
one labubu -> two labubus.
Albbi@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 336d
One moose -> two moose.
One labubu -> two labubu.
RegularJoe@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 336d
Yeah, but moose is regular. Goose is irregular.
One goose -> two geese.
If irregular, we could have One labubu -> two lababa.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 336d
How many Joe are there over there?
vivalapivo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 336d
One labubu, two ლაბუბუები (labubuebi)
DrFistington@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
Lebubai
sillyplasm@piefed.social · 1 pts · 251d
HIS NAME IS ZIMOMO
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 334d
Is that what a labubu is? It's hideous, and not in a charming way