The plurals of deer-like animals in English
The plurals of deer-like animals in English
The usual plural for "deer" is "deer". For some reason, this lack of a different plural form seems to have spread to other deer-like animals, like "elk", "antelope", and "caribou". Perhaps the fact that "moose" doesn't have a different plural form re-enforces this idea even more.
Googling for "three elk" and "three elks" seems to confirm this for every animal that I've mentioned. Do other anglophones feel this aversion to plural forms for deer-like animals too?
Googling for "three elk" and "three elks" seems to confirm this for every animal that I've mentioned. Do other anglophones feel this aversion to plural forms for deer-like animals too?
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
I get the impression that it is the same for all game animals - do hunters not also do the same for grouse and partridge?
I've always thought of it as being psychologically motivated - referring to animals as mass nouns, a kind of stuff or material almost, when hunting them, viewing them as "hunting fodder" rather than the individuals that a plural would imply - and then passing into general use.
I've always thought of it as being psychologically motivated - referring to animals as mass nouns, a kind of stuff or material almost, when hunting them, viewing them as "hunting fodder" rather than the individuals that a plural would imply - and then passing into general use.
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
But with deer and sheep, the unmarked plurals go all the way back to Proto-Germanic. (German Tiere and Schafe are innovations.)
Grouse is originally a plural which was later used collectively.
Grouse is originally a plural which was later used collectively.
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Same thing happens with fish. Of course all the ones that end in -fish are singular, but even most of the ones that don't but are typically fished for. In fact I'm having trouble thinking of fish that do take plural regularly...shark, ray, eel...what else?
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to apply to all groups of animals.Cúlro wrote:I get the impression that it is the same for all game animals - do hunters not also do the same for grouse and partridge?
I've always thought of it as being psychologically motivated - referring to animals as mass nouns, a kind of stuff or material almost, when hunting them, viewing them as "hunting fodder" rather than the individuals that a plural would imply - and then passing into general use.
Not birds: the plurals "five birds", "five ducks", "five pheasants", "five geese" are well alive.
But indeed fish, it seems: "five fish", "five walleye", "five northern pike", "five bluegill", (maybe "five muskie") (Forgive me if you don't know any of these fish; They are the ones that I know best.)
Not penned animals: Yes, "five sheep", but "five cows", "five goats", "five pigs", "five chickens".
I'm not sure about lobsters or crabs though.
His theory could explain why it expanded beyond these couple words. What merged the singular and plural of these words in the beginning, anyways? Sound-change?But with deer and sheep, the unmarked plurals go all the way back to Proto-Germanic. (German Tiere and Schafe are innovations.)
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Rounding out the game animals, 'boars' is only the plural for male boar, boar in general are called 'boar'. And 'partridge' can just be called partridge, though they can also be partridges. Plus of course 'fowl' and 'game' themselves.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
But you still hear fishes...clawgrip wrote:Same thing happens with fish. Of course all the ones that end in -fish are singular, but even most of the ones that don't but are typically fished for. In fact I'm having trouble thinking of fish that do take plural regularly...shark, ray, eel...what else?
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Where outside of expressions like "sleep with the fishes" or Three Dog Night songs?araceli wrote:But you still hear fishes...clawgrip wrote:Same thing happens with fish. Of course all the ones that end in -fish are singular, but even most of the ones that don't but are typically fished for. In fact I'm having trouble thinking of fish that do take plural regularly...shark, ray, eel...what else?
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Google suggests the BBC, Slate, the National History Museum, the National Gallery, four pubs/restaurants, three different christian charities, numerous books and websites, and an online collection of the works of Hiroshige.linguoboy wrote:Where outside of expressions like "sleep with the fishes" or Three Dog Night songs?araceli wrote:But you still hear fishes...clawgrip wrote:Same thing happens with fish. Of course all the ones that end in -fish are singular, but even most of the ones that don't but are typically fished for. In fact I'm having trouble thinking of fish that do take plural regularly...shark, ray, eel...what else?
Surveying it, it seems to me to be an old form that has survived in the places you'd expect old forms to survive - technical uses (eg 'ray-lobed fishes', 'bony fishes', rather than fish), cultural uses (eg the titles of works of art), references to older works (eg the charities are all references to old bible translations and their miracle of the 'loaves and fishes'), and proper names (pub names can often perpetuate many older or more dialectical features). Plus uses around children.
Outside of that, I'd also be tempted to use it when I was referring to a number of definite individual fish - eg if I had fish, I might say "I gave the fishes some food", if they were a small number of fish I knew individually (rather than a big shoal).
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
five salmon, five trout, five halibut ... it's a pretty consistent patternTerra wrote: But indeed fish, it seems: "five fish", "five walleye", "five northern pike", "five bluegill", (maybe "five muskie") (Forgive me if you don't know any of these fish; They are the ones that I know best.)
I'm not sure about lobsters or crabs though.
five squid! (but I wouldn't wince at "squids" like I would at say "trouts", which is just no)
five lobsters, five crabs ... these take plural forms (but their meat is of course noncount)
<Anaxandridas> How many artists do you know get paid?
<Anaxandridas> Seriously, name five.
<Anaxandridas> Seriously, name five.
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
I don't live by the ocean, so I didn't think of those fish. Anyways, it's certainly "dolphins" and "whales" too.Kereb wrote:five salmon, five trout, five halibut ... it's a pretty consistent patternTerra wrote: But indeed fish, it seems: "five fish", "five walleye", "five northern pike", "five bluegill", (maybe "five muskie") (Forgive me if you don't know any of these fish; They are the ones that I know best.)
I'm not sure about lobsters or crabs though.
five squid! (but I wouldn't wince at "squids" like I would at say "trouts", which is just no)
five lobsters, five crabs ... these take plural forms (but their meat is of course noncount)
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Yeah, that's how I understood it as well. Also consider that "deer" once was the general term for all large game, rather than specifically the medium antlered type we now associate with the name.Cúlro wrote:I get the impression that it is the same for all game animals - do hunters not also do the same for grouse and partridge?
It's not a rule, and of course there are exceptions, but it sure is a strong *pattern* to collectivize unpenned food animals. The unmarked plurals all seem to be for that type of animal, even if not all of those animals have unmarked plurals.
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Do expressions like "forty-two head of cattle" apply here?
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
- Curlyjimsam
- Lebom
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:57 am
- Location: Elsewhere
- Contact:
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
For me, "I'm going out hunting pheasant" would be OK, but not *"there are five pheasant in that field". And similarly for "elk" etc.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
For me, neither of those work with "pheasant", but both do with "elk".
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
The correct plural of "moose" is "meese." I thought everyone knew this?Terra wrote:Perhaps the fact that "moose" doesn't have a different plural form re-enforces this idea even more.
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
The modern English umlauting plural everyone forgets. As conlangers we, of all people, should know this.Rhetorica wrote:The correct plural of "moose" is "meese." I thought everyone knew this?Terra wrote:Perhaps the fact that "moose" doesn't have a different plural form re-enforces this idea even more.
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Hmm, the phrase "Look at all the X!" seems to fit most animals, the exceptions seem to be harder to find. You could say "Look at all the lobster!" refering to an aquarium or something full of live lobster, or "Look at all the vulture in that field!" but not when talking about pig or shark.
I kind of get the feeling that the cases where it's allowable there's almost a missing suffix "-kind" at the end. "Look at all the vulture(kind)!" yet "I saw five vultures." Collective noun.
I don't think it has to do with hunting, impersonalisation has little to do with it. People have been butchering their livestock they get to know as well as any human friend for millenia and that doesn't interfere much, and often hunting is described as a specific connection to your prey.
I kind of get the feeling that the cases where it's allowable there's almost a missing suffix "-kind" at the end. "Look at all the vulture(kind)!" yet "I saw five vultures." Collective noun.
I don't think it has to do with hunting, impersonalisation has little to do with it. People have been butchering their livestock they get to know as well as any human friend for millenia and that doesn't interfere much, and often hunting is described as a specific connection to your prey.
Somehow, that's more intuitive than I'd expect...Astraios wrote:Conlenger.
http://nomadicvillage.wordpress.com/
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Lots of hunting also, throughout history and up to this day, ritualizes this connection with the prey, e.g. eating a bit of the still-warm heart and the like, in a way that definitely doesn't really seem to support the contention presented earlier.mouse wrote:Hmm, the phrase "Look at all the X!" seems to fit most animals, the exceptions seem to be harder to find. You could say "Look at all the lobster!" refering to an aquarium or something full of live lobster, or "Look at all the vulture in that field!" but not when talking about pig or shark.
I kind of get the feeling that the cases where it's allowable there's almost a missing suffix "-kind" at the end. "Look at all the vulture(kind)!" yet "I saw five vultures." Collective noun.
I don't think it has to do with hunting, impersonalisation has little to do with it. People have been butchering their livestock they get to know as well as any human friend for millenia and that doesn't interfere much, and often hunting is described as a specific connection to your prey.
Somehow, that's more intuitive than I'd expect...Astraios wrote:Conlenger.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Not IMD. You might be able to get away, just, with 'look at all the lobster', maybe because people might think you were treating the lobsters as future food, or maybe because they might think you were talking about the lobsters as though they were fish... but 'look at all the vulture' is just plain totally ungrammatical IMD.mouse wrote:Hmm, the phrase "Look at all the X!" seems to fit most animals, the exceptions seem to be harder to find. You could say "Look at all the lobster!" refering to an aquarium or something full of live lobster, or "Look at all the vulture in that field!" but not when talking about pig or shark.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Beem. (umlauting plural of "boom".)Astraios wrote:Conlenger.
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
- Herra Ratatoskr
- Avisaru
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:26 pm
- Location: Missouri (loves company!)
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
So, could you call moose nuggets...Rhetorica wrote:The correct plural of "moose" is "meese." I thought everyone knew this?Terra wrote:Perhaps the fact that "moose" doesn't have a different plural form re-enforces this idea even more.
...meese's pieces?
I am Ratatosk, Norse Squirrel of Strife!
There are 10 types of people in this world:
-Those who understand binary
-Those who don't
Mater tua circeta ibat et pater tuus sambucorum olficiebat!
There are 10 types of people in this world:
-Those who understand binary
-Those who don't
Mater tua circeta ibat et pater tuus sambucorum olficiebat!
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
Do they? According to Wiktionary (not the best source for this stuff, I know, but it should be accurate in this case), Proto-Germanic had the singular *deuzą and the plural *deuzō for deer, and *skēpą / *skēpō for sheep. I think it's more accurate to say that they go back to Old English, where the final vowels dropped off both for the singulars and the plurals, leaving just dēor and scēap. I guess this is a little nitpicky considering the same development happened (almost) throughout Germanic, but I think Gothic, as usual, is the exception.linguoboy wrote:But with deer and sheep, the unmarked plurals go all the way back to Proto-Germanic. (German Tiere and Schafe are innovations.)
I believe it happened to all a-stem neuter nouns with heavy stem syllables, i.e. stem syllables with long vowels and/or final clusters, so other examples include folk, word, work etc. However, almost all the words in question later acquired regular plurals with -s. At some point these null plurals seem to have become associated with animals in particular, which is a little ironic considering nouns for animals are rarely neuter.Terra wrote: His theory could explain why it expanded beyond these couple words. What merged the singular and plural of these words in the beginning, anyways? Sound-change?
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The plurals of deer-like animals in English
BBC-friendly version: meese pee?Herra Ratatoskr wrote:So, could you call moose nuggets...Rhetorica wrote:The correct plural of "moose" is "meese." I thought everyone knew this?Terra wrote:Perhaps the fact that "moose" doesn't have a different plural form re-enforces this idea even more.
...meese's pieces?
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.