PECULIAR PLURALS: ORIGIN AND USES

Man, men, etc.The eight Plurals are called Mutation-plurals, because they are formed by a change or mutation of the inside vowel of the singular. Once there were many more such plurals than there are now. The original plural of man was "mann-is". The "i" in the ending -is had the effect of changing the a of mann or man into a sound more like itself; thus mann-is became menn-is. The effect of "/" in thus changing the preceding vowel is called Vowel-mutation in English and Umlaut in Ger­man. When the -is was dropped, nothing but the vowel-change was left to distinguish the Plural from the Singular. This Muta­tion-method became obsolete when the Anglo-Saxon system of grammar decayed.

Ox, oxen, etc.The four Plurals are formed by a process that is now as obsolete as that of vowel-mutation. In Old English -an (now written -en) was not as common as a then Plural ending -as (now written -es or -s). But -as or -es became much more common when the decay of Anglo-Saxon was setting in. After­wards, when French influence had begun to work (about 200 years after the Norman Conquest), the French Plural in -s helped to drive the nail home, so that -s or -es became eventually the sign of the Plural for almost all our nouns.

Foreign Plurals.We have some Plurals which have been borrowed direct from foreign nouns:

Latin Plurals: from -urn (sing.) to -a (plur.); addend-a, agend-a, dat-a, errat-a, strat-a, memorand-a (or memorand-ums); from -us

TrueSingulars used as Plurals.- By a "True Singular" we mean that the final "s" is part of the original Singular noun, and not a sign of the Plural.

Such nouns, though Singular by etymology, are liable to be considered Plural on account of the final "s"; and all except the first of these named below are now always used as if they were Plural.

Summons (Fr. semonce). - This noun is still correctly used as a Singular; as "I received a summons to attend"; "This sum­mons reached me to-day." The plural form is summonses.

Alms (A.S. selmesse). - "He asked an alms" (New Testa­ment). But now the word is generally used as if it were Plural; as, "I gave alms to the beggar, and for these he thanked me."

Eaves (A.S. efese). - The edge or lower borders of the roof of a house. The word is now always used as a Plural; as, "The eaves are not yet finished."

Riches (Fr. Richesse). - This too is really a Singular; as, "In one hour is so great riches come to naught (New Testament); but now, on account of the final s, this noun is always used as a Plural; as, "Riches do not last for ever."

Cherries (Mid. Eng. cheris): cf. Latin, ceras-us, - The s looked so like a Plural ending, that a Singular cherry was coined.

Peas (A.S. pis-a. Singular). - When the a was lost, the fi­nal s looked like a Plural; so a Singular pea was coined; "The vaunting poets found nought worth a pease". - SPENCER. "Of the bigness of a great peaze. - RALEIGH, Hist. World (Spelt with a 2 by Raleigh, because it was so pronounced).

True Plurals used as Singulars.- In such nouns the final s is really a sign of the Plural:

Amends. - This is sometimes used as a Singular and sometimes as a Plural: as, "An honourable amends" (ADDISON).

Means. - This is now almost always used as a Singular; as, "By this means".

News. - This is now almost always used as a Singular; as, "111 news runs apace." Mid. Eng. new-es (plural); French nouvelles.

Innings. - This is a word used in cricket to denote the turn for going in and using the bat. It is always used as a Singular; as, "We have not yet had an innings"; "Our eleven beat the other by an innings and ten runs."

Gallows. - The framework from which criminals are hanged. This noun is used as a Singular; as, "They fixed up a gal­lows."

Odds. - A word used in betting to denote the difference of one wager against another. "We gave him a heavy odds against ourselves."

Sledge. - A respelling of sleds, plural of sled, which is still used in Canada for "sledge". This is always used as Singular: "A sledge (сани, они) is sliding down the slope".

CASE

Case is "any one of the varied forms of a noun, adjective or pro­noun, which expresses the varied relations in which it may function" (Oxford English Dictionary). That is, it is a form to express relation­ship, not the relationship itself; and the kind of relationship is one that only certain sorts of word (those characteristically functioning in the noun-phrase) enter into - case and noun, etc., are to some ex­tent mutually defining words. OED's definition is meant to apply to a wide range of languages; it does not of course imply that all these form-classes actually have case-systems in English (for adjectives clear­ly not). For the two terms of the English noun case-system, the labels "common case" and "genitive case" are probably the most appropri­ate of those available.

The two terms of the case-system of English nouns are not on an equal footing. Formally, the one we have called common case is un-inflected, while the genitive is inflected; functionally, the uses of the penitive are specific, those of the common case general, in the sense that a noun is in the common case unless there s reason for it not to be. In other words, both formally and functionally, the common case is unmarked and the genitive marked.

In the common case singular, the base of the noun is used. In the genitive a morphemic suffix is added, once again -'s sibilant suffix having alternants [iz], [z], [s] in the same distribution as the open-class plural morpheme. There is, of course, a distinction in the writ­ten form, where the genitive has an apostrophe before the -s; and there is a difference in speech in those words that have closed-class plurals, since there are no exceptions to the spoken form of the geni­tive suffix - save in a few expressions where the next word begins with s-, and then only regularly in expressions that have become tra­ditional as wholes, such as Pears' Soap [psaz soup]. This degree of uniformity in distribution is unique amongst grammatical bound mor­phemes in English.

In the plural the common-case forms are those described above. For those words that have open-class plurals, there is no formal case-con­trast, though in writing a distinction is made by placing an apostrophe after the -s in the genitive. Nouns with closed-class plurals do have a contrast in speech, adding to the common-class plural the sibilant mor­pheme with alternants [izj, [z], [s] in the now familiar distribution.

The value of grammatical contrasts is that they convey meanings and distinctions that the language is not well adapted to convey lex­ically; so any attempt to sum up "the meaning" of the genitive is. doomed. It is hard to get nearer to it than to say that it conveys a relationship, which may be of possession, origin, consisting of, ex­tent of, association with or concerning (directed towards). Genitives commonly occur in collocations with another noun-like word, which provides the second term of the relationship, and may be classified according as the relationship is subjective (directed from the referent of the genitive noun to that of the other) or objective (directed to­wards the referent of the genitive noun). An example (adapting a book-title) is "my aunt's murder" (subjective if it refers to the murder she committed; objective if it refers to murder committed upon her). There is no forma] difference, and this may lead to ambiguity, but generally the context and lexical probability make clear which is meant. Of the kinds of relationship expressed, that of possession is probably dominant, with the result that there is a tendency to avoid the genitive of nouns whose referents cannot possess (are not, or are not thought of as being, human or at least animal). So we readily speak of a stu­dent's book, but not of a book's student (=one who studies that book); and similarly not only for nouns with actually personal referents, but for others like "ship" and "car", which have as referents things some speakers like to think of in human terms; but hardly the “typewrit­er's ribbon". Possession is not the only relationship expressed by the genitive, however, and in expressions of a certain pattern the genitive of extent is very common (indeed, compulsory for the required rela­tionship), e.g., a day's work, a stone's throw. For this reason, it is inadvisable to give the case a name like "possessive", or indeed any transparent name, for it just does not correspond to any simple lexical notion in English, except in a special sense we shall now look into. Naturally the genitive relationship in its full range needs to beexpressed in connection with nouns not eligible, as we have explained, for genitive case-forms. In such words, a quite different pattern is used, namely the particle "of followed by the noun in common case, the whole following the form for the other term of the relationship (as in "The Book of the Month"). “Of” therefore does have much the same "meaning" as the case-form (though its distribution is differ­ent) and we might have used the name "of-case" if we could have been sure that that would not suggest that of-constructions them­selves are case-forms. Though "of is a word, it belongs not to lexis, but to grammar, since it is one of the closed-system items we shall call "prepositions".

There are two difficulties about describing the use of the genitive. That of saying what kind of relationship it expresses we have already met. The second is that of the relative distribution of case-construc­tion and of-constructions. The general principles outlined so far must now be restricted in application. First there are idioms, constructions functioning as wholes, internally invariable, such as "money's worth”, “harm’s way”, “heart's content”, “mind's eye”, “wits’ end”. Secondly a genitive used quasi-adjectivally in certain words which other­wise do not conform to noun patterning, as in "yesterday's rain", "to-day's engagements", "to-morrow's match". Such constructions яге not like the idioms, for their total lexical content is not fixed, but they do represent fixed patterns of usage. Thirdly, various forces com­bine to keep alive a sense of patterns formerly productive in the lan­guage; one such force is the analogy of idioms, another is the memo­ry of familiar quotations (mind's eye is one of these, and one less fully assimilated is the round world's imagined corners), and a third is news­paper usage, especially in headlines, for which the compactness of the case-form is very convenient, so that it is often used where it would ordinarily be inappropriate, and so become increasingly familiar. Euphony is also a disturbing factor; except in set expressions (idi­oms, quotations and references) most speakers avoid the case-con­struction after final [s], saying, for instance, “The Eve of St. Agnes” rather than “St. Agnes’ Eve”. But the most important restriction of all is that our generalization applies, as far as speech is concerned, almost wholly to the singular forms. As we have seen, the case-con­trast in the plural is vestigial, and generally in the plural of-construc­tions are preferred. In writing the case-construction is more freely used, and some speakers follow the model of written English.

There are some instances, commonly in rather fixed patterns, in which the genitive is not associated with another noun-like word, but used absolutely, notably with locative force (at the greengrocer's); it may also occur, not alternatively with the of-construction, but in con­junction with it (that boy of Smith's).

The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most vexed problems in English grammar. This can be seen from the fact that views on the subject differ widely. The most usual view is that English nouns have two cases: a common case (e. g. father) and a genitive (or possessive) case (e. g. father's). Side by side with this view there are a number of other views, which can be roughly classified into two main groups: (i) the number of cases in English is more than two, (2) there are no cases at all in English nouns.

The first of these can again be subdivided into the views that the number of cases in English nouns is three, or four, or five, or even an indefinite quantity. Among those who hold that there are no cases in English nouns there is again a variety of opinions as to the relations between the forms father and father's, etc.

Before embarking on a detailed study of the whole problem it is advisable to take a look at the essence of the notion of case. It is more than likely that part, at least, of the discussions and misunderstandings are due to a difference in the interpretation of case as a grammatical category. It seems therefore necessary to give as clear and unambiguous a definition of case as we can. Case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almost always an inflection, 1 and it may also be a "zero" sign, i. e. the

1 Occasionally, a case may be denoted by change of the root vowel; for instance, in Old English the noun mann 'man' had the form menn for its dative case.

absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category. (In a similar way, to establish the category of tense in verbs, at least two tenses are needed, to establish the category of mood two moods, etc.). Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language.

Approaching the problem of case in English nouns from this angle, we will not recognise any cases expressed by non-morphological means. It will be therefore impossible to accept the theories of those who hold that case may also be expressed by prepositions (i. e. by the phrase "preposition + noun") or by word order. Such views have indeed been propounded by some scholars, mainly Germans. Thus, it is the view of Max Deutschbein 1 that Modern English nouns have four cases, viz. nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, of which the genitive can be expressed by the -'s-inflection and by the preposition of, the dative by the preposition to and also by word order, and the accusative is distinguished from the dative by word order alone.

It should be recognised that once we admit prepositions, or word order, or indeed any non-morphological means of expressing case, the number of cases is bound to grow indefinitely. Thus, if we admit that of the pen is a genitive case, and to the pen a dative case, there would seem no reason to deny that with the pen is an instrumental case, in the pen a locative case, etc., etc. Thus the number of cases in Modern English nouns would become indefinitely large. This indeed is the conclusion Academician I. I. Meshchaninov arrived at.2 That view would mean abandoning all idea of morphology and confusing forms of a word with phenomena of a completely different kind. Thus, it seems obvious that the number of cases in Modern English nouns cannot be more than two (father and father's). The latter form, father's, might be allowed to retain its traditional name of genitive case, while the former (father) may be termed common case. 3 Of course it must be borne in mind that the possibility of forming the genitive is mainly limited to a certain class of English nouns, viz. those which denote living beings (my father's room, George's sister, the dog's head) and a few others, notably those denoting units of time (a week's absence, this year's elections), and also some substantivised adverbs (to-day's newspaper, yesterday's news, etc.).

It should be noted, however, that this limitation does not appear to be too strict and there even seems to be some tendency at work to use the -'s-forms more extensively. Thus, we can come across such phrases as, a work's popularity, the engine's overhaul life, 1 which certainly are not stock phrases, like at his fingers' ends, or at the water's edge, but freely formed phrases, and they would seem to prove that it is not absolutely necessary for a noun to denote a living being in order to be capable of having an -'s-form. The more exact limits of this possibility have yet to be made out.

The essential meaning of this case would seem to require an exact definition. The result of some recent investigations into the nature of the -'s form 2 shows that its meaning is that of possessivity in a wide sense of the term. Alongside of phrases like my father's room, the young man's friends, our master's arrival, etc., we also find such examples as nothing could console Mrs Birch for her daughter's loss, 3 where the implied meaning of course is, 'Mrs Birch lost her daughter'. The real relation between the notions expressed by the two nouns may thus depend on the lexical meaning of these nouns, whereas the form in -'s merely denotes the possessive relation.

Up to now we have seen the form in -'s as a genitive case, and in so far we have stuck to the conception of a two-case system in Modern English nouns.

There are, however, certain phenomena which give rise to doubts about the existence of such a system — doubts, that is, about the form in -'s being a case form at all. We will now consider some of these phenomena. In the first place, there are the expressions of the type Smith and Brown's office. This certainly means 'the office belonging to both Smith and Brown'. Not only Brown, whose name is immediately connected with the -'s, but also Smith, whose name stands somewhat apart from it, is included in the possessive relation. Thus we may say that the -'s refers, not to Brown alone, but to the whole group Smith and Brown. An example of a somewhat different kind may be seen in the expression the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, or the Oxford professor of poetry's lecture. These expressions certainly mean, respectively, 'the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer', and 'the lecture of the Oxford professor of poetry'. Thus, the -'s belongs to the groups the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Oxford professor of poetry. The same of course applies to the groups the Duke of Edinburgh's speech, the King of England's residence, and many others.

A further step away from the category of case is taken in the groups somebody else's child, nobody else's business, etc. Here the word immediately preceding the -'s is an adverb which could not by itself stand in the genitive case (there is an obvious difference between somebody else's child and, e. g., to-day's news, or yesterday's paper). The -'s belongs here to the group somebody else as a whole. It cannot, then, be an inflection making an integral part of a word: it is here part of a whole phrase, and, accordingly, a syntactical, not a morphological, element.

Formations of this kind are by no means rare, especially in colloquial style. Thus, in the following sentence the -'s is joined on to a phrase consisting of a noun and a prepositional phrase serving as attribute to it: This girl in my class's mother took us [to the movies] (SALINGER), which of course is equivalent to the mother of this girl (who is) in my class. It is only the lexical meaning of the words, and in the first place the impossibility of the phrase my class's mother, that makes the syntactical connection clear. Compare also: . . .and constantly aimed to suggest a man of the world's outlook and sophistication. .. (The Pelican Guide to English Literature)

The -'s is still farther away from its status as an inflection in such sentences as the following: The blonde I had been dancing with's name was Bernice something — Crabs or Krebs. (SALINGER); I never knew the woman who laced too tightly's name was Matheson. (FORSTER)

This is the type usually illustrated by Sweet's famous example, the man I saw yesterday's son, 1that is, the type "noun + attributive clause + -'s".

Let us have a look at J. D. Salinger's sentence. It is obvious that the -'s belongs to the whole group, the blonde 1 had been dancing with (it is her name he is talking about). It need hardly be emphasised that the preposition with cannot, by itself, be in the genitive case. Such constructions may not be frequent but they do occur and they are perfectly intelligible, which means that they fit into the pattern of the language.

All this seems to prove definitely that in the English language of to-day the -'s can no longer be described as a case inflection in nouns without, at least, many reservations. This subject has been variously treated and interpreted by a number of scholars, both in this country and elsewhere. The following views have been put forward: (1) when the -'s belongs to a noun it is still the genitive ending, and when it belongs to a phrase (including the phrase "noun + attributive clause") it tends to become a syntactical element, viz, a postposition; (2) since the -'s can belong to a phrase (as described above) it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun; (3) the -'s when belonging to a noun, no longer expresses a case, but a new grammatical category, viz. the category of "possession", for example, the possessive form father's exists in contradistinction to the non-possessive form father. An essential argument in favour of this view is, that both the form without -'s and the form with -'s can perform the same syntactic functions; for instance, they can both be subject of the sentence (cf. My father was a happy man and My father's was a happy life). It should be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the conclusion that there are no cases in the Modern English noun. 1 Though the question is still under discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we must recognise that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then, conclude the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the English nouns, which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest times in the history of the language, is at present extinct, and the only case ending to survive in the modern language has developed into an element of a different character — possibly a particle denoting possession.

Different views have also been expressed concerning the scope of meaning of the -'s. Besides phrases implying possession in the strict sense of the term (my father's books, etc.), the -'s is also found in other contexts, such as my father's friends, my father's arrival, my father's willingness, etc. The question now arises how wide this scope may be. From this point of view it has been customary to point out that the relation expressed by the collocation "noun + + -'s + noun" is often a subjective relation, as in my father's arrival: my father's expresses the subject of the action, cf. my father arrives. This would then correspond to the so-called subjective genitive of inflected languages, such as Russian or Latin. It would, however, not do to say that the noun having the -'s could never indicate the object of the action: cf. the example Doughty's famous trial and execution,2 where the implied meaning of course is 'Doughty was tried and executed'. This would correspond to the so-called objective genitive of inflected languages. Now, though this particular use would seem to be far less frequent than the subjective, it is by no means impossible or anomalous. Thus it would not be correct to formulate the meaning of the -'s in a way that would exclude the possible objective applications of the -'s-formation.

Parallel use of the -'s-form and the preposition of is seen in the following example: In the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine — that it is a mans duty and the duty of his friends to see to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with all possible dignity. (TAYLOR)

It should also be noted in this connection that, if both the subject of an action and its object are mentioned, the former is expressed by a noun with -'s preceding the name of the action, and the latter by an of-phrase following it, as in Coleridge's praise of. Shakespeare, etc. The same of course applies to the phrases in which the object is not a living being, as in Einstein's theory of relativity, or Shakespeare's treatment of history.

The -'s-form can also sometimes be used in a sense which may be termed qualitative. This is best illustrated by an example. The phrase an officer's cap can be interpreted in two different ways. For one thing, it may mean 'a cap belonging to a certain officer', and that, of course, is the usual possessive meaning (фуражка офицера). For another thing, it may mean 'a cap of the type worn by officers', and this is its qualitative meaning (the Russian equivalent for this is офицерская фуражка). Only the context will show which is meant. Here are a few examples of the qualitative meaning; it is only the context that makes this clear: if it were not for the context the usual possessive meaning might be ascribed to the form. She perceived with all her nerves the wavering of Amanda's confidence, her child's peace of mind, and she understood how fragile it was. (CARY) The meaning of the phrase her child's peace of mind is in itself ambiguous. Taken without the context, it may mean one of two things: (1) 'the peace of mind of her child' (the usual possessive meaning), or (2) 'her peace of mind, which was like a child's' (the qualitative meaning). Outside the context both interpretations would be equally justified. In the sentence as it stands in the text the surrounding words unmistakably point to the second, that is, the qualitative interpretation: the whole sentence deals only with Amanda herself, there is no question of any child of hers, so that the usual possessive meaning is not possible here. A somewhat similar expression is found in the phrase, a small cupid's mouth, which might mean, either the mouth of a small cupid, or a small mouth, like that of a cupid. The context also confirms that the intended meaning is the qualitative one.

A special use of the -'s-forms has also to be mentioned, which may be illustrated by such examples as, I went to the baker's; we spent a week at our uncle's, etc. Yes, Mary, I was going to write to Macmillan's and suggest a biography.. . (GR. GREENE)

The older view was based on the assumption that the -'s-form was an attribute to some noun supposed to be "understood", namely / went to the baker's shop, we spent a week at our uncle's house, etc. However, this interpretation is doubtful. It cannot be proved that a noun following the -'s-form is "understood". It seems more advisable, therefore, to take the facts for what they are and to suppose that the -'s is here developing into a derivative suffix, used to form a noun from another noun. This is also seen in the fact that the famous cathedral in London is very often referred to as St. Paul's. A historical novel by the nineteenth-century English writer W. Harrison Ainsworth bears the title "Old St. Paul's", and it appears to be quite impossible here to claim that this is an attribute to the noun cathedral which is "understood": if we were to restore the word which is supposed to be omitted, we should get Old St. Paul's Cathedral, where the adjective old would seem to modify St. Paul, rather than Cathedral, just as in any other phrase of this type: old John's views, young Peter's pranks, etc.