3 ms·
What makes you think the -s ending is naturally plural, rather than just being completely arbitrary? I am pretty sure the etymology of the plural ending -s and
by umanwizard 9y ago
What makes you think the -s ending is naturally plural, rather than just being completely arbitrary?
I am pretty sure the etymology of the plural ending -s and the third person present verb ending -s (which used to be -eth in pre-modern forms of English) are unrelated, and they just sound the same by coincidence.
- nkrisc 9y agoWell at it's core language is sort of completely arbitrary, but that's beside the point I'm making. I'm not debating the origin or why it is the way it is, but simply observing that this is how it is currently and it looks strange and counterintuitive.
- umanwizard 9y agoI still don't understand what's strange about it. There is nothing inherently plural or singular about "s" or any other combination of sounds. English evolved a 3rd person singular verb ending. It randomly happened to be "s". It also evolved a plural noun ending. That too randomly happened to be "s". There's nothing deeper going on than that.
- nkrisc 9y agoI'm not suggesting there's anything deeper nor do I understand why you think I am. I'm just pointing out that as English exists today, an 's' on the end of noun makes it plural while an 's' on the end of a verb makes it singular. And I think that's strange. That's it.