5

There is something that is puzzling me: how does etymology explains why the letter E has became a representative of plural?

Tooth - Teeth
Foot - Feet
Man - Men
Woman - Women
Goose - Geese

I understand that some of them can be explained by I mutation, but is this valid for every o/e word or is there a deeper explanation?

1

there is a theory that, way back in the days of proto-indo-european, this, (and, generally, the changing of vowels but not so much consonants, save voicing or [not] aspirating) was the norm for pluralization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals

this book, 'the horse, the wheel, and language', has also been a very interesting and enlightening source on the subject, if you want to go back that far, which i would advise, if you want [the beginning to] a very in depth answer to this question: http://www.amazon.com/The-Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age/dp/069114818X

  • Thanks for the info! I like this kind of literature, so - following your suggestion - I bought the book! Thanks! – Rafa Borges Apr 13 '15 at 10:37
  • Germanic umlaut does not date back to Proto-Indo-European. – herisson Jul 31 '16 at 5:47
0

As Janus Bahs Jacquet said in a comment, all of the plural forms you list with "e" (teeth, feet, men, women, geese) are due to i-mutation. This is a relatively recent phenomenon that results from sound changes that occurred in Germanic languages. It does not date back to Proto-Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European also had some complicated ways of forming plurals, but I don't think any of the irregular or unusual plural forms from Proto-Indo-European have been inherited in English.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.