Why is the plural formation of "participle" simply formed by adding -s. The etymology of the word is Latin in origin. Would it possible end with an -I or -ae. . . or some other Latin plural ending??? Help!
6
-
2Um... why? Is there a reason you would prefer to use Latin plurals when speaking English? Technically, most of our language comes from some other language... and it's already really difficult. Why force people to memorize multiple methods for pluralization along with the etymological sources for each and every word.– CatijaJun 12, 2015 at 22:28
-
Just about anything is possible in English. The only question would be is it beneficial? Not in my opinion.– ScotMJun 12, 2015 at 22:30
-
Whether or not a loan word gets its original plural, or an anglicised one, is just a matter of convention - there's no logic to it. But in any case, "participle" is far from a loan word... it's come from Latin via Old French and Middle English (according to multiple sources), so it's been anglicised through and through, and over the course of many hundreds of years. There obviously are words like that which still have unusual plurals, but they're very much the exception rather than the rule.– MortonJun 12, 2015 at 22:36
-
Are you seriously suggesting we talk about PATICIPLAE, or PARTICIPLI?– WS2Jun 12, 2015 at 22:40
-
1I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is asking about the possibility of using non-English as English.– Edwin AshworthJun 12, 2015 at 23:08
|
Show 1 more comment
1 Answer
Because participle is an English word but not a Latin one (unlike, say index which is both English and Latin). Participle is ultimately derived from a Latin word, (which was similar but not the same in shape), but so what?
answered Jun 12, 2015 at 22:41
-
2Of course, many people distinguish between indexes (in books) and indices (in maths). Purely arbitrary, I suppose, as with appendices (also in books) and appendixes (in bodies). Curious, though. Jun 12, 2015 at 22:55