• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    well I can’t find a source for it now. maybe I’m misremembering. I read it in the book The Universal History of Numbers by Georges Ifrah. maybe it was referring to some remnant exception, maybe it was about another language. can’t verify it cause the book is not nearby right now. maybe I confused it with four different ways to pluralize in French (s, x, aux, none) idk.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Oh, you mean word endings for plurals, well those depend on the gender and the singular word ending. They can be a bit confusing, because they’re not always regular like local -> locaux, but naval -> navals. You have that in other languages too, even in english, like goose -> geese, but moose -> moose, mouse -> mice, house -> houses, and so on.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        yeah that’s my point. language isn’t math, it changes over time organically and therefore is bound to have quirks. some of it is even inorganic, like when English linguists wanted to spell words of Latin origin in a way that reflects it.