The plural of 'stomach" Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)The plural of “conch”?Does “syllabus” derive from Greek or Latin?Word for nouns with multiple plural formsGeneral Term for Offsets Pluralplural form of “thematic”Plural for surnames derived from other words?Why is it carriage and pair when you have 2 horsesWhat is the plural of “sir”?Can 'go' be pluralized as 'gos'?What is the plural for “Egg in a hole”?Why is the plural 'oxen'? Is it acceptable to use 'oxes'?
Is there a concise way to say "all of the X, one of each"?
How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?
Antler Helmet: Can it work?
If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'
Were Kohanim forbidden from serving in King David's army?
How to bypass password on Windows XP account?
Diagram with tikz
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?
Right-skewed distribution with mean equals to mode?
ListPlot join points by nearest neighbor rather than order
What are the pros and cons of Aerospike nosecones?
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
I am not a queen, who am I?
Is a manifold-with-boundary with given interior and non-empty boundary essentially unique?
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
Do you forfeit tax refunds/credits if you aren't required to and don't file by April 15?
"Seemed to had" is it correct?
Determinant is linear as a function of each of the rows of the matrix.
Did Kevin spill real chili?
If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?
What's the difference between `auto x = vector<int>()` and `vector<int> x`?
The plural of 'stomach"
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)The plural of “conch”?Does “syllabus” derive from Greek or Latin?Word for nouns with multiple plural formsGeneral Term for Offsets Pluralplural form of “thematic”Plural for surnames derived from other words?Why is it carriage and pair when you have 2 horsesWhat is the plural of “sir”?Can 'go' be pluralized as 'gos'?What is the plural for “Egg in a hole”?Why is the plural 'oxen'? Is it acceptable to use 'oxes'?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?
irregular-plurals
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
|
show 2 more comments
Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?
irregular-plurals
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
16
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
11
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
14
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
5
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17
|
show 2 more comments
Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?
irregular-plurals
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?
irregular-plurals
irregular-plurals
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
asked Mar 26 at 6:58
Mido MidoMido Mido
6511019
6511019
16
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
11
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
14
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
5
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17
|
show 2 more comments
16
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
11
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
14
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
5
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17
16
16
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
11
11
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
14
14
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
5
5
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).
But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".
Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.
The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
add a comment |
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
|
show 9 more comments
Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.
As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.
In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"
In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
add a comment |
There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491372%2fthe-plural-of-stomach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).
But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".
Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.
The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).
But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".
Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.
The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).
But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".
Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.
The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).
But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".
Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.
The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
edited Mar 27 at 19:36
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Mar 26 at 7:45
sumelicsumelic
50.6k8121228
50.6k8121228
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
add a comment |
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
2
2
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:24
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
Mar 26 at 11:43
add a comment |
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
|
show 9 more comments
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
|
show 9 more comments
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
edited Mar 26 at 20:40
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
answered Mar 26 at 7:50
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,82011120
6,82011120
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
|
show 9 more comments
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
4
4
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:08
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 14:50
4
4
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
Mar 26 at 15:28
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
Mar 26 at 15:54
1
1
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
– Lambie
Mar 26 at 20:54
|
show 9 more comments
Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.
As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.
In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"
In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
add a comment |
Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.
As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.
In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"
In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
add a comment |
Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.
As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.
In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"
In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.
As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.
In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"
In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
answered Mar 27 at 17:57
dimachaerusdimachaerus
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
add a comment |
There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
add a comment |
There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
answered Mar 27 at 20:31
fiveyearsfiveyears
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491372%2fthe-plural-of-stomach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
16
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
Mar 26 at 7:18
11
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
Mar 26 at 11:09
14
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
Mar 26 at 12:58
5
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
Mar 26 at 16:45
Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
– Mike Nakis
Mar 27 at 10:17