English plurals
English plurals are the grammatical forms used to indicate more than one referent for nouns and, to a lesser extent, pronouns in the English language, serving as a key aspect of its inflectional morphology.[1][2] The system is largely regular, with most countable nouns forming their plural by adding the suffix -s (pronounced as /s/, /z/, or /ɪz/ depending on the preceding sound) or -es to the singular base, as in dog becoming dogs or church becoming churches.[3][4] This productive rule applies to the vast majority of modern English nouns, enabling straightforward extension to new or borrowed words.[2] However, English plural formation exhibits significant irregularity, reflecting its historical evolution from Old English and influences from Latin, Greek, French, and other languages through loanwords.[4] Irregular plurals fall into several categories: those involving internal vowel changes (ablaut), such as man to men or foot to feet; those adding -en, like child to children or ox to oxen; zero plurals where the form remains unchanged, including sheep, deer, and fish (though fishes is used for species); and suppletive forms like person to people.[3][4][5] Borrowed terms often retain foreign plurals, such as cactus to cacti (Latin) or criterion to criteria (Greek), though anglicized forms like cactuses are increasingly common.[4] Special cases further complicate the system, particularly for nouns ending in certain consonants or vowels. For instance, singular nouns ending in -y preceded by a consonant change to -ies (e.g., city to cities), while those with a vowel before -y simply add -s (e.g., toy to toys); words ending in -f or -fe often shift to -ves (e.g., knife to knives), but exceptions like roof to roofs abound.[3][4] Nouns ending in -o vary: some add -es (e.g., tomato to tomatoes), while others add -s (e.g., piano to pianos), especially in musical or informal contexts.[3] Compound nouns typically pluralize the primary element (e.g., mothers-in-law), and plurals of letters, numbers, or abbreviations may use an apostrophe for clarity (e.g., 1990s or p's and q's), though this is debated in formal style guides.[3][4][6] In terms of usage, English plurals trigger subject-verb agreement in sentences, distinguishing them from uncountable nouns that lack a plural form (e.g., information remains singular).[1] Some nouns have multiple plurals depending on context, such as die to dice (games) or dies (tools), and mass nouns can be pluralized for emphasis or specificity (e.g., waters for bodies of water).[4] Overall, while the regular -s morpheme dominates contemporary English, the persistence of irregularities underscores the language's layered history and ongoing simplification trends.[2]Fundamentals
Definition and Purpose
In English grammar, plurals refer to the inflected form of nouns—and occasionally pronouns—that indicates more than one entity, a quantity greater than one, or a collective sense of multiplicity.[7] This inflection serves a fundamental purpose in sentence structure by signaling numerical agreement with verbs, determiners such as articles and quantifiers, and possessive forms, thereby ensuring clarity and precision in communication. For instance, the singular noun cat becomes cats in the plural, allowing constructions like "The cat runs" (singular) versus "The cats run" (plural), where the verb adjusts accordingly.[8] Without this distinction, expressions of quantity could lead to ambiguity in describing actions, possessions, or relationships. The evolution of English plurals traces back to Old English (approximately 450–1150 CE), a highly inflected Germanic language derived from Proto-Indo-European roots shared with other West Germanic tongues like Old High German, as well as North Germanic languages like Old Norse.[9] In Old English, nouns exhibited complex plural formations, including stem-vowel changes (umlaut, such as fōt to fēt for "foot/feet"), suffix additions like -as or -an, and case-governed endings across masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. The Norman Conquest of 1066 introduced significant Norman French influences, which accelerated grammatical simplification during the Middle English period (1150–1500 CE) by reducing inflections and incorporating loanwords with their own plural patterns.[9] By Modern English (from the 16th century onward), the system had largely standardized to a single dominant plural marker, -s or -es, while retaining some irregular forms from earlier stages, reflecting a blend of Germanic stability and French-induced streamlining. Linguistically, plurals primarily apply to countable nouns, which denote discrete, enumerable entities that can take both singular and plural forms, such as book/books.[7] In contrast, uncountable (or noncount) nouns refer to mass or abstract concepts that are typically treated as singular and do not form plurals in standard usage, like water or information, though they may adopt countable senses in specific contexts (e.g., waters meaning bodies of water).[8] This classification underscores the role of plurals in distinguishing individuated items from undifferentiated wholes, guiding the selection of articles (a/an for singular countables, the or zero article for plurals and uncountables) and enhancing syntactic coherence. The singular-plural distinction, including these nuances, is explored further in subsequent sections.Singular-Plural Distinction
In English, the singular-plural distinction refers to the grammatical category of number, which differentiates nouns denoting one entity (singular) from those denoting more than one (plural). This distinction is essential for conveying quantity in communication and is realized through various morphological markers on nouns. The primary method is suffixation, where countable nouns typically add -s (e.g., cat/cats) or -es after sibilants (e.g., bus/buses) to form the plural, reflecting the default inflectional pattern for over 95% of English nouns. However, alternative markers exist, including zero-marking for certain nouns where the form remains unchanged (e.g., sheep for both singular and plural) and suppletion, involving a wholly irregular replacement of the stem (e.g., child/children). These morphological variations ensure the number is explicitly or implicitly encoded in the noun itself. Syntactically, the singular-plural distinction governs key agreements and constructions within sentences. Most notably, it determines subject-verb agreement: singular subjects pair with singular verb forms (e.g., "The dog runs"), while plural subjects require plural verbs (e.g., "The dogs run"), a rule that applies across tenses and maintains structural harmony in the clause. Determiner usage also reflects this distinction; singular count nouns often precede indefinite articles like "a" or "an" (e.g., "a cat"), whereas plural count nouns typically omit indefinites in generic or existential contexts (e.g., "cats are mammals") or use definites like "the" for specificity. These syntactic implications extend to quantifiers and pronouns, reinforcing the noun's number throughout the noun phrase and verb phrase.[10] Uncountable or mass nouns generally evade the singular-plural distinction by lacking a dedicated plural form, functioning syntactically as singular even when denoting large quantities (e.g., "water" in "Water is essential," not "*waters are"). Exceptions occur in specialized senses, such as "waters" referring to distinct bodies of water (e.g., "the inland waters"), where a countable interpretation allows plural marking. This exception highlights how countability interacts with number, with mass nouns relying on partitives or measure phrases (e.g., "a glass of water") to express portions.[11] Rarely, English features nouns restricted to singular or plural forms, serving as defective cases that challenge the standard distinction. Plural-only nouns, or plurals tantum (e.g., scissors, treated as plural in agreement: "The scissors are sharp"), lack singular counterparts and often denote paired or collective items. Conversely, certain singular-only nouns beyond mass types (e.g., information, always uninflectable) resist pluralization, emphasizing conceptual indivisibility. These forms, detailed further in discussions of defective nouns, underscore the language's flexibility in number marking.Plural Formation Rules
Regular Suffixation
In English, the most common method of forming the plural of countable nouns is through regular suffixation, primarily by adding -s or -es to the end of the singular form, with variations determined by the noun's final sounds and spelling conventions. This process applies to the vast majority of nouns and reflects a balance between phonological ease and orthographic consistency.[7] The basic rule involves appending -s to nouns that do not end in sibilants, such as "book" becoming "books" or "dog" becoming "dogs". Phonologically, the suffix exhibits three allomorphs conditioned by the voicing and nature of the noun's final sound: /s/ after voiceless obstruents (e.g., "cat" /kæt/ → "cats" /kæts/), /z/ after voiced obstruents or vowels (e.g., "dog" /dɔɡ/ → "dogs" /dɔɡz/; "bee" /bi/ → "bees" /biz/), and /ɪz/ after sibilants (/s, z, ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ/) to avoid complex coda clusters (e.g., "bus" /bʌs/ → "buses" /ˈbʌsɪz/). Orthographically, this corresponds to adding -es to nouns ending in -s, -ss, -sh, -ch, -x, -z, or -zz, as in "class" → "classes" or "buzz" → "buzzes". These realizations ensure assimilation for articulatory simplicity while maintaining the morpheme's perceptibility.[12][7] For nouns ending in -y, the rule adjusts for spelling harmony: if -y follows a consonant, replace -y with -i and add -es (e.g., "city" → "cities"); if -y follows a vowel, simply add -s (e.g., "boy" → "boys"). This prevents sequences like -ys after consonants, which are rare in English orthography.[7] Nouns ending in -o present more variability, though many follow a pattern of adding -es (e.g., "potato" → "potatoes"; "hero" → "heroes"). However, numerous exceptions, often loanwords or abbreviations, add only -s (e.g., "piano" → "pianos"; "photo" → "photos"; "radio" → "radios"), reflecting historical influences rather than strict phonological rules. Speakers typically learn these on a word-by-word basis.[7] Similarly, nouns ending in -f or -fe sometimes undergo a change to -ves for the plural, especially in cases evoking older Germanic patterns (e.g., "leaf" → "leaves"; "knife" → "knives"; "wife" → "wives"). Yet, many retain -f and simply add -s (e.g., "roof" → "roofs"; "chief" → "chiefs"; "cliff" → "cliffs"), with no consistent phonological trigger; usage varies by word and sometimes regionally.[7]Near-Regular Variations
Near-regular variations in English plural formation involve minor orthographic or phonological adjustments to the standard -s or -es suffixes, primarily to accommodate pronunciation or spelling conventions for nouns ending in certain letters. These cases deviate slightly from the fully regular pattern of simple suffix addition but remain predictable and rule-governed, unlike more irregular changes. They typically apply to high-frequency nouns and help maintain euphonic flow in speech and writing. For nouns ending in -y preceded by a vowel, the plural is formed by directly adding -s, preserving the original spelling without alteration, as in day becoming days. This contrasts with the standard rule for -y after a consonant, where the y changes to i before adding -es, but the vowel-preceded case simplifies the process to avoid unnecessary spelling shifts.[4] Nouns ending in -i are relatively uncommon in English but generally follow a near-regular pattern by adding -s to form the plural, such as ski to skis. While some borrowed or specialized terms may occasionally take -ies (e.g., taxi can appear as taxis or taxies in informal usage), the dominant form for most is the simple -s addition, aligning closely with regular suffixation.[13][14] Similarly, nouns ending in -o preceded by a vowel consistently add -s for the plural, exemplified by radio becoming radios. This rule applies reliably to words like studio, portfolio, and video, distinguishing them from consonant-preceded -o nouns that often require -es, and reflects English's preference for straightforward extension in vowel contexts.[15][16] A rare adjustment occurs in specific nouns ending in a sibilant like -z preceded by a short vowel, where the consonant doubles before -es (e.g., quiz → quizzes), similar to verb inflection rules, to maintain the short vowel sound.[17][18] A notable historical variation occurs with nouns ending in -f, where most simply add -s (e.g., belief to beliefs, roof to roofs), but a subset undergoes a shift to -ves due to Old English phonological processes. In Old English, the voiceless /f/ voiced to /v/ before the plural suffix's vowel in certain environments, leading to forms like leaf to leaves; however, many modern -f nouns, especially later derivations or those without this historical voicing, retain the -f and add -s without change. This distinction arose from analogical leveling and the evolution of fricative pronunciation, with the -s pattern now predominant for non-native or abstract nouns.[19][20][21] These near-regular patterns cover a small but significant portion of English nouns, particularly those with endings like -y, -o, -i, or -f after vowels or in short-vowel contexts, and are well-represented in everyday vocabulary.Identical Singular-Plural Forms
In English grammar, certain nouns maintain the identical form for both singular and plural, a phenomenon known as zero plural or invariable nouns. This contrasts with the predominant pattern of regular suffixation using -s or -es to indicate plurality. These nouns rely on contextual cues, such as determiners, quantifiers, or accompanying verbs, to convey number: for instance, "one sheep is grazing" versus "sheep are grazing in the field."[20] Common examples among animals include "sheep," "deer," "fish," "moose," and "swine," where the form does not change regardless of quantity. For "fish," the singular and plural are typically "fish," though "fishes" may be used when referring to multiple species or types, as in biological contexts. Similarly, "deer" and "moose" retain their form even for groups, reflecting a pattern often seen in names of game animals. This zero pluralization is not universal for all animals but appears frequently in those denoting wildlife or livestock.[20][22] Other categories include measurement units and collective terms like "dozen," "pair," "score," and "aircraft," which also exhibit identical forms. For example, "two dozen eggs" uses "dozen" unchanged, and "several aircraft" employs the same word for multiple items. "Aircraft" derives from "air" combined with "craft," an archaic term for vessels or devices that historically took zero plurals, leading to its invariable use in modern English. These forms often function as quantifiers or mass-like collectives.[20][23] Historically, many such nouns trace their origins to Old English strong neuter nouns with inherent zero plurals, such as scēap (sheep), dēor (deer), and fisc (fish), where no suffix was added for plurality. This pattern persisted through Middle English despite the rise of -s plurals, particularly for animal names treated collectively in hunting or herding contexts. Borrowings like "aircraft" (early 20th century) adopted this zero derivation from the model of "craft," avoiding the -s ending. Exceptions arise in specialized uses, such as "fishes" for distinct varieties, but the default remains the unchanged form.[22]Irregular Plural Patterns
Stem-Changing Plurals
Stem-changing plurals in English, also known as apophonic or ablaut plurals, form the plural by altering the vowel sound within the noun's stem rather than adding a suffix like -s or -es. This internal modification, a type of vowel gradation, signals plurality through a shift in the stem vowel, often tracing back to historical phonological processes. Such plurals are irregular and represent a small but notable subset of English noun morphology, primarily surviving in high-frequency, basic vocabulary items.[24][25] These patterns originate from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ablaut, a system of vowel alternations used to indicate grammatical categories, which was inherited through Proto-Germanic and Old English. In PIE, ablaut involved graded vowel forms (e.g., full-grade *e or *o, reduced zero-grade, or lengthened-grade) within roots to mark distinctions like tense in verbs or number in nouns. Germanic languages preserved these in "strong" paradigms, including nouns, where vowel shifts marked plurals before the dominance of suffixation. By Middle English, many such forms simplified or were lost due to analogy with regular patterns, but a core set endured in everyday words.[24][26][27] The most common apophonic plurals involve shifts from a back or low vowel in the singular to a front or higher vowel in the plural, reflecting i-umlaut influences from Old English where a following /i/ or /j/ fronted the preceding vowel before being lost. Examples include:| Singular | Plural | Vowel Shift |
|---|---|---|
| man (/mæn/) | men (/mɛn/) | /æ/ → /ɛ/ |
| foot (/fʊt/) | feet (/fiːt/) | /ʊ/ → /iː/ |
| tooth (/tuːθ/) | teeth (/tiːθ/) | /uː/ → /iː/ |
| goose (/ɡuːs/) | geese (/ɡiːs/) | /uː/ → /iː/ |
| mouse (/maʊs/) | mice (/maɪs/) | /aʊ/ → /aɪ/ |
| louse (/laʊs/) | lice (/laɪs/) | /aʊ/ → /aɪ/ |
| woman (/ˈwʊmən/) | women (/ˈwɪmɪn/) | /ʊ/ → /ɪ/ |
Suffix-Replacing Plurals
Suffix-replacing plurals in English represent a small class of irregular nouns that form their plurals by substituting the standard -s (or -es) ending with an alternative suffix, most commonly -en. This pattern survives from the Old English period, where it was part of the weak noun declension, particularly the n-stem class, which used -an in the nominative and accusative plural forms.[29] Over time, as English grammar simplified during the Middle English period, the productive use of -en declined, leaving only a handful of fossilized examples in modern usage. These forms are now limited to fewer than ten common nouns, with most being native Germanic words rather than borrowings.[30] The most prominent examples of -en plurals include "ox" (plural: oxen), which directly descends from Old English oxa (singular) and oxan (plural), preserving the weak plural ending without alteration.[29] Similarly, "child" forms "children," pronounced /ˈtʃɪldrən/, a unique case known as a double plural. In Old English, the singular was cild, with an original plural cildru using a -ru ending typical of certain minor declensions; by Middle English, this evolved to childer (a regularized plural), to which the -en suffix was later added, likely by analogy with other -en forms like "brethren."[28] "Brother" yields "brethren" (/ˈbrɛðrən/), an archaic or formal plural still used in religious or literary contexts to denote a group of male siblings or members of a community, originating from Old English brōþor and brōþru, later adjusted with -en.[28] Other archaic or dialectal -en plurals include "kine" (plural of "cow," from Middle English kine, itself a double plural from Old English cū and genitive plural cyna plus -en) and "eyen" (plural of "eye," retained in some regional dialects such as those in northern England or Scotland, from Old English ēage and plural ēagen).[28] These forms were more widespread in Middle English texts, such as Chaucer's works, where additional examples like "shoon" (shoes) and "housen" (houses) appear, but they have largely been supplanted by the regular -s plural in standard modern English.[31] The -ren variant seen in "children" reflects a historical layering of plural markers, where an earlier plural ending (-er from childer) combined with -en, a process not productive today but illustrative of English's Germanic roots.[28] In contemporary English, these suffix-replacing plurals are confined to specific lexical items and do not extend productively to new words, underscoring their status as relics of Old English morphology. Dialectal variations occasionally preserve broader use, such as "eyen" in rural British English or analogous forms in Scots, but standard usage prioritizes the regular -s for most nouns.[32] Occasionally, stem changes may coincide with -en addition, as in "child" to "children," but the suffix replacement remains the defining feature.[30]| Noun (Singular) | Plural Form | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| ox | oxen | Common; direct from Old English oxan. |
| child | children | Common; double plural with phonetic shift /tʃaɪld/ to /ˈtʃɪldrən/. |
| brother | brethren | Archaic/formal; used for groups (e.g., religious brethren). |
| cow | kine | Archaic; double plural, rare in modern English. |
| eye | eyen | Dialectal/archaic; preserved in some regional varieties. |
| house | housen | Archaic/dialectal; seen in Middle English literature. |
| shoe | shoon | Archaic; from Middle English, now obsolete. |
Foreign-Derived Irregulars
Many English nouns borrowed from foreign languages retain their original plural forms rather than adopting the standard English -s or -es suffix, creating irregular patterns that reflect etymological influences from Latin, Greek, French, Italian, and Spanish. These loanwords entered English through scholarly, scientific, artistic, and cultural exchanges, often preserving morphological features from their source languages to maintain precision or tradition. While some have become fully anglicized over time, others coexist with both foreign and native plurals, leading to variability in usage across contexts like academic writing, journalism, and everyday speech.[33] Latin-derived nouns frequently follow classical inflection rules, such as replacing -um with -a or -us with -i. For instance, the singular "datum" (a fact or item of information) forms the plural "data", though in contemporary English—particularly in computing and general discourse—"data" is commonly treated as a singular mass noun equivalent to "information", with verbs like "is" rather than "are". Similarly, "medium" (a means of communication) becomes "media", and "cactus" (a type of plant) forms "cacti", although the anglicized "cactuses" is also widely accepted. Greek loanwords exhibit parallel patterns, with "criterion" pluralizing as "criteria" (replacing -ion with -ia) and "thesis" as "theses" (replacing -is with -es). These forms underscore the retention of Greco-Latin morphology in technical and academic domains.[33][34]| Origin | Singular | Foreign Plural | Anglicized Alternative | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latin | datum | data | data (singular usage common) | Often singular in modern tech contexts.[34] |
| Latin | medium | media | mediums | "Media" dominant in mass communication.[33] |
| Latin | cactus | cacti | cactuses | Both forms standard; "cacti" preferred in botany.[33] |
| Greek | criterion | criteria | criterions | "Criteria" standard in evaluative contexts.[33] |
| Greek/Latin | thesis | theses | theses | Consistent foreign form in academia.[33] |