The Adventure of English

We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of mouse should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a whole nest of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?

The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But a bow if repeated is never called bine,
And the plural of vow is vows, never vine.
If I speak of a foot and you show me your feet,
And I give you a boot would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?
If the singular’s this and the plural is these,
Should the plural of kiss ever be nicknamed keese?
Then one may be that and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren,
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis and shim

So the English, I think, you all will agree,
Is the queerest language you ever did see.

Anon (poem sourced here)

Don't you feel you just have to laugh? Our language is so confusing!! So many rules with exceptions. BUT .. I've found that it does actually have a most interesting history. I'm half way through watching a dvd I borrowed from the library called "Melvyn Bragg's The Adventure in English". I'll give a summary of what I've learnt so far.


There ARE reasons for why English is the way it is.
(i) Partly it is a 'mongrel' language, beginning with a Germanic dialect, then influenced with Normadics by invasion, then the Romans conquered and brought in Latin. Latin, though, was considered a scholastic language, therefore mostly prominent in the upper classes. Then in came the French and also had a huge influence.
(ii) Partly, our modern English involved accidents in usage from centuries ago.
(iii) But some of it was deliberate.

There was debate. The reformers wanted to spell the way words were pronounced. The traditionalists wanted to keep the spelling as it had always been. The traditionalists won (the reason for some silent letters), but they also tampered with it!

To make the root of the language more evident, words which had endings from French were given a Latin 'look'.
eg: the silent letters in debt and doubt, and victuals.
If the word was of Greek origin, the spelling was adjusted, and this is where we acquired the 'h' in throne and theatre.
Rhyme, however, was given an 'h' because rhythm had one.
Could had an 'l' added because it became silent, but 'l' is present in should and would.
Similarly again: whole, but then there's where and whelk.

So, you see, the rationalisation became really mucked up.
Of course printing also played a huge role in more changes.

I'm looking forward to finishing off this series, but I think that to grasp most of this properly I'd need to read (or rather, study!) the book. At least this will make interesting conversation with the children about why we find spelling so difficult, let alone our grammar!