Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 December 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< December 24 << Nov | December | Jan >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


December 25

[edit]

Same-sounding word is plural and singular with different meanings

[edit]

Is there a term for the case where the same word (or a close homophone) is the plural of one meaning and singular of another meaning. This is not a defective noun or other pattern where a word is singular and plural of the same meaning ("one deer" vs "many deer"). Consider:

  • crew (singular) → crews (plural), which sounds like cruise (singular) → cruises (plural)
  • baybays, basebases

DMacks (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

people as a singular noun (synonymous with nation) and as a plural (synonymous with folks) have different meanings. I don't think I have encountered a term for homophones having different grammatical numbers. An example from German, with words that are even homonyms: Laute (singular) means "lute", but Laute is also the plural of Laut, meaning "sound".  --Lambiam 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of any particular term used for it, but it seems to be some sort of convergent evolution of sounds; whether it's intentional or accidental is beyond me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!04:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks -- I'm not sure that there's any standard term for this, but if you wanted to describe it, you could call it "inflection-induced homophony" or similar. AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone emailed me a response also noting similar patterns with other suffixes, so I may as well note that here also their examples:

  • kneekneed, kneadkneaded
  • tamptamper, tampertamperer

DMacks (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homophones and nouns only:

  • brewbrews, bruisebruises.
  • clawclaws, clauseclauses.
  • copcops, copsecopses.
  • cockcocks, coxcoxes.
  • doughdoughs, dozedozes.
  • guyguys, guiseguises.
  • pawpaws, pausepauses.
  • propros, proseproses.
  • rayrays, raiseraises.
  • rowrows, roseroses.

Nice Boxing day diversion, thanks. Bazza (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baize is a better fit with bays than base, at least in British English.
Also hays and haze might be allowed (but hay is usually a mass noun).
Hoes and hose (inspired by Four Candles).
Days and daze (see School Daze).
Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody mentioned Trojan whores yet...? --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, it took me a moment. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansplodge: Not my invention, actually. I'm not that fluent in English so I could make word plays by myself, let alone phonetic jokes :) To be honest, I just spotted it in some cartoon somewhere in the Web about a year or two ago. But I'm happy you like it. CiaPan (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That must have been this: http://www.explosm.net/comics/1471/ (or some copy of it). --CiaPan (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a riddle along those lines: There's a word that you can pluralize by adding 's' and then singularize it again by adding a second 's' and then pluralize yet again by adding 'es'. The word is 'prince'. Prince -> princes -> princess - princesses. Not quite your question, but in the ballpark. Matt Deres (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, but that's also a neat one. Also care→cares→caress→caresses. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention bra - bras - brass - brasses.--Shantavira|feed me 18:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shit. I knew I'd mess that up (I hate riddles). In the proper form, there's only one correct answer of course. Matt Deres (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]