31st
July 2010
Only
the English
It
was one of my first childhood memories.
I still remember getting genuine enjoyment
and actually laughing, sitting on my bench
in the Methodist Primary School, at “If
the plural of ox is oxen, why can’t
the plural of box be boxen?” You
wouldn’t believe how young I was
… just factor in the statistic that
I entered St. Mary’s College at
the age of nine, that will tell you the
approximate age (in Standard Two or Three)
at which I was enjoying this stuff.
I must admit that the poem that amused
me at that time was (I now realize) an
abbreviated version of what follows here
– it was only about twelve or eighteen
lines – but has stayed with me throughout
my lifetime.
(DIGRESSION: Isn’t it funny how
most of the things you know and guide
your life by, were learnt when you were
a kid at Primary school, or in the first
years of Secondary, as well as from listening
to your grandmother and other older folk
like that, so that who you are today is
– metaphorically – a tree
that grew from the nut planted way back
when? Says a lot for the practice of caring
as much as possible for the very young,
even before they leave home and start
facing the influences of the outside world,
doesn’t it? Okay, END OF DIGRESSION
… let’s get back to the matter
at hand.)
So here I am, and someone sends me this
extended treatise on the quirks of the
English language, in a form that pulls
me back, all the way back to my bench
in the Methodist School.
What do I say, except, “Thanks!”
And then, “This is too good to keep
to myself, I have to pass it on to the
gang.” So here you are, gang; enjoy,
as I have been enjoying for (I won’t
tell you how many) decades:
ONLY THE
ENGLISH COULD HAVE INVENTED THIS LANGUAGE!!!
We’ll begin with a box, and the
plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not
oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called
geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be
meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full
of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not
hice.
If the plural
of man is always called men,
Then shouldn’t the plural of pan
be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my
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?
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!
|
