The plural of 'stomach"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'?
What are the ramifications of creating a homebrew world without an Astral Plane?
Is it okay / does it make sense for another player to join a running game of Munchkin?
The plural of 'stomach"
Using parameter substitution on a Bash array
Can I convert a rim brake wheel to a disc brake wheel?
apt-get update is failing in debian
What is the oldest known work of fiction?
How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?
Bash method for viewing beginning and end of file
Personal Teleportation as a Weapon
At which point does a character regain all their Hit Dice?
quarter to five p.m
Hide Select Output from T-SQL
How do I keep an essay about "feeling flat" from feeling flat?
Finding all intervals that match predicate in vector
Mapping a list into a phase plot
Opposite of a diet
Time travel short story where a man arrives in the late 19th century in a time machine and then sends the machine back into the past
MaTeX, font size, and PlotLegends
Why does John Bercow say “unlock” after reading out the results of a vote?
If a character can use a +X magic weapon as a spellcasting focus, does it add the bonus to spell attacks or spell save DCs?
Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?
What to do with wrong results in talks?
Will it be accepted, if there is no ''Main Character" stereotype?
The plural of 'stomach"
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'?
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 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
add a comment |
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 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
5
@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
11 hours ago
4
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
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 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
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 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 16 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
579919
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
5
@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
11 hours ago
4
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
5
@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
11 hours ago
4
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago
8
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
5
5
@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
11 hours ago
@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
11 hours ago
4
4
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
2
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
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 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
3
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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 the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
edited 13 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
answered 15 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8118226
50.1k8118226
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
add a comment |
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
1
1
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
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 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
3
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
|
show 8 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 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
3
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
|
show 8 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 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
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 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
edited 2 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
answered 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
answered 15 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,52911120
6,52911120
3
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
3
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
3
3
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
11 hours ago
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
11 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
8 hours ago
2
2
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
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
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
15 hours ago
5
@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
11 hours ago
4
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
10 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
6 hours ago