It would only work the other way around. If english grammar dictates that a loan word’s original language grammar be used. Aka level 1 includes level 3. You cannot just throw some other languages grammar at english however you please
Oxen is historically a 100% English plural, just like child-children, it wasn’t loaned. (I should check, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same -en as in German plurals: das Auge, die Augen.)
Some of these Latin plurals can survive for technical terminology. But it’s pretty much only Latin ones, due to the historical prestige. Nobody talks of Soviet apparatchiki, it’s apparatchiks.
Nah, level 1 is actually correct. Regardless of its etymology, octopus is an english word and should be pluralised accordingly.
But see here’s the thing, English has no rules for plurals, so “accordingly” basically means “by vibes”.
Level 3 includes level 1 in it, with the addition of a plural using the original language’s rules.
It would only work the other way around. If english grammar dictates that a loan word’s original language grammar be used. Aka level 1 includes level 3. You cannot just throw some other languages grammar at english however you please
… because English would steal said grammar by itself!
Wait that’s illegal!!!
Of course you can, that’s why oxen, fungi, etc. exist.
Oxen is historically a 100% English plural, just like child-children, it wasn’t loaned. (I should check, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same -en as in German plurals: das Auge, die Augen.)
Some of these Latin plurals can survive for technical terminology. But it’s pretty much only Latin ones, due to the historical prestige. Nobody talks of Soviet apparatchiki, it’s apparatchiks.