Plurals of imported words (and other gramatical declensions)

[Klythe]

     When a foreign word is appropriated into a new language, when do you import it's plural, and when do you use the plural for the language that has taken it over?

     English is a good example to use, as I have a shirt that reads "English doesn't borrow from other languages.  It follows other languages down dark alleys and knocks them over and rummages through their pockets for lose vocabulary."

    So let's take a look at which rules apply to which words.   One interesting thing I've seen (and this may just be bad accents on American TV) but new italian immigrants seemilgly re-import their own words particularly that English has adopted in plural forms (such as spaghetti), only the new Italian Americans import the singular and add the English plural, as in "Do you like-a the spagetts?"

    So what influences when we use the plural of the originating language and when we use the plural of the new language?

[OmnificienT]

Obviously, I'm not an expert, but I think first you should state the reason why people tend to import from other languages.

In my opinion there are multiply reasons for why a language should borrow words.

An example I know of: German took lots of seafaring terms from Dutch, this because there simply were no words to describe things in German. On the other hand German poets tried to import Dutch words to German, since they didn't like the fact that French was so dominant. 

I can see that Dutch absorbs much English/American vocabulary (and even verbs, although they are 'Dutchified') without a lot of resistance. This is not necessarily because it lacks words, but because people think it sounds cool (image, feedback) . Simply said: it's fashion. The same goes for French in the past (content,colbert). This would indicate that it has more to do with a dominating culture, than with absolute necessity.

To return back to the main topic of this thread, I think that over time the source language might be forgotten. Educated people tend to use proper plurals to show that they are well educated (i.e. to show off), but people who have less schooling might not even know about the source-language of a word, let alone its proper plural.

I think that over time things like plurals (and feminine forms for that matter) will fade.
As a final example to illustrate my point (Since I don't know Latin I can't be sure I'm 100% accurate): The Latin word for historian is historicus. The female form is then historica, the male plural historici, and the feminine plural historicae. Educated people maintain these words, but the feminine forms are already diminishing, as I see in (popular) magazines.

This thing is happening to many words with a Latin origin in Dutch, and as well in English as I see the use of 'forums' as plural of forum rather often.

I hope my opinion on this matter gives you something to think and discuss about with other people. : -)

[Klythe]

    Oh you bet we are going to think and discuss this more, this thread is only starting.  You brought up two very important issues: Usage and age of borrowing.  The longer a word is part of a language, the less foreign it sounds and the more it is accepted as a native word.  Also important is the phonetic similarity, the more similar a borrowed word is the more likely it is going to just be accepted as a native word despite it's foreign origins.

    When a language borrows a word for a concept it lacks, that word is going to be adopted and integrated into the language more quickly than a word that is borrowed for style.  The mind just attaches more to "this is the word for this thing", rather than "This is the French word for this thing".

    I would assert that once a word has been accepted as a native word by the bulk of the native speakers then it is perfectly acceptable to use native grammarical rules on them.  I would also hope it is acceptable for people who know better, those who know both languages and us elite intellectual types to re-import the words with their orginal conjugations.  Usually both forms will be accepted, with the most used term being the perferred usage.

    I make the example that "alumnus" still maintains it's original latin forms, while historian has been recast as a native word.

[OmnificienT]

I think an even more important reason for using a word from a diffrent language, is that it is easier to use. English words are often quite short and not very complicated, as opposed to Dutch (and more so German) words which can be rather long compound nouns (rookgasontzwafelingsinstallatiereparateursbusje actually is a valid compound noun).

A thing that would contradict this is that people in Belgium try to avoid using English or French words, either by using synonyms for them, or pronouncing them in a Dutch way. This appears to be resistance, possibly because they feel their culture is being threatened. In The Netherlands there is a little resistance now against the use of foreign words.

There are about 100 million people that have German as their native language. Maybe that is the reason that in German, many words for new actions (like to download)  or objects, get a German name.

I make the example that "alumnus" still maintains it's original latin forms, while historian has been recast as a native word.

This would indicate that people with a higher education tend to stick with the proper plurals indeed. I think many Dutch people wouldn't even know what an alumnus actually is.

I agree that it is likely that once a word sounds familiar to people, people will use their native grammar upon such a word.

[Klythe]

     Out of curiousity what is a rookgasontzwafelingsinstallatiereparateursbusje?

     It would be hard for other languages to beat tlhIngan Hol on word length, so it's probably not going to import many words for that reason. Hehehe.  Technical words to tend to come along with the technology that spawned then in the prefered language of the inventor, and yes national/cultural pride often opposes this by forming native replacement terms, especially in places like France that have official committees that meet to control the offical language and vocabulary.

This would indicate that people with a higher education tend to stick with the proper plurals indeed. I think many Dutch people wouldn't even know what an alumnus actually is.

    In the case of Alumnus it's probably less a case of higher education, but institutional tradition that preserves the various latin froms.  I imagine churches and other institutions also use foreign words as part of their traditions.  Words are definately used as status symbols and badges of membership of smaller groups.  In fact, didn't SopwI' just talk about a Shibboleth?  I guess so.

[OmnificienT]

Even though there are institiutions that try to control language, they  fail. I think the following is the case: in the past there were clever people, who found out that language followed a certain pattern. They decided that it would be useful to write it down, in essence making grammar a general map of the language. However, there are people who have turned this around, stating that grammar is a guide according to which a language should be spoken. Fortunately, these people are often ignored and people speak in whichever way they want. Let me give you an example in (you guessed it) Dutch.
In proper Dutch as tought in schools the following is true for 3rd person plural:

They subject:          zij   Zij hebben mij een boek gegeven. = They have given me a book. (lit. They to have me a book gave. )
They dative:             hun Zij hebben hun een boek gegeven. = They have given them a book. (lit. They to have them a book gave.)
They object:             hen Zij hebben hen geslagen. = They have hit them. (lit. They to have them hit.)

There is an exception to this rule: when 'aan' (to) or 'voor' (for) is used in the dative, 'hun' changes into 'hen'. So:

Hun heb ik dat boek gegeven. =  I gave them that book. (lit. Them have I that book gave.)
But:
Aan hen heb ik dat boek gegeven = I gave that book to them.  (lit. To them have I that book gave.

Many times the difference between the dative and object is completely ignored, and 'hun' is used. Something that is happening now is that the difference between subject, dative and object is ignored, and that 'hun' is used for all forms. I like that a lot, because it means that a language is changing from a synthetic language (with inflection) to an analytical language (in which word order is important).

I really dislike the fact that there are people that feel that they need to oppose this change in language. Isn't the power of a language that it can be moulded, and shaped to fit the purpose?

And for Klythe:

Rook = smoke
gas = gas (as in hydrogen gas, not petrol)
ont = a prefix. It denies something like in English dis- or de-
zwafel = sulphur
-ing = suffix. Changes a verb into a noun.
s = needed to create the compound noun
installatie = installation
reparateur = repair person
s = posessive
bus = van
-je = dimunitive suffux.

The English would then become something like:
little smoke-gas desulphurisation instalation repairman's van

The word 'rookgasontzwafelingsinstallatie' is a word that is used. I found it in my chemistry book, and it is unlikely that you will find it in any context other that one dealing with chemistry. The other part reparateursbusje is a part I just added because it was long. It is not uncommon.

[SoplaHtaHwI']

    I make the example that "alumnus" still maintains it's original latin forms, while historian has been recast as a native word.

Why does Alumnus take Alumni as plural and not for instance... Alumnusses?

Because the English option is awkward and much more complicated, perhaps? 8-)

[SoplaHtaHwI']

     Out of curiousity what is a rookgasontzwafelingsinstallatiereparateursbusje?

A nicely nonsensical word: "smoke gas desulfurising installation repairman's van".
If you think that tlhIngan Hol has long words, you are mixing the long sets of phonemes up with the sentences that they actually are...
Look in the TKD and you will find lots of small, one or two, up to a maximum of 4 syllable-long words...

The little example at the top proves that Dutch has the longer words, if there aren't any longer ones...

An affix makes a word longer, but it also creates a small sentence... 8-)

But back to whether tlhIngan Hol would borrow words from other languages and how it would then implement them...

Human is a good example... even tera'ngan...
Terra is one of the human (English) words for "earth"... just as tlhIn used to be one of the klingonaase words for Qo'noS...