"Jim MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote on 09/08/2005 03:58:30 PM:

>
> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126204228.070502.244660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >   Ox, Xerox -- both contain OX.
> >
> > VAX does not contain OX.
>
> Child -> children... ("child" formerly being "childre" in English...)
>
> Next analogy please.

Are you saying:
VAX -> VAXen... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXe" in English...)
or
VAX -> VAXren... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXre" in English...)

Neither holds up AFAICS.
>
> Jim
>
>

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:28:20 -0400, norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:

>"Jim MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote on 09/08/2005 03:58:30 PM:
>
>>
>> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126204228.070502.244660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >   Ox, Xerox -- both contain OX.
>> >
>> > VAX does not contain OX.
>>
>> Child -> children... ("child" formerly being "childre" in English...)
>>
>> Next analogy please.
>
>Are you saying:
>VAX -> VAXen... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXe" in English...)
>or
>VAX -> VAXren... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXre" in English...)
>
>Neither holds up AFAICS.

Quite.  And the plurals of fax, tax and wax are simply -es.

-- 
There's a dead bishop on the landing, dad!

"John Laird" <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:fpu2i1dvt8ehsbc21aqmc8vrbrfrcv9drn@4ax.com...
> Quite.  And the plurals of fax, tax and wax are simply -es.

My point was that -en as a plural in English, though rare, does exist and 
not just for words ending in x.

"Children" contains an R because "child" used to be "childre".  It was 
pluralized as "children" (-en added, duplicate e deleted as we do with -ed 
verbs ending in e, e.g. abated).  "Childre" became "child"; "children" 
stayed the same.

Jim