Skip to main content

The plural of 'stomach"


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?



Answer



The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).


But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound 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 regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more