Re: What's the singular of hose?
- Jenn wrote:
> I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and itwould make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
Well, that would explain it. I do recall to have heard hosen somewhere, but could not
place it. (And hoses just sounds too wierd...)
Bättre börda på vägen man ej bär än mycket mannavett.
- Nä, men lite guld, silver, smaragder, vita särkar, öl, vin och en och annan galt är inte
heller så dumt!
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
- On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:51:05 -0900 (AKST), Ii Saburou
>On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jenn Ridley wrote:yes.
>> I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
>> would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
>> to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
>> considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
>Obsolete or archaic?
Under one sub-definition, 'hose' as singular is labeled obs, while
under the other, 'hosen' as plural is labeled arch Take your pick....
>Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, orThere's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete and
archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
figure it out....
- In German, Hosen is plural, Hose is singular. Now, remember pronunciation"
Hoe-sen, and Hoe-suh (roughly). :>P
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Michele Ford" <sarah@...>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: What's the singular of hose?
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:
> > Sarah wrote:
> > > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've
> > half of a pair of hose.
> > I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
> > Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
> > plural: hosor.
> Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
> actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
> pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
> there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
> pair of hose.
> > Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
> > singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
> No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
> around handy?
> Alianor, who didn't really mean to start a linguistic discussion but isn't
> Sarah Michele Ford
> Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
> reality is but an exception.
> --Jean Baudrillard
> This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- Jenn wrote:
> There's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete andI think "archaic" means "old-fashioned" whereas "obsolete" means "not
> archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
> figure it out....
used anymore". So an archaic term can be used, though it would sound
funny to most people, whereas an obsolete word is no longer part of the
Lady Katherine Rowberd (mka Kirrily "Skud" Robert)
Caldrithig, Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
"The rose is red, the leaves are grene, God save Elizabeth our Queene"