More adventures in my idiolect
The other day (approximate quotes)
A:"They're all pictures of leafs"
S:" 'Leafs?' "
A:"Yeah."
S:" 'Leafs' isn't a word in my dialect."
A:"Well, they're not pictures of leaves, those would be pictures with more than one leaf in each picture. Each one is a picture of a single leaf, so they're pictures of leafs."
Clarification: This wasn't conscious wordplay, it was what my language engine told me was right about my idiolect.
I think this extends to other '-f/-ves' irregular plurals: "pictures of hooves" vs. "pictures of hoofs" (elf and dwarf are squidgy, and have several interfering factors).
It definitely doesn't extend to other kinds of irregular plurals *"pictures of mans", *"pictures of gooses", †"pictures of persons" (this last one is acceptable, but only as an ultraformal/ultraprecise).
(Also: bonus points to anyone who guesses what's all pictures of leafs)
A:"They're all pictures of leafs"
S:" 'Leafs?' "
A:"Yeah."
S:" 'Leafs' isn't a word in my dialect."
A:"Well, they're not pictures of leaves, those would be pictures with more than one leaf in each picture. Each one is a picture of a single leaf, so they're pictures of leafs."
Clarification: This wasn't conscious wordplay, it was what my language engine told me was right about my idiolect.
I think this extends to other '-f/-ves' irregular plurals: "pictures of hooves" vs. "pictures of hoofs" (elf and dwarf are squidgy, and have several interfering factors).
It definitely doesn't extend to other kinds of irregular plurals *"pictures of mans", *"pictures of gooses", †"pictures of persons" (this last one is acceptable, but only as an ultraformal/ultraprecise).
(Also: bonus points to anyone who guesses what's all pictures of leafs)