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?
irregular-plurals
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
add a comment |
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?
irregular-plurals
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
5
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
5
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago
add a comment |
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?
irregular-plurals
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
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?
irregular-plurals
irregular-plurals
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
asked 17 hours ago
Mido MidoMido Mido
579919
579919
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
5
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
5
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago
add a comment |
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
5
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
5
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago
8
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
5
5
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
5
5
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
2
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
add a comment |
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491372%2fthe-plural-of-stomach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
add a comment |
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of the sound /ɪ/ (or depending on accent, /ə/) in the pronunciation of these plural forms. After the sound /tʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/).
Stomach does not end in the sound /tʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no /ɪ~ə/ 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 form /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" is regularly used after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/.
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
edited 14 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
answered 17 hours ago
sumelicsumelic
50.1k8119226
50.1k8119226
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
add a comment |
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
1
1
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
– David Robinson
13 hours ago
add a comment |
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
edited 4 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
answered 17 hours ago
Michael HarveyMichael Harvey
6,53911120
6,53911120
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
3
3
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
– Darrel Hoffman
10 hours ago
2
2
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
– Darrel Hoffman
9 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
They have loughs in Ireland.
– Michael Harvey
8 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491372%2fthe-plural-of-stomach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
– Bella Swan
17 hours ago
5
@BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
5
The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
– Mitch
11 hours ago
2
Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
– Dan
8 hours ago