-1

NB It's not a simple learning question. It's actually from my ORM software pluralizing entities' names unexpectedly. For curious and/or programming readers' reference, see [the source code].

So, when I declare a class Activity and run my softie on it, it produces a statement to the database called Activities. Great, so we know it pluralizes. I can dig that. In fact it's kind of neat when we look into the schema later on.

Then, I created a class Human and the junky ORM mapper produced a statement called Humen. Is that just a faulty algorithm (since Woman and Man should be Women and Men)? It seems to be a bit far fetched.

Although there are a lot of man suffixed words, there are examples when the ending man originates from elsewhere (roman, human etc.) so generalizing the pluralization like so is very odd. Also, the developers might be using a different language altogether, where man means donkey and the plural of it is hazaa.

So my question is whether it's a viable pluralization (in English, that is).

Improve this question
10
  • 3
    Though I didn't downvote (yet), I don't think this question fits ELL, and perhaps it's better to be posted at a stack or a discussion forum that is specific to that ORM software. IMHO, the programmer (whoever wrote that piece of code) overlooked something.
    – Damkerng T.
    Jan 31, 2016 at 12:20
  • This seems more appropriate for ELU.
    – Catija
    Jan 31, 2016 at 14:00
  • I think english.stackexchange.com would be more suitable for this question.
    – pyobum
    Jan 31, 2016 at 14:37
  • 1
    Hi Konrad! The primary question can be answered by consulting a dictionary, and as such is off-topic for our site. If you have done so and still have questions, please describe what research you have performed, what you found, and what remaining question you have in light of such.
    – Jim Reynolds
    Jan 31, 2016 at 15:37
  • @DamkerngT. Although the origin of the question is in programming, I intend it to be linguistic one. I tried to provide a bit of background info (as to not get complaints about that). But the question can be seen this: "Is there any way humen is the right plural form of human, although I myself never seen it before?" I think it's wrong but being modest, I want to verify with the community. As such, I can't see how it's off-topic.
    – Konrad Viltersten
    Jan 31, 2016 at 16:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

The plural of human is humans. humen may not be understood, and if it is understood will be widely perceived as wrong.

Improve this answer
1
  • Perceived as wrong? Definitely. Hence the question. But is it in any way possible to be correct, if not intuitively obvious? A bit like using sans instead of without...
    – Konrad Viltersten
    Jan 31, 2016 at 16:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .