August 31, 2006


Filed under: Uncategorized — Jim @ 9:18 pm

I got to thinking about the word “hoof’. Don’t ask me why. It’s not as if I were this lady or this gentleman who regularly deal with ungulates. Hell, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a live, close-up look at a hoof.

OK. I’ll get to the silly point.

I learned in school that the plural of the word “hoof” is “hooves”.** Hooves? How crazy is that?

Why then doesn’t a roofer repair multiple “rooves” instead of “roofs”?

Why aren’t more than one “poof” called “pooves”?

Perhaps a bunch of “goofs” should be “gooves”.

Why wouldn’t two “woofs” by a dog be called “wooves”?

Or, why wouldn’t two “spoofs” be two “spooves”?

Flipping the matter around, why isn’t one of many “grooves” called a “groof”?

There’s simply no accounting for the caca that occupies my cruller sometimes.

** I know … The dictionary also lists “hoofs” as a plural form of “hoof”, but I think “hooves” came first. Anyway, that’s the way I learned it, and it’s my blog.


  1. Jimbo,are the German plural forms as screwed up and totally illogoical as English forms?

    Comment by Bill — August 31, 2006 @ 10:01 pm

  2. Not as bad, but some of them don’t make sense to me. Perhaps they do to a native speaker.

    Usually one adds an “e” or an “en” to the noun, but then you’ve got words like Mann (singular for man) and Maenner (plural). Go figure.

    Comment by Jim — August 31, 2006 @ 10:07 pm

  3. Ah I love the English language. Where would we be without it. Far fewer excellent blog posts… that’s for sure.

    Comment by Teresa — September 1, 2006 @ 12:37 am

  4. ha…I love this train of thought… your brain never stops, does it?

    Comment by Jean — September 1, 2006 @ 1:58 am

  5. I heard it expressed once that the English language started out as an immense practical joke on the rest of the world – except that somebody forgot to announce an end to it.
    This seems like the most plausible explanation I’ve ever heard for the spellings, syntax, grammaar, and everything else.

    Comment by DMerriman — September 1, 2006 @ 3:04 am

  6. Thinking about inconsistencies in English grammar will drive you goofy. The plural of “tooth” is “teeth” – why, then, is the plural of “booth” not “beeth”? Und so weiter…

    Comment by Elisson — September 1, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

  7. I don’t care what anyone says …

    I will always call multiple fish, Fishies.

    ‘Cause it rocks.

    Comment by erica — September 1, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

  8. I think we all need a long weekend…. Oh wait! We get one! Yay! 🙂

    Comment by Richmond — September 1, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

  9. Jimbo Where do you come up with this poop. or should I say pooves

    Comment by chef of da future — September 1, 2006 @ 7:10 pm

  10. Jim, sounds like you’ve got a case of the “sink, sank, sunk” going on again . . .

    Comment by Shamrock — September 1, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

  11. mouse (singular), mice (plural)
    louse (singular), lice (plural)

    So, why isn’t the plural of house “hice”?


    Jim – PRS

    Comment by Jim — September 1, 2006 @ 10:26 pm

  12. …can’t stop chuckling at you!

    Comment by Jean — September 1, 2006 @ 10:52 pm

  13. Tempting the fates again, huh? Um, last time you started down this path, much as I enjoy it, the Comcastians revoked your internet privileges, if memory serves. Dirigible, incorrigible, vigil.

    Comment by dogette — September 2, 2006 @ 10:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress