Despite all the crud on the internet, it is distressing to me that there are an uncountable number of interesting, quality sites like the one linked here. My temptation is to bookmark it, but then it will just join hundreds of other quality bookmarks that I don't have time to follow up. Maybe it is better not knowing what I'm missing.
No. "Dwarves" and "dwarvish" were deliberately introduced by Tolkien as a way of making Middle-Earth language stand apart from English. He mentions it as a deliberate choice in the foreword.
It's a mark of the popularity of his books that people assume that's the correct spelling in English, because that's the most common form of it they've seen, but "dwarfs" is the correct usage outside Middle-Earth.
It apparently existed pre-Tolkien [not really surprisingly as it's one of those weird English plural forms that can go multiple ways] and there's at least some evidence that he retconned it as a deliberate choice. e.g. https://jakubmarian.com/dwarves-or-dwarfs-which-spelling-is-...
ADDED from the link:
Tolkien himself admitted that “dwarves” was a misspelling. In a letter to Stanley Unwin, the publisher of The Hobbit, he wrote:
"No reviewer (that I have seen), although all have carefully used the correct dwarfs themselves, has commented on the fact (which I only became conscious of through reviews) that I use throughout the ‘incorrect’ plural dwarves. I am afraid it is just a piece of private bad grammar, rather shocking in a philologist; but I shall have to go on with it."
Interesting, did not know that. He implies (but doesn't say flat-out and it could indeed be a retcon) in the foreword to The Hobbit that it's deliberate:
In English the only correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs, and the adjective
is dwarfish. In this story dwarves and dwarvish are used, but only when
speaking of the ancient people to whom Thorin Oakenshield and his
companions belonged.
I've not heard of any usage of it pre-Tolkien though, and can't find anything obvious after a bit of searching (mostly "dwarvish" turns up Tolkien related things). Anything you can point me to there?
>> In English the only correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs
etymonline points out that the form with a better-in-some-sense claim to be "correct" is dwarrows, not "dwarfs". But that term was uncommon enough that it completely died out. ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dwarf )
As I mentioned sidethread, "dwarves" is a natural extension of what happens with other common English words ending in f, making it difficult to argue that it is somehow incorrect.
> etymonline points out that the form with a better-in-some-sense claim to be "correct" is dwarrows, not "dwarfs". But that term was uncommon enough that it completely died out.
That could just as easily be interpreted that he's stuck with this spelling mistake (as he said in the other quote) and now asks us to play along ("that's, uh, just how they talked!").
> "Dwarves" and "dwarvish" were deliberately introduced by Tolkien as a way of making Middle-Earth language stand apart from English.
> It's a mark of the popularity of his books that people assume that's the correct spelling in English
It's more likely a mark of the fact that people are familiar with other common English nouns ending in f, such as wolf(wolves) / leaf(leaves) / hoof(hooves) / elf(elves) / staff(staves). (Granted, some of those are less common than others.)
I see no reason to believe that "dwarf" was the odd noun that resisted that process. Making Middle-Earth language "stand apart from English" by applying a perfectly normal rule of English would be an odd thing to try.
If you look at when the "v" form spiked, it's a good bet that Tolkien influenced that a lot. But, yes, it's a common plural form for many (but not all) English words that end in f in the singular. But no one uses chieves as the plural for chief for example.
The “correct usage” is what’s commonly used by people, not what’s technically correct.
If people use dwarves, then it’s correct to use it regardless of origins.
It’s the same thing with the whole octopus plural thing. Both octopi and octopuses are completely correct despite octopedes technically being the right answer.
Downvote if you want. Being smart in programming or business stuff doesn't mean you understand linguistics. Organic language does not adhere to logical rules.
Many people (who don't actually study language or the evolution thereof) jump to a Prescriptivist viewpoint at first. Dictionaries follow actual English usage, not the other way around (Descriptivist).
I can't fault you; in order to teach English a prescriptivist mindset naturally has to be applied. So we teach Standard English's rules.
However, go compare various English style guides and tell me if they are the same.
Dwarves & Octopi are correct, because that's what people use. If octopedes was used instead, it would be correct and it wouldn't have a red squiggly line.
I wouldn't downvote your comment but I can see why some would. The discussion is not about prescriptivism vs descriptivism but rather the origin of a specific wend in the language and whether it is ideopathic or not.
Even those who most joyfully embrace the flexibility of language need to be largely linguistically conservative else the meaning of a sentence is lost (consider Lafferty's story where the language changed every day -- Nine Hundred Grandmothers IIRC).
And in that list your condemnation of "correct" is itself conservatively prescriptivist as I have always read it (in this context) as a a shorthand extension of "typically customary" or "etymologically consistent"
