Understanding the plural of ox and fox is a fascinating journey into the roots of the English language. While both are common nouns, their plural forms diverge in interesting ways: “oxen” for ox and “foxes” for fox. But why is that? Let’s explore the historical and grammatical reasons behind these forms and how they illustrate the complexity and beauty of English.
Table of Contents
Singular Forms: Ox and Fox
Before diving into pluralization, let’s start with the base words.
Ox is a large domesticated animal traditionally used for heavy labor, especially in farming. It is one of the oldest domesticated animals known to humans.
Fox, on the other hand, refers to a small, carnivorous mammal known for its cunning nature and bushy tail. The word is used commonly in literature and folklore.
Though both ox and fox are nouns that refer to animals, they belong to different grammatical families and follow different pluralization rules.
Plural Forms: Oxen and Foxes
The plural form of ox is “oxen,” while the plural of fox is “foxes.” While they may appear irregular or unusual compared to each other, each form has historical roots that justify its usage.
Oxen:
The word oxen is a rare example of an Old English plural form that has survived into modern usage. In Old English, many words formed their plurals with the suffix “-en” rather than the now-standard “-s” or “-es.”
Examples from Old English include:
- Child > Children
- Brother > Brethren (now mostly archaic)
- Cow > Kine (also archaic)
“Oxen” is simply the preserved form from this older pattern. So when you ask, “What is the plural of ox?” the answer is not just linguistic but historical.
Why not “oxes”?
While “oxes” would follow the modern pattern of pluralization, it’s considered incorrect. English has preserved “oxen” as a special case. This irregularity is a nod to the language’s Germanic roots, where similar plural forms were more common.
Foxes:
In contrast, the plural form of fox follows the standard rule in modern English: add “-es” to form the plural when a noun ends in -x, -s, -sh, or -ch.
So:
- Box > Boxes
- Bus > Buses
- Church > Churches
Fox, ending in -x, becomes foxes in the plural.
This is a regular, predictable transformation, and it answers the common question: “What is the plural of fox?” Clearly, it’s “foxes.”
Comparing Plurals:
Why do “ox” and “fox” take different plural forms? After all, they seem like they should follow the same rules. But the answer lies in their linguistic histories.
Why ‘Foxes’ for ‘Fox’ and ‘Oxen’ for ‘Ox’?
The use of foxes instead of foxen reflects a shift in English during the Middle English period when the language moved away from using the Old English plural forms. Most nouns adopted the “-s” or “-es” ending we use today.
However, some words like ox retained their older forms due to frequency of use, cultural significance, or resistance to change. This makes ox plural a linguistic relic, while fox plural represents the modern, standardized form.
In other words:
- Oxen survived as a plural due to its historical roots.
- Foxes emerged through standardization.
This contrast shows how English evolved unevenly, retaining some older forms while embracing new ones.
Usage in Sentences
To further clarify:
- The farmer used two oxen to plow the field.
- We saw three foxes running across the meadow.
Notice how natural these sentences sound. While “oxes” would be grammatically incorrect, “foxes” is the only acceptable plural form.
Additional Notes on Pluralization
If you’re learning English, it might seem confusing that the plural of ox doesn’t follow the same pattern as the plural of fox. This is just one of many irregularities that give English its richness and depth.
Some learners may wonder:
- Why not say “childs” instead of “children”?
- Why is it “mice” and not “mouses”?
English, like any language, is shaped by history, culture, and time. So when it comes to the plural of ox and fox, just remember: one is a relic, and one is a rule.
Conclusion:
So, what are the plurals of ‘ox’ and ‘fox’? The answer is as simple as it is historically rich: oxen and foxes. These forms reflect different eras of the English language—”oxen” clings to its Old English past, while “foxes” embraces modern grammatical rules.
Whether you’re curious about the plural of ox, wondering what is the plural of fox, or just exploring the fox plural and ox plural in context, this distinction is a great example of how fascinating English grammar can be.
By understanding the plural of ox and fox, you not only learn correct usage but also gain insight into the evolving nature of language itself.
FAQ: Common Questions About the Plural of Ox and Fox
Q1: What is the correct plural of ox?
A: The correct plural of “ox” is oxen. This form has been retained from Old English and is still the only grammatically accepted plural form.
Q2: What is the plural form of fox?
A: The plural form of “fox” is foxes. It follows the standard modern English rule of adding “-es” to nouns ending in -x.
Q3: Is it correct to say “oxen”?
A: Yes, absolutely. “Oxen” is the historically and grammatically correct plural of “ox.” Using “oxes” is incorrect in standard English.
Q4: How do you say “more than one fox”?
A: You say “foxes” when referring to more than one fox. For example: “Three foxes were seen near the woods.”
Read more: What is the Difference Between Ofcourse and Of Course?