Comment se comporterait un nouveau mot emprunté en anglais si sa forme plurielle ne suivait pas les règles régulières ?
Allomorphy

Above, morphological rules are described as analogies between word forms: dog is to dogs as cat is to cats and dish is to dishes. In this case, the analogy applies both to the form of the words and to their meaning. In each pair, the first word means "one of X", and the second "two or more of X", and the difference is always the plural form -s (or -es) affixed to the second word, which signals the key distinction between singular and plural entities.

One of the largest sources of complexity in morphology is that the one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form scarcely applies to every case in the language. In English, there are word form pairs like ox/oxen, goose/geese, and sheep/sheep whose difference between the singular and the plural is signaled in a way that departs from the regular pattern or is not signaled at all. Even cases regarded as regular, such as -s, are not so simple; the -s in dogs is not pronounced the same way as the -s in cats, and in plurals such as dishes, a vowel is added before the -s. Those cases, in which the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a "word", constitute allomorphy.

Phonological rules constrain the sounds that can appear next to each other in a language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, would often violate phonological rules by resulting in sound sequences that are prohibited in the language in question. For example, to form the plural of dish by simply appending an -s to the end of the word would result in the form *, which is not permitted by the phonotactics of English. To "rescue" the word, a vowel sound is inserted between the root and the plural marker, and results. Similar rules apply to the pronunciation of the -s in dogs and cats: it depends on the quality (voiced vs. unvoiced) of the final preceding phoneme.
Allomorphie

Les règles phonologiques contraignent les sons qui peuvent apparaître l'un après l'autre dans une langue, et les règles morphologiques, lorsqu'elles sont appliquées aveuglément, violeraient souvent ces règles en produisant des séquences de sons qui ne sont pas autorisées dans la langue en question. Par exemple, pour former le pluriel de "dish" en ajoutant simplement un -s à la fin du mot, on obtiendrait la forme *, qui n'est pas permise par la phonotacticité de l'anglais. Pour "sauver" le mot, un son vocalique est inséré entre la racine et le marqueur de pluriel, donnant ainsi "dishes". Des règles similaires s'appliquent à la prononciation du -s dans "dogs" et "cats" : elle dépend de la qualité (voisée vs. non voisée) du phonème final précédant.
### Query ###
Comment se comporterait un nouveau mot emprunté en anglais si sa forme plurielle ne suivait pas les règles régulières ?

### Main Text ###
Allomorphy

Above, morphological rules are described as analogies between word forms: dog is to dogs as cat is to cats and dish is to dishes. In this case, the analogy applies both to the form of the words and to their meaning. In each pair, the first word means "one of X", and the second "two or more of X", and the difference is always the plural form -s (or -es) affixed to the second word, which signals the key distinction between singular and plural entities.

One of the largest sources of complexity in morphology is that the one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form scarcely applies to every case in the language. In English, there are word form pairs like ox/oxen, goose/geese, and sheep/sheep whose difference between the singular and the plural is signaled in a way that departs from the regular pattern or is not signaled at all. Even cases regarded as regular, such as -s, are not so simple; the -s in dogs is not pronounced the same way as the -s in cats, and in plurals such as dishes, a vowel is added before the -s. Those cases, in which the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a "word", constitute allomorphy.

Phonological rules constrain the sounds that can appear next to each other in a language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, would often violate phonological rules by resulting in sound sequences that are prohibited in the language in question. For example, to form the plural of dish by simply appending an -s to the end of the word would result in the form *, which is not permitted by the phonotactics of English. To "rescue" the word, a vowel sound is inserted between the root and the plural marker, and results. Similar rules apply to the pronunciation of the -s in dogs and cats: it depends on the quality (voiced vs. unvoiced) of the final preceding phoneme.

### Supplementary Text ###
Allomorphie

Les règles phonologiques contraignent les sons qui peuvent apparaître l'un après l'autre dans une langue, et les règles morphologiques, lorsqu'elles sont appliquées aveuglément, violeraient souvent ces règles en produisant des séquences de sons qui ne sont pas autorisées dans la langue en question. Par exemple, pour former le pluriel de "dish" en ajoutant simplement un -s à la fin du mot, on obtiendrait la forme *, qui n'est pas permise par la phonotacticité de l'anglais. Pour "sauver" le mot, un son vocalique est inséré entre la racine et le marqueur de pluriel, donnant ainsi "dishes". Des règles similaires s'appliquent à la prononciation du -s dans "dogs" et "cats" : elle dépend de la qualité (voisée vs. non voisée) du phonème final précédant.

### Draft ###

### 1. Query Parsing

"Comment se comporterait un nouveau mot emprunté en anglais si sa forme plurielle ne suivait pas les règles régulières?"

Breaking down: "se comporterait" = conditional behavior, "nouveau mot emprunté" = borrowed neologism, "formes plurielle irrégulière" = irregular plural forms.

Key question: What happens to borrowed words when they break English morphological norms?

### 2. English Irregular Plural Baseline

Current irregulars:
- ox → oxen
- goose → geese  
- sheep → sheep (zero plural)
- foot → feet
- mouse → mice

Pattern: ● historical remnants from Proto-Indo-European
◐ most borrowings conform to regular -s/-es patterns

### 3. Borrowing Mechanisms in English

⟨H≈0.8⟩ Language borrowing isn't clean mathematical function. Cultural transmission errors, substrate influence, analogical drift... French "château" keeps irregular French plural in English ("châteaux"), German "Blitzkrieg" adopts English pluralization. Corpus evidence suggests phonological constraints override semantic ones - irregular plurals maintain source language phonotactics while adopting English morphology...

Back to mechanics:
- Recent borrowings → often regular -s (e.g. "podcast" → "podcasts")
- Established borrowings → irregular patterns persist
- Code-switching → source language morphology maintained

### 4. Behavioral Predictions for New Irregulars

If new word adopted irregular plural:

**Phonological Constraint Hypothesis:**
- Irregular forms must respect English phonotactics
- cf. "dishes" inserts vowel to prevent *[dɪʃs] sequences
- Borrowed irregulars would undergo similar phonological adaptation

**Semantic Integration:**
- Irregular marking signals special status
- Non-native plurals might trigger nativization pressure
- Analogy with existing irregulars (sheep-like behavior)

**Frequency Effects:**
- High-frequency = more irregular tolerance
- Low-frequency = pressure toward regularization

### 5. Evidence from Recent Borrowings

⟨H≈1.2⟩ "Emoji" - Japanese cultural export, irregular plural in source language, but English borrowed "emojis" following regular pattern. "Karaoke" - Japanese, irregular in Japanese, regular "karaokes" in English. "Sushi" - Japanese, regular "sushis" in English. Pattern suggests English has threshold for irregularity acceptance, maybe frequency-dependent, maybe cultural significance...

**Verification needed:**
? Recent technical terminology borrowings
? International organization names (cf. "NGOs")
? Social media neologisms

### 6. Syntactic Integration Issues

Potential problems:
- Agreement errors (irregular plural + regular verb)
- Ambiguity with regular forms
- Generational variation in acceptance

**Cross-linguistic evidence:**
German "Spaghetti" → irregular "Spaghettis" (like "Partys")
French "email" → regular "emails"

### 7. Conclusion

New borrowed words with irregular plurals would face:

● **Phonological adaptation** (maintain English constraints)
● **Semantic marking** (signal special status)  
◐ **Frequency threshold** (high-freq more accepted)
○ **Cultural embedding** (varies by domain)

**Prediction:** Most rejected → regular pluralization
**Exception:** Established cultural/technical terms → irregular persistence

**Uncertainty:** Individual word variation high, no strict rules

∴ Borrowed irregular plurals would be constrained by phonotactics, marked for special status, frequency-dependent, culturally variable - but overwhelmingly rare due to pressure toward regularization in English morphology.

### Answer###
Cette question soulève un point fascinant sur l'adaptation des emprunts linguistiques. En anglais, les mots irréguliers comme "ox/oxen", "goose/geese", et "sheep/sheep" illustrent comment certaines distinctions de nombre échappent aux patrons réguliers de formation du pluriel.

Lorsqu'un nouveau mot emprunté adopte une forme de pluriel irrégulière, il ferait face à plusieurs défis. Premièrement, il devrait respecter les contraintes phonologiques de l'anglais - les séquences de sons qui ne peuvent pas apparaître dans la langue sans modification. Par exemple, l'ajout d'une voyelle entre la racine et le marqueur de pluriel devient souvent nécessaire pour éviter des combinaisons sonores prohibées.

L'adaptation morphologique serait également influencée par l'analogie avec les autres formes existantes. Les mots empruntés pourraient subir un processus d'assimilation aux irrégularités préexistantes, créant ainsi de nouveaux paradigmes de déclinaison.

Cependant, cette question est complexe et je ne peux pas prédire avec certitude comment précisément de tels emprunts se comporteraient sans davantage d'informations sur leur fréquence d'utilisation, leur contexte d'adoption, ou les pressions sociolinguistiques spécifiques à leur environnement d'emploi.