s. 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding _s_, as _father_, _fathers_. {227} However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word _father_, making it _fathers_, is _s_ to the eye only. To the ear it is _z_. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the _s_ retained its sound, the spelling would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g._ (the _sound_ of the word being expressed), _pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_, _henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary. I. In the case of words ending in _b_, _v_, _d_, the _th_ in _thine_=dh, or _g_, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp _s_ affixed, was not a matter of choice, but of necessity; the combinations _abs_, _avs_, _ads_, _adhs_, _ags_, being unpronounceable. See the Section on the Law of Accommodation. II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (_aps_, _afs_, _ats_, _aths_, _asks_), or the second to the first (_abz_, _avz_, _adhz_, _agz_), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word _apparent_), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice vers[^a]_. III. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c. (the _s_ preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_, _treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from _s_ to _z_, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language. IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in _s_, but in _z_, the original addition was not _z_, but _s_. This we {228} infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of _z_ being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change. It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.