Why is the plural of “aircraft” not “aircrafts”?











up vote
17
down vote

favorite
5












I came along this sentence:




Today, we have used a large number of assets, comprising of 34 aircraft, 40 ships, hundreds of men, thousands of man-hours has been deployed




I consulted dictionaries and forum threads that explained that aircraft, just like sheep, builds its plural without an -s.



For sheep, however, that can be explained by its evolution from an old word. Not so for aircraft, which is a relatively new word with no such legacy. I found it stated that it is simply a concatenation of air and craft.



I found this post about the possible increasing usage of aircrafts (probably among non-native speakers), but it didn't explain the etymology and I found nothing else to explain it.



So, what is the explanation for the plural of aircraft not being aircrafts? Does it come from craft used as a mass noun? If so, what would be the meaning conveyed by that?










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
    – Peter Shor
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:41








  • 1




    @PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
    – WS2
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:50










  • @PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:57






  • 3




    English is like that for hysterical reasons.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 29 '15 at 12:15






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
    – Mari-Lou A
    Jul 1 '15 at 10:50















up vote
17
down vote

favorite
5












I came along this sentence:




Today, we have used a large number of assets, comprising of 34 aircraft, 40 ships, hundreds of men, thousands of man-hours has been deployed




I consulted dictionaries and forum threads that explained that aircraft, just like sheep, builds its plural without an -s.



For sheep, however, that can be explained by its evolution from an old word. Not so for aircraft, which is a relatively new word with no such legacy. I found it stated that it is simply a concatenation of air and craft.



I found this post about the possible increasing usage of aircrafts (probably among non-native speakers), but it didn't explain the etymology and I found nothing else to explain it.



So, what is the explanation for the plural of aircraft not being aircrafts? Does it come from craft used as a mass noun? If so, what would be the meaning conveyed by that?










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
    – Peter Shor
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:41








  • 1




    @PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
    – WS2
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:50










  • @PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:57






  • 3




    English is like that for hysterical reasons.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 29 '15 at 12:15






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
    – Mari-Lou A
    Jul 1 '15 at 10:50













up vote
17
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
17
down vote

favorite
5






5





I came along this sentence:




Today, we have used a large number of assets, comprising of 34 aircraft, 40 ships, hundreds of men, thousands of man-hours has been deployed




I consulted dictionaries and forum threads that explained that aircraft, just like sheep, builds its plural without an -s.



For sheep, however, that can be explained by its evolution from an old word. Not so for aircraft, which is a relatively new word with no such legacy. I found it stated that it is simply a concatenation of air and craft.



I found this post about the possible increasing usage of aircrafts (probably among non-native speakers), but it didn't explain the etymology and I found nothing else to explain it.



So, what is the explanation for the plural of aircraft not being aircrafts? Does it come from craft used as a mass noun? If so, what would be the meaning conveyed by that?










share|improve this question















I came along this sentence:




Today, we have used a large number of assets, comprising of 34 aircraft, 40 ships, hundreds of men, thousands of man-hours has been deployed




I consulted dictionaries and forum threads that explained that aircraft, just like sheep, builds its plural without an -s.



For sheep, however, that can be explained by its evolution from an old word. Not so for aircraft, which is a relatively new word with no such legacy. I found it stated that it is simply a concatenation of air and craft.



I found this post about the possible increasing usage of aircrafts (probably among non-native speakers), but it didn't explain the etymology and I found nothing else to explain it.



So, what is the explanation for the plural of aircraft not being aircrafts? Does it come from craft used as a mass noun? If so, what would be the meaning conveyed by that?







etymology nouns grammatical-number irregular






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38









Community

1




1










asked Jun 29 '15 at 9:43









Yohann V.

1,3861418




1,3861418








  • 9




    If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
    – Peter Shor
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:41








  • 1




    @PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
    – WS2
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:50










  • @PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:57






  • 3




    English is like that for hysterical reasons.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 29 '15 at 12:15






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
    – Mari-Lou A
    Jul 1 '15 at 10:50














  • 9




    If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
    – Peter Shor
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:41








  • 1




    @PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
    – WS2
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:50










  • @PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 29 '15 at 10:57






  • 3




    English is like that for hysterical reasons.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 29 '15 at 12:15






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
    – Mari-Lou A
    Jul 1 '15 at 10:50








9




9




If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
– Peter Shor
Jun 29 '15 at 10:41






If you look in the dictionary, the word craft meaning boat has a notation of "plural usually craft". (While the plural for the meaning occupation or trade is crafts.)
– Peter Shor
Jun 29 '15 at 10:41






1




1




@PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
– WS2
Jun 29 '15 at 10:50




@PeterShor Yes - exactly my thought. A lot of small craft were bobbing up and down in the water.
– WS2
Jun 29 '15 at 10:50












@PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
– Yohann V.
Jun 29 '15 at 10:57




@PeterShor I have seen it, and it is why I asked about "its non plural form", I was refering to this meaning and asking why it has been used more that the meaning of object created
– Yohann V.
Jun 29 '15 at 10:57




3




3




English is like that for hysterical reasons.
– Hot Licks
Jun 29 '15 at 12:15




English is like that for hysterical reasons.
– Hot Licks
Jun 29 '15 at 12:15




1




1




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
– Mari-Lou A
Jul 1 '15 at 10:50




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals
– Mari-Lou A
Jul 1 '15 at 10:50










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote



accepted










It is because craft is a collective term and OED mentions that it might be originated as an elliptical expression. Craft itself is used as aircraft as well. OED includes the following explanation for the fifth definition of craft:




V. Applied to boats, ships, and fishing requisites.



These uses were probably colloquial with watermen, fishers, and seamen some time before they appeared in print, so that the history is not evidenced; but the expression is probably elliptical, sense 9 being = vessels of small craft, i.e. small trading vessels, or of small seaman's art, and sense 10 = requisites of the fisherman's craft. It is not impossible that the latter was the earlier: cf. quot. 1704 at sense 10. The want in English of any general collective term for all sorts of ‘vessels for water carriage’ naturally made craft a useful stop-gap.




(emphasis mine)



For reference[OED]:




9.
a. collect. (const. as pl.) Vessels or boats.

(a) originally only in small craft n.

(b) Hence, without small, in same sense; later, in the general sense of vessels of all kinds for water carriage and transport.
b. (with a and pl.) A small vessel or boat; any sailing or floating vessel.
c. An aircraft or spacecraft.





10. collect. Implements used in catching or killing fish; in mod. use chiefly in Whale-fishery: see quot. 1887.



Craft, is a Sea word signifying all manner of Lines, Nets, Hooks, &c. which serve for Fishing; and because those that use the Fishing Trade use Small Vessels..they call all such little Vessels Small Craft.



1704 J. Harris Lexicon Technicum





The harpoons, hand-lances, and boat-spades, are usually called ‘craft’, and the other implements ‘gear’.



1887 G. B. Goode Fisheries U.S.: Hist. & Methods II. 241




However, OED mentions that the plural form aircrafts is rare and there is one citation that aircrafts is used:




His world-famed aircrafts.



1903 Aeronaut. Jrnl. 7 81/1




OED also adds that the word can be understood, esp. when used in the plural, to include other kinds of heavier-than-air machine, such as helicopters. The word is often preferred to aeroplane or airplane in official and military contexts:




Will you please make the following terminology effective in all British official correspondence: For ‘aeroplane’ the word ‘aircraft’ should be used.



1943 W. S. Churchill Telegram 15 June in Second World War (1952) V. 566







share|improve this answer





















  • @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 12:51






  • 1




    @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:29






  • 1




    @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:30










  • @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:34










  • @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:53


















up vote
5
down vote













The word craft is obviously related to German Kraft (plural Kräfte), meaning might, power (or in physics force). It still had this meaning in Middle English. Etymonline explains the connection to boats:




Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to vessels of small craft and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power."




As an ellipsis for "vessel[s] of small craft", a (singular and) plural word "small craft" makes perfect sense. Once the ellipsis has become a fixed expression whose origin people don't remember, small will easily be re-interpreted as referring to physical size (which, after all, is strongly associated with a boat's power), so that the rarely used "[vessels of] great craft" will look irregular and "large craft" will be said instead. At this point it was only natural to drop the adjectives and use craft as a collective term for boats which, however, continued and continues to be used also for singulars. Then the apparent singular form of the word facilitates regularisation to crafts when used as a plural. Language change takes centuries, so the last step is where we are now.



I have extrapolated all of this from the one sentence quoted above without checking any further sources, so the actual historical details may have been slightly different.



PS: I am not claiming that when people started using "small craft" for boats the word craft was still used in the original sense of power. It may not be known what the precise original meaning of "small craft" was, and I certainly don't know. It seems possible to me that the power meaning of craft survived for longer in nautical terminology, both because such terminology is often a bit detached from evolutions in the remainder of the language, and because the seafaring part of the population presumably had more contact with German-speakers. But it's also possible that "small craft" originally referred to boats of little workmanship and that the sense shifted later.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 6:09










  • @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:28










  • The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:34








  • 1




    Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:52






  • 1




    @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
    – Hans Adler
    Jul 1 '15 at 17:13


















up vote
0
down vote













Fish<=> fish... Why is it fishers instead of Fisher isn't da plural form of fish, fish?????? Fisherman= fishermen fishersmen and fishersman is incorrect but why add an an s if fishermen go fishing for fish???
Fry, fries, and frying was not a good example






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f255727%2fwhy-is-the-plural-of-aircraft-not-aircrafts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    13
    down vote



    accepted










    It is because craft is a collective term and OED mentions that it might be originated as an elliptical expression. Craft itself is used as aircraft as well. OED includes the following explanation for the fifth definition of craft:




    V. Applied to boats, ships, and fishing requisites.



    These uses were probably colloquial with watermen, fishers, and seamen some time before they appeared in print, so that the history is not evidenced; but the expression is probably elliptical, sense 9 being = vessels of small craft, i.e. small trading vessels, or of small seaman's art, and sense 10 = requisites of the fisherman's craft. It is not impossible that the latter was the earlier: cf. quot. 1704 at sense 10. The want in English of any general collective term for all sorts of ‘vessels for water carriage’ naturally made craft a useful stop-gap.




    (emphasis mine)



    For reference[OED]:




    9.
    a. collect. (const. as pl.) Vessels or boats.

    (a) originally only in small craft n.

    (b) Hence, without small, in same sense; later, in the general sense of vessels of all kinds for water carriage and transport.
    b. (with a and pl.) A small vessel or boat; any sailing or floating vessel.
    c. An aircraft or spacecraft.





    10. collect. Implements used in catching or killing fish; in mod. use chiefly in Whale-fishery: see quot. 1887.



    Craft, is a Sea word signifying all manner of Lines, Nets, Hooks, &c. which serve for Fishing; and because those that use the Fishing Trade use Small Vessels..they call all such little Vessels Small Craft.



    1704 J. Harris Lexicon Technicum





    The harpoons, hand-lances, and boat-spades, are usually called ‘craft’, and the other implements ‘gear’.



    1887 G. B. Goode Fisheries U.S.: Hist. & Methods II. 241




    However, OED mentions that the plural form aircrafts is rare and there is one citation that aircrafts is used:




    His world-famed aircrafts.



    1903 Aeronaut. Jrnl. 7 81/1




    OED also adds that the word can be understood, esp. when used in the plural, to include other kinds of heavier-than-air machine, such as helicopters. The word is often preferred to aeroplane or airplane in official and military contexts:




    Will you please make the following terminology effective in all British official correspondence: For ‘aeroplane’ the word ‘aircraft’ should be used.



    1943 W. S. Churchill Telegram 15 June in Second World War (1952) V. 566







    share|improve this answer





















    • @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 12:51






    • 1




      @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:29






    • 1




      @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:30










    • @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:34










    • @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:53















    up vote
    13
    down vote



    accepted










    It is because craft is a collective term and OED mentions that it might be originated as an elliptical expression. Craft itself is used as aircraft as well. OED includes the following explanation for the fifth definition of craft:




    V. Applied to boats, ships, and fishing requisites.



    These uses were probably colloquial with watermen, fishers, and seamen some time before they appeared in print, so that the history is not evidenced; but the expression is probably elliptical, sense 9 being = vessels of small craft, i.e. small trading vessels, or of small seaman's art, and sense 10 = requisites of the fisherman's craft. It is not impossible that the latter was the earlier: cf. quot. 1704 at sense 10. The want in English of any general collective term for all sorts of ‘vessels for water carriage’ naturally made craft a useful stop-gap.




    (emphasis mine)



    For reference[OED]:




    9.
    a. collect. (const. as pl.) Vessels or boats.

    (a) originally only in small craft n.

    (b) Hence, without small, in same sense; later, in the general sense of vessels of all kinds for water carriage and transport.
    b. (with a and pl.) A small vessel or boat; any sailing or floating vessel.
    c. An aircraft or spacecraft.





    10. collect. Implements used in catching or killing fish; in mod. use chiefly in Whale-fishery: see quot. 1887.



    Craft, is a Sea word signifying all manner of Lines, Nets, Hooks, &c. which serve for Fishing; and because those that use the Fishing Trade use Small Vessels..they call all such little Vessels Small Craft.



    1704 J. Harris Lexicon Technicum





    The harpoons, hand-lances, and boat-spades, are usually called ‘craft’, and the other implements ‘gear’.



    1887 G. B. Goode Fisheries U.S.: Hist. & Methods II. 241




    However, OED mentions that the plural form aircrafts is rare and there is one citation that aircrafts is used:




    His world-famed aircrafts.



    1903 Aeronaut. Jrnl. 7 81/1




    OED also adds that the word can be understood, esp. when used in the plural, to include other kinds of heavier-than-air machine, such as helicopters. The word is often preferred to aeroplane or airplane in official and military contexts:




    Will you please make the following terminology effective in all British official correspondence: For ‘aeroplane’ the word ‘aircraft’ should be used.



    1943 W. S. Churchill Telegram 15 June in Second World War (1952) V. 566







    share|improve this answer





















    • @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 12:51






    • 1




      @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:29






    • 1




      @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:30










    • @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:34










    • @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:53













    up vote
    13
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    13
    down vote



    accepted






    It is because craft is a collective term and OED mentions that it might be originated as an elliptical expression. Craft itself is used as aircraft as well. OED includes the following explanation for the fifth definition of craft:




    V. Applied to boats, ships, and fishing requisites.



    These uses were probably colloquial with watermen, fishers, and seamen some time before they appeared in print, so that the history is not evidenced; but the expression is probably elliptical, sense 9 being = vessels of small craft, i.e. small trading vessels, or of small seaman's art, and sense 10 = requisites of the fisherman's craft. It is not impossible that the latter was the earlier: cf. quot. 1704 at sense 10. The want in English of any general collective term for all sorts of ‘vessels for water carriage’ naturally made craft a useful stop-gap.




    (emphasis mine)



    For reference[OED]:




    9.
    a. collect. (const. as pl.) Vessels or boats.

    (a) originally only in small craft n.

    (b) Hence, without small, in same sense; later, in the general sense of vessels of all kinds for water carriage and transport.
    b. (with a and pl.) A small vessel or boat; any sailing or floating vessel.
    c. An aircraft or spacecraft.





    10. collect. Implements used in catching or killing fish; in mod. use chiefly in Whale-fishery: see quot. 1887.



    Craft, is a Sea word signifying all manner of Lines, Nets, Hooks, &c. which serve for Fishing; and because those that use the Fishing Trade use Small Vessels..they call all such little Vessels Small Craft.



    1704 J. Harris Lexicon Technicum





    The harpoons, hand-lances, and boat-spades, are usually called ‘craft’, and the other implements ‘gear’.



    1887 G. B. Goode Fisheries U.S.: Hist. & Methods II. 241




    However, OED mentions that the plural form aircrafts is rare and there is one citation that aircrafts is used:




    His world-famed aircrafts.



    1903 Aeronaut. Jrnl. 7 81/1




    OED also adds that the word can be understood, esp. when used in the plural, to include other kinds of heavier-than-air machine, such as helicopters. The word is often preferred to aeroplane or airplane in official and military contexts:




    Will you please make the following terminology effective in all British official correspondence: For ‘aeroplane’ the word ‘aircraft’ should be used.



    1943 W. S. Churchill Telegram 15 June in Second World War (1952) V. 566







    share|improve this answer












    It is because craft is a collective term and OED mentions that it might be originated as an elliptical expression. Craft itself is used as aircraft as well. OED includes the following explanation for the fifth definition of craft:




    V. Applied to boats, ships, and fishing requisites.



    These uses were probably colloquial with watermen, fishers, and seamen some time before they appeared in print, so that the history is not evidenced; but the expression is probably elliptical, sense 9 being = vessels of small craft, i.e. small trading vessels, or of small seaman's art, and sense 10 = requisites of the fisherman's craft. It is not impossible that the latter was the earlier: cf. quot. 1704 at sense 10. The want in English of any general collective term for all sorts of ‘vessels for water carriage’ naturally made craft a useful stop-gap.




    (emphasis mine)



    For reference[OED]:




    9.
    a. collect. (const. as pl.) Vessels or boats.

    (a) originally only in small craft n.

    (b) Hence, without small, in same sense; later, in the general sense of vessels of all kinds for water carriage and transport.
    b. (with a and pl.) A small vessel or boat; any sailing or floating vessel.
    c. An aircraft or spacecraft.





    10. collect. Implements used in catching or killing fish; in mod. use chiefly in Whale-fishery: see quot. 1887.



    Craft, is a Sea word signifying all manner of Lines, Nets, Hooks, &c. which serve for Fishing; and because those that use the Fishing Trade use Small Vessels..they call all such little Vessels Small Craft.



    1704 J. Harris Lexicon Technicum





    The harpoons, hand-lances, and boat-spades, are usually called ‘craft’, and the other implements ‘gear’.



    1887 G. B. Goode Fisheries U.S.: Hist. & Methods II. 241




    However, OED mentions that the plural form aircrafts is rare and there is one citation that aircrafts is used:




    His world-famed aircrafts.



    1903 Aeronaut. Jrnl. 7 81/1




    OED also adds that the word can be understood, esp. when used in the plural, to include other kinds of heavier-than-air machine, such as helicopters. The word is often preferred to aeroplane or airplane in official and military contexts:




    Will you please make the following terminology effective in all British official correspondence: For ‘aeroplane’ the word ‘aircraft’ should be used.



    1943 W. S. Churchill Telegram 15 June in Second World War (1952) V. 566








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jun 30 '15 at 4:42









    ermanen

    45.4k24123234




    45.4k24123234












    • @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 12:51






    • 1




      @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:29






    • 1




      @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:30










    • @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:34










    • @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:53


















    • @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 12:51






    • 1




      @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:29






    • 1




      @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:30










    • @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
      – ermanen
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:34










    • @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
      – Yohann V.
      Jun 30 '15 at 14:53
















    @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 12:51




    @ermanen You think it is only based on craft meaning "ship" without plural? I don't think in my example the 34 aircraft can be a mass noun
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 12:51




    1




    1




    @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:29




    @YohannV.: It is originated from there and it became a collective term. Then it is applied to waterctraft, aircraft etc. It is why the plural form is the same but as I said, it is rarely used as aircrafts also.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:29




    1




    1




    @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:30




    @ermanen I have read that the aircrafts form is used by non-native and is not correct.
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:30












    @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:34




    @YohannV.: Where did you read? Aircrafts is not preferred and probably used in technical contexts only.
    – ermanen
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:34












    @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:53




    @ermanen In the link I gave and Oxford Dictionaries has nothing about "aircrafts"
    – Yohann V.
    Jun 30 '15 at 14:53












    up vote
    5
    down vote













    The word craft is obviously related to German Kraft (plural Kräfte), meaning might, power (or in physics force). It still had this meaning in Middle English. Etymonline explains the connection to boats:




    Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to vessels of small craft and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power."




    As an ellipsis for "vessel[s] of small craft", a (singular and) plural word "small craft" makes perfect sense. Once the ellipsis has become a fixed expression whose origin people don't remember, small will easily be re-interpreted as referring to physical size (which, after all, is strongly associated with a boat's power), so that the rarely used "[vessels of] great craft" will look irregular and "large craft" will be said instead. At this point it was only natural to drop the adjectives and use craft as a collective term for boats which, however, continued and continues to be used also for singulars. Then the apparent singular form of the word facilitates regularisation to crafts when used as a plural. Language change takes centuries, so the last step is where we are now.



    I have extrapolated all of this from the one sentence quoted above without checking any further sources, so the actual historical details may have been slightly different.



    PS: I am not claiming that when people started using "small craft" for boats the word craft was still used in the original sense of power. It may not be known what the precise original meaning of "small craft" was, and I certainly don't know. It seems possible to me that the power meaning of craft survived for longer in nautical terminology, both because such terminology is often a bit detached from evolutions in the remainder of the language, and because the seafaring part of the population presumably had more contact with German-speakers. But it's also possible that "small craft" originally referred to boats of little workmanship and that the sense shifted later.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 6:09










    • @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:28










    • The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:34








    • 1




      Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:52






    • 1




      @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
      – Hans Adler
      Jul 1 '15 at 17:13















    up vote
    5
    down vote













    The word craft is obviously related to German Kraft (plural Kräfte), meaning might, power (or in physics force). It still had this meaning in Middle English. Etymonline explains the connection to boats:




    Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to vessels of small craft and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power."




    As an ellipsis for "vessel[s] of small craft", a (singular and) plural word "small craft" makes perfect sense. Once the ellipsis has become a fixed expression whose origin people don't remember, small will easily be re-interpreted as referring to physical size (which, after all, is strongly associated with a boat's power), so that the rarely used "[vessels of] great craft" will look irregular and "large craft" will be said instead. At this point it was only natural to drop the adjectives and use craft as a collective term for boats which, however, continued and continues to be used also for singulars. Then the apparent singular form of the word facilitates regularisation to crafts when used as a plural. Language change takes centuries, so the last step is where we are now.



    I have extrapolated all of this from the one sentence quoted above without checking any further sources, so the actual historical details may have been slightly different.



    PS: I am not claiming that when people started using "small craft" for boats the word craft was still used in the original sense of power. It may not be known what the precise original meaning of "small craft" was, and I certainly don't know. It seems possible to me that the power meaning of craft survived for longer in nautical terminology, both because such terminology is often a bit detached from evolutions in the remainder of the language, and because the seafaring part of the population presumably had more contact with German-speakers. But it's also possible that "small craft" originally referred to boats of little workmanship and that the sense shifted later.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 6:09










    • @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:28










    • The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:34








    • 1




      Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:52






    • 1




      @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
      – Hans Adler
      Jul 1 '15 at 17:13













    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    down vote









    The word craft is obviously related to German Kraft (plural Kräfte), meaning might, power (or in physics force). It still had this meaning in Middle English. Etymonline explains the connection to boats:




    Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to vessels of small craft and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power."




    As an ellipsis for "vessel[s] of small craft", a (singular and) plural word "small craft" makes perfect sense. Once the ellipsis has become a fixed expression whose origin people don't remember, small will easily be re-interpreted as referring to physical size (which, after all, is strongly associated with a boat's power), so that the rarely used "[vessels of] great craft" will look irregular and "large craft" will be said instead. At this point it was only natural to drop the adjectives and use craft as a collective term for boats which, however, continued and continues to be used also for singulars. Then the apparent singular form of the word facilitates regularisation to crafts when used as a plural. Language change takes centuries, so the last step is where we are now.



    I have extrapolated all of this from the one sentence quoted above without checking any further sources, so the actual historical details may have been slightly different.



    PS: I am not claiming that when people started using "small craft" for boats the word craft was still used in the original sense of power. It may not be known what the precise original meaning of "small craft" was, and I certainly don't know. It seems possible to me that the power meaning of craft survived for longer in nautical terminology, both because such terminology is often a bit detached from evolutions in the remainder of the language, and because the seafaring part of the population presumably had more contact with German-speakers. But it's also possible that "small craft" originally referred to boats of little workmanship and that the sense shifted later.






    share|improve this answer














    The word craft is obviously related to German Kraft (plural Kräfte), meaning might, power (or in physics force). It still had this meaning in Middle English. Etymonline explains the connection to boats:




    Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to vessels of small craft and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power."




    As an ellipsis for "vessel[s] of small craft", a (singular and) plural word "small craft" makes perfect sense. Once the ellipsis has become a fixed expression whose origin people don't remember, small will easily be re-interpreted as referring to physical size (which, after all, is strongly associated with a boat's power), so that the rarely used "[vessels of] great craft" will look irregular and "large craft" will be said instead. At this point it was only natural to drop the adjectives and use craft as a collective term for boats which, however, continued and continues to be used also for singulars. Then the apparent singular form of the word facilitates regularisation to crafts when used as a plural. Language change takes centuries, so the last step is where we are now.



    I have extrapolated all of this from the one sentence quoted above without checking any further sources, so the actual historical details may have been slightly different.



    PS: I am not claiming that when people started using "small craft" for boats the word craft was still used in the original sense of power. It may not be known what the precise original meaning of "small craft" was, and I certainly don't know. It seems possible to me that the power meaning of craft survived for longer in nautical terminology, both because such terminology is often a bit detached from evolutions in the remainder of the language, and because the seafaring part of the population presumably had more contact with German-speakers. But it's also possible that "small craft" originally referred to boats of little workmanship and that the sense shifted later.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jul 11 '15 at 5:32

























    answered Jun 30 '15 at 5:34









    Hans Adler

    3,9302817




    3,9302817








    • 1




      I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 6:09










    • @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:28










    • The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:34








    • 1




      Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:52






    • 1




      @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
      – Hans Adler
      Jul 1 '15 at 17:13














    • 1




      I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 6:09










    • @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:28










    • The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
      – rogermue
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:34








    • 1




      Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
      – Hans Adler
      Jun 30 '15 at 9:52






    • 1




      @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
      – Hans Adler
      Jul 1 '15 at 17:13








    1




    1




    I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 6:09




    I my view a nice theory, complicated and not very convincing. It is the view of etymonline/OED where there is no astonishmemt about the semantic discrepancy between power and vessel. Instead one tries to wipe away this discrepancy and offers views how "power" might have developed the sense of vessel.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 6:09












    @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:28




    @rogermue The obvious explanation for this approach by the experts would be that they have a good overview of possible candidates unrelated to craft in other European languages, and there aren't any. Besides, this kind of meaning shift happens all the time even today. E.g. burg[h]er originally referred to a citizen of a town; now it refers to meat, especially embedded in bread (via 'Hamburg steaks' and fast food).
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:28












    The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:34






    The experts say "probably" as to the meaning of boat. But why should a word that means boat not have a normal plural? Don't overestimate what you find in etymological dictionaries.
    – rogermue
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:34






    1




    1




    Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:52




    Experts are used to being proved wrong later in situations where they were just speculating, so they don't claim an etymology as fact unless the entire chain of changes is documented with each link not just plausible but fitting a well established pattern (i.e. lots of other words changed the same way). A word meaning boat doesn't have a normal plural, for instance, if it came up in the same way as small fry for fish.
    – Hans Adler
    Jun 30 '15 at 9:52




    1




    1




    @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
    – Hans Adler
    Jul 1 '15 at 17:13




    @YohannV.: The way I envisaged it (fry = frying goods), it would not have occurred in such a context, and certainly not with a plural. But a glance into the OED has made me wiser.
    – Hans Adler
    Jul 1 '15 at 17:13










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Fish<=> fish... Why is it fishers instead of Fisher isn't da plural form of fish, fish?????? Fisherman= fishermen fishersmen and fishersman is incorrect but why add an an s if fishermen go fishing for fish???
    Fry, fries, and frying was not a good example






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Fish<=> fish... Why is it fishers instead of Fisher isn't da plural form of fish, fish?????? Fisherman= fishermen fishersmen and fishersman is incorrect but why add an an s if fishermen go fishing for fish???
      Fry, fries, and frying was not a good example






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        Fish<=> fish... Why is it fishers instead of Fisher isn't da plural form of fish, fish?????? Fisherman= fishermen fishersmen and fishersman is incorrect but why add an an s if fishermen go fishing for fish???
        Fry, fries, and frying was not a good example






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        Fish<=> fish... Why is it fishers instead of Fisher isn't da plural form of fish, fish?????? Fisherman= fishermen fishersmen and fishersman is incorrect but why add an an s if fishermen go fishing for fish???
        Fry, fries, and frying was not a good example







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 16 mins ago









        Carlania Leday

        1




        1




        New contributor




        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Carlania Leday is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f255727%2fwhy-is-the-plural-of-aircraft-not-aircrafts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            迪纳利

            南乌拉尔铁路局