This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article needs fixing up.

Bad grammar notwithstanding, I don't get the second paragraph at all. Why would you consider the dative plural -n- suffix as a null allomorph? That in the singular, the dative -e- ending is archaic and very much nowadays high literary if used at all, but still extant, and so where omitted can be considered a null allomorph makes sense, but the dative plural -n- declension is never omitted in native Germanic words.

This sentence is really confounding: If these endings (which endings exactly?) are nevertheless considered zero allomorphs of the plural suffix -n (which plural suffix -n-? The dative one in the case of words such as Finger and Hammer? But that is the only apparent ending.)

There seems to be serious confusion in the way this passage has been constructed.

Words that end in -er- usually (except for some feminine gender nouns like Mutter, Schwester, Leber) have a null morpheme/allomorph (?) as their plural in every case other than the dative:

• NOM/ACC/GEN: Der Finger; die/der Finger-Ø
• NOM/ACC/GEN: Der Hammer; die/der Hammer-Ø

In the dative you might get away with saying that a null allomorph (if you're not reading it as a null morpheme which I would) precedes the obligatory dative plural -n- inflection

• DAT: Dem Finger; den Finger-Ø-n
• DAT: Dem Hammer; den Hammer-Ø-n

Is that what the writer is perhaps trying to express?

But I don't think so as the writer clearly distinguishes between null morphemes and allomorphs, in which case I don't get the article at all as it stands.

Also, as for the null allomorph applying to singular dative nouns, it should be iterated that these only apply to masculine/neuter monosyllabic nouns

• NOM: Das Haus
• DAT: Zu Hause, nach Hause (stock, obligatory); im Haus-Ø (common); im Hause (archaic, lit.)

not to polysyllabic or feminine nouns - there is no such thing left in German as dative "Dem Fingere" or "Der Muttere", archaic or modern or otherwise.

I would also suggest adding examples from English such as for example "one fish; two fish-Ø - two fish-es",

You were right about the German plural forms such as Finger-Ø-n, Hammer-Ø-n etc. They were not clear examples of null allomorphs, so I have removed them. For the rest, you should for example take a look here [1] or here [2] where the important difference between null morphemes and null allomorphs is clearly explained (in German). The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

For those who are interested: I've started a new discussion about this matter on the German wiki. See de:Diskussion:Nullallomorph. The Wiki ghost (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply