A current suggestion in the variationist literature is that the predominance of forms like we was in nonstandard varieties of English is predictable in that was-generalization represents a case of the “default singular.” I argue that while the principle of the default singular is a sound one, it is not appropriate as an explanation for was-generalization. What is involved is not a matter of singular versus plural but of r-forms of the past tense of to be versus s-forms, with forms like were, war , wor representing the r-variant and was, wiz , wus the s-variant. The ancient Germanic s/r alternation has been leveled out in most dialects over the past millennium. Examination of Germanic dialects shows that in very many cases, it is the r-forms that have survived. If some general principle were at work, we would expect s-forms to predominate. The history of the Germanic dialects as a whole shows that we are dealing with analogical leveling that does not especially favor either the s-forms or the r-forms. The term default singular has no explanatory value in this case.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.