Extending “once, twice, thrice”
Oxford claims that “there is nothing after once, twice, thrice:” fuck that.
It turns out that “once,” “twice” and the like are based on the composition of an ancient numerical adverb with the adverbial genitive suffix -s (see table 1).
Ancient adverb | Adverbial genitive | Modern adverb | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
ene | + | -s | \(\to\) | once |
twie | + | -es | \(\to\) | twice |
thrie | + | -s | \(\to\) | thrice |
With a little philological Schadenfreude, we can continue this series (see table 2).
Ancient adverb | Adverbial genitive | Modern adverb | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
féower | + | -s | \(\to\) | fource |
fíf | + | -es | \(\to\) | fives |
sexe | + | -es | \(\to\) | sixes |
seofon | + | -s | \(\to\) | sevence |
ehte | + | -s | \(\to\) | eights |
neȝen | + | -s | \(\to\) | nines |
tyen | + | -s | \(\to\) | tence |
Coming up with novel compounds is the ancient pastime of dabbling philologasters;1 more difficult is selling them to an intransigent public.
Addendum
It would be nice to retro-extend the series to the zeroeth element, “nonce”; but that’s already been taken by a composition of “one’s” genitive, aness, with the adverbial suffix -s.
Footnotes:
“Philologaster” (a pseudo-philologist) comes from philologue + -aster: a suffix expressing incomplete resemblance.