Of course. People think I'm kidding...but no realli! She was Karving her initials øn the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"
Looking at some dictionaries it seems like the two right answers should be swapped. In English "The mooses" is considered incorrect because it comes from the Algonquin word, and they did not pluralize by adding an 's'. Therefore we treat it like an invariant noun and don't change it in the plural. Elk, on the other hand comes from the same root that Älg does, therefore we do add an 'S' at the end to pluralize it. However, as @jd30 has pointed out, there are some dialects of English which don't apparently use elks, but treat that verb as invariant as well. If that's the case, I wonder if that dialect does so because they're both horned ruminants. If that's one direction English is going as a language, we may want to consider bringing back a plural form of articles to distinguish. :-D
True, and also something of note is that in English we tend to refer to animals by their English name when dealing with them on the farm (swine, cow, chicken, sheep, etc) but their French name when referring to them as food: beef, poultry, mutton, pork, etc. Linguists point to this being a remnant of the Norman conquest of England. I just think it's neat. I do think that, more and more, that distinction is disappearing, but neat nonetheless.
Maybe it's because elks are so rare in my area of America, we just don't know the "proper" plural, but I've only ever heard elks as the plural here. Also, Firefox accepts elks as properly spelled and mooses as incorrect; though, to be fair, Firefox's dictionary has the vocabulary of a nine year old, so I wouldn't necessarily trust its judgment.
Elk is plural in Wisconsin as well, Elks seems to be the the plural in Maryland. Maybe the lack of "s" in the plural form is a Midwestern vernacular? As a side note, people look at you funny when you wander around Washington D.C. asking them what the plural of elk is and then asking them where they are from.
Actually, both "elks" and "elk" are correct depending on context. As a general rule, in the context of hunting, game animals have invariant plurals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Nouns_with_identical_singular_and_plural
of course there are rules. Generally /g/ at the end is silent. The rules are: pronounce as [g] as in great when preceeding a,o,u,ĺ or unstressed e. Pronounce as [j] as English y in yes before e,i,y,ä,ö and after l and r. E.g. varg - [varj] There are some consonant combinations that are read differently depending on the context (what is before and what is after). You can look here: http://www.onlineswedish.com/pronounce.php but many of the rules will become natural for you if you do the exercises and try to notice the patterns yourself.
I see your point Alec Hirschberg. However, it is correct in many (if not all) dialects of English to say "one fish", "several fish" when they are of the same species and "several fishes" when they are of multiple species as in "all the fishes in the deep blue sea", it is never correct in English (so far as I know) to say "mooses". It is quite entertaining however; almost as good as "moosen"! (Thanks pancakehiatt; I appreciated your question :-)) By the way, if "loosen" means to make something more loose, does "moosen" mean to make something more moose? Anyone game for a spot of gene splicing? :-D
Despite it technically being incorrect grammer, could you possibly add "mooses" as an accepted word, so that those of us who are trying to artificially mark plurality in our answer may do so? What is mean by this is that, for example, when I talk about mutiple fish, I say fish, but when I see fiskar come up, I write fishes, despite that not being how i speak, because it's a way to signify plurality so that I can associate fiskar with multiple fish as opposed to just one. Obviously since it's not correct grammer I can see why you wouldn't accept it, but it's just a thought.