PublicWongery:Plurals: Difference between revisions

From The Public Wongery
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Whoops... another botched pipe)
m (Does it work in lower case?)
Line 5: Line 5:
***"Ignoramus", for what it's worth, doesn't come from a Latin noun at all; it's actually from an [[Wongery:inflection|inflected]] Latin [[Wongery:verb|verb]] meaning "we do not know".  (The same Latin verb, of course, gave rise to the English "ignore".)  Given that the subject of the verb is already plural, it's hard to say how exactly the word could be further pluralized, so rather than search for a Latin plural you're probably better off just sticking with "ignoramuses".  Similarly, "omnibus" comes from the [[Wongery:dative|dative]] plural of "omnis", meaning "all", so it essentially means "for all".  Since the Latin word was already a plural, it can't really be pluralized further, so for the English plural it's probably best just to use "omnibuses".
***"Ignoramus", for what it's worth, doesn't come from a Latin noun at all; it's actually from an [[Wongery:inflection|inflected]] Latin [[Wongery:verb|verb]] meaning "we do not know".  (The same Latin verb, of course, gave rise to the English "ignore".)  Given that the subject of the verb is already plural, it's hard to say how exactly the word could be further pluralized, so rather than search for a Latin plural you're probably better off just sticking with "ignoramuses".  Similarly, "omnibus" comes from the [[Wongery:dative|dative]] plural of "omnis", meaning "all", so it essentially means "for all".  Since the Latin word was already a plural, it can't really be pluralized further, so for the English plural it's probably best just to use "omnibuses".
***There also are some words that ''do'' come from masculine second declension nouns that ''did'' pluralize in -i, but for which this plural form just never caught on in English.  "[[Wiktionary:Chorus|Chorus]]" is a case in point here... yes, the Latin plural of "chorus" was "chori", but say "chori" in English and people will look at you funny.
***There also are some words that ''do'' come from masculine second declension nouns that ''did'' pluralize in -i, but for which this plural form just never caught on in English.  "[[Wiktionary:Chorus|Chorus]]" is a case in point here... yes, the Latin plural of "chorus" was "chori", but say "chori" in English and people will look at you funny.
**Even if it does form a plural in -i, however, the "us" gets replaced by a ''single'' i, not two.  It's cacti, not cactii; nuclei, not nucleii; hippopotami, not hippopotamii.  The only time a plural will end in "-ii" is if the singular ends in "-ius", and the only reasonably common English word that generally pluralizes like that is "[[Wongery:radius|radius]]".  (There are also a few substantially rarer such words such as "[[Wiktionary:abecedarius|abecedarius]]", "[[Wiktionary:gladius|gladius]]", "[[Wiktionary:sestertius|sestertius]]", and "[[Wiktionary:trapezius|trapezius]]".)  Therefore there's no excuse at all for, for example, "virii"—"virus" doesn't form its plural in -i in the first place, but even if it did, there's no reason there should be ''two'' is.  (For similar reasons, there is absolutely no excuse for "[[MSPA:lusus|lusii]]".  Seriously, [[MSPA:Homestuck|Homestuck]] fans, knock it off.)
**Even if it does form a plural in -i, however, the "us" gets replaced by a ''single'' i, not two.  It's cacti, not cactii; nuclei, not nucleii; hippopotami, not hippopotamii.  The only time a plural will end in "-ii" is if the singular ends in "-ius", and the only reasonably common English word that generally pluralizes like that is "[[Wongery:radius|radius]]".  (There are also a few substantially rarer such words such as "[[Wiktionary:abecedarius|abecedarius]]", "[[Wiktionary:gladius|gladius]]", "[[Wiktionary:sestertius|sestertius]]", and "[[Wiktionary:trapezius|trapezius]]".)  Therefore there's no excuse at all for, for example, "virii"—"virus" doesn't form its plural in -i in the first place, but even if it did, there's no reason there should be ''two'' is.  (For similar reasons, there is absolutely no excuse for "[[mspa:lusus|lusii]]".  Seriously, [[mspa:Homestuck|Homestuck]] fans, knock it off.)
***For what it's worth, incidentally, "virus" in Latin ''had'' no plural (it was in the second declension, but neuter, not masculine), though various dubious arguments have been made for hypothetical plurals such as "vira", "vire", "virora", and "virua".In English, though, you're best off just sticking with "viruses".
***For what it's worth, incidentally, "virus" in Latin ''had'' no plural (it was in the second declension, but neuter, not masculine), though various dubious arguments have been made for hypothetical plurals such as "vira", "vire", "virora", and "virua".In English, though, you're best off just sticking with "viruses".
***"[[Wiktionary:Genius|Genius]]" can be pluralized as "genii" when used to refer to a [[Wongery:spirit]] or a [[Wongery:mythology|mythological]] entity.  In its more common usage to refer to [[Wongery:intelligence|intelligence]], though, or to a person of great skill or acumen, the usual plural is just "geniuses".
***"[[Wiktionary:Genius|Genius]]" can be pluralized as "genii" when used to refer to a [[Wongery:spirit]] or a [[Wongery:mythology|mythological]] entity.  In its more common usage to refer to [[Wongery:intelligence|intelligence]], though, or to a person of great skill or acumen, the usual plural is just "geniuses".

Revision as of 05:11, 14 January 2013

The English language has many irregular plurals, some native and some in words borrowed from other languages. Because of this irregularity, there are a number of common mistakes made with English pluralizations—some involving getting irregular plurals wrong, many involving using irregular plurals for words that in fact should be pluralized regularly, and some involving more esoteric cases. The following are a few stumbling blocks to watch out for involving English plurals, though perhaps the fundamental rule is that if you're not sure how to pluralize a word, you can get out a dictionary and look it up.

  • Do not assume that any word ending in -us necessarily forms its plural in -i. Some do (such as cactus, alumnus, syllabus, fungus, nucleus, uterus, hippopotamus); most don't (including bonus, virus, fetus, sinus, walrus, ignoramus, omnibus, platypus, census, hiatus). And a few form irregular plurals in different ways, such as opus (opera), genus (genera), and apparatus (apparatus—the plural is the same as the singular—well, sort of; in Latin the final vowel was lengthened, but that's not generally reflected in English transliterations).
    • To be specific, the "-us" to "-i" plural comes from Latin, so it only applies to English words derived from Latin. In fact, to be more specific, that pluralization form only applies to Latin masculine nouns of the second declension. There are also nouns ending in -us in the third and fourth declensions, so not even all Latin words ending in -us form their plurals with -i. ("Genus" and "opus", for instance, are third-declension Latin nouns, while "apparatus", "census", "fetus", "hiatus", and "sinus" are in the fourth declension.)
      • "Ignoramus", for what it's worth, doesn't come from a Latin noun at all; it's actually from an inflected Latin verb meaning "we do not know". (The same Latin verb, of course, gave rise to the English "ignore".) Given that the subject of the verb is already plural, it's hard to say how exactly the word could be further pluralized, so rather than search for a Latin plural you're probably better off just sticking with "ignoramuses". Similarly, "omnibus" comes from the dative plural of "omnis", meaning "all", so it essentially means "for all". Since the Latin word was already a plural, it can't really be pluralized further, so for the English plural it's probably best just to use "omnibuses".
      • There also are some words that do come from masculine second declension nouns that did pluralize in -i, but for which this plural form just never caught on in English. "Chorus" is a case in point here... yes, the Latin plural of "chorus" was "chori", but say "chori" in English and people will look at you funny.
    • Even if it does form a plural in -i, however, the "us" gets replaced by a single i, not two. It's cacti, not cactii; nuclei, not nucleii; hippopotami, not hippopotamii. The only time a plural will end in "-ii" is if the singular ends in "-ius", and the only reasonably common English word that generally pluralizes like that is "radius". (There are also a few substantially rarer such words such as "abecedarius", "gladius", "sestertius", and "trapezius".) Therefore there's no excuse at all for, for example, "virii"—"virus" doesn't form its plural in -i in the first place, but even if it did, there's no reason there should be two is. (For similar reasons, there is absolutely no excuse for "lusii". Seriously, Homestuck fans, knock it off.)
      • For what it's worth, incidentally, "virus" in Latin had no plural (it was in the second declension, but neuter, not masculine), though various dubious arguments have been made for hypothetical plurals such as "vira", "vire", "virora", and "virua".In English, though, you're best off just sticking with "viruses".
      • "Genius" can be pluralized as "genii" when used to refer to a Wongery:spirit or a mythological entity. In its more common usage to refer to intelligence, though, or to a person of great skill or acumen, the usual plural is just "geniuses".
    • Even worse is when people try to make plurals in -i of words that don't end in -us, such as "rhinoceros", "necropolis", "penis", "pelvis", or "porpoise". Not just any noun with an odd ending (or even any noun that ends in s) forms its plural in -i. There are a few words of Italian origin that do, though most of them are rarely used in English in the singular (e.g. graffiti (singular graffito), paparazzi (singular paparazzo)), and maybe a handful of miscellaneous exceptions (like the Russian-derived "zastrugi", the plural of "zastruga"), but for the most part it's only words ending in -us that form plurals in -i—and it's only a relative few of those.
      • Yes, the Wongery does pluralize "cosmos" as "cosmoi", but that's another exception; that actually is the (transliterated) plural of "cosmos" in Greek. ("Cosmoses" is certainly also a perfectly acceptable English plural, however.) Again, please don't try to assume that's a general rule and pluralize in "-oi" all words ending in "-os". "Asbestoi" and "omphaloi", if unusual, are at least etymologically defensible; "rhinoceroi", "ethoi", "pathoi", and "chaoi" are not. Technically, the Greek plurals of these last four words would be respectively "rhinocerotes", "ethe", either "pathe" or "pathea", and either "chae" or "chaea". But, again, if you have reason to pluralize them in English, you may be best off just doing it regularly. Then there's "mos", the rarely-used singular of "mores", but for that word the plural is much better known than the singular, so the chances of someone mispluralizing it as "mi" or "mii" or "moi" or "moii" seem slim...
        • The plural of "rhinoceros" in modern Greek is, indeed, "rhinoceroi". But since the word was borrowed into English from Latin, which borrowed it from ancient Greek well before modern Greek was around (and retained the ancient Greek plural), I'm not counting that as a valid excuse.
    • It should be noted that some words ending in -us that etymologically shouldn't pluralize in -i have such a plural listed in dictionaries anyway, on the basis of frequent usage. An example is "octopus"... etymologically, there's absolutely no justification for pluralizing it as "octopi". Still, "octopi" has been used often enough and for long enough that it's accepted as valid by a number of dictionaries and other authorities. Be that as it may, such misanalogistic plurals are not condoned by the Wongery style, and should not be used here. Use "octopuses", not "octopi".
      • However, it may be worth noting that even some people who do know that "octopi" is the wrong plural give the wrong reason for it, saying that it's wrong to pluralize "octopus" as "octopi" because it's a Greek word, not Latin. That's incorrect—"octopus" was originally Greek, yes, but was borrowed into Latin, and came to English via Latin rather than from Greek directly, the same as "cactus" and "hippopotamus" and several other words that do pluralize in -i. The difference is that while those originally Greek words were borrowed into Latin as second declension masculine nouns, "octopus" was borrowed as a third declension noun, and so, unlike those words, it retained its Greek plural of "octopodes" (which is occasionally used in English, but rarely, and tends to come across as pedantic; just "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable). So the reason that the correct plural of "octopus" isn't "octopi" isn't because it's a Greek word... it's because it's a third-declension Latin word.
      • Similarly, "platypuses", not "platypi"... again, "platypodes" would be the transliteration of the Greek plural, but that's even more rarely used in English than "octopodes" (even proportionately, taking into account the fact that people (aside from perhaps Australians and specialists in monotremes) have more occasion to refer to octopuses than to platypuses to begin with)).)
    • There are certain fairly common classically-derived irregular pluralizations besides the -us to -i one. Some (though not all) words ending in -a either make their plural in -ae or -æ (as in formulae, minutiae, larvae, amoebae, antennae, algae) or in -ata (as in schemata, stigmata, magmata, miasmata, anathemata). Some (though not all) words ending in -um make their plural in -a (as in fora, data, memoranda, millennia, bacteria, candelabra, errata, desiderata, paramecia, media, phyla); so do some (though not all) words ending in -on (as in phenomena, criteria, automata, mitochondria). Some (though not all) words ending in -is make their plural in -es (as in crises, theses, testes, diagnoses, parentheses, penes). Other (though few) words ending in -is make their plural in -idis (such as chrysalides, irides, dermatitides). Some (though not all) words ending in -ex or -ix make their plural in -ices (as in indices, codices, helices, appendices, matrices, phoenices). Some (though not all) words ending in -nx make their plural in -nges (such as larynges, pharynges, phalanges, sphinges). But rather than guess what rule may apply, it's usually the safest bet to assume, if you're not sure, that the plural is regular—if you don't know and can't find out, just add -s or -es; don't try to do anything exotic with -i or -ae or some other fancy suffix. Even for most of the words that do have irregular plurals, a regular plural in -(e)s is considered also valid, and in many—perhaps most—cases is actually more common. (Though, where correct, the irregular plural is preferred (though not mandated) according to the Wongery style.)
      • "Cyclops", by the way, is another word with an unusual plural. No, of course it's not "cyclopi"—the plural is actually "cyclopes".
      • An unusual plural form that doesn't come from Greek or Latin applies to many French words ending in -eau, such as "beaux" and "plateaux". Again, however, in English pluralization in -s is also acceptable.
  • With regards to the plurals of proper nouns ending in s, such as, oh, Cyrus, or Jones, there are two alternatives that are supported by different authorities. One is to leave the plural the same as the singular: "The Jones are coming to dinner". Another is to add an "es": "The Joneses are coming to dinner." For the Wongery style, the latter is preferred. What is absolutely not correct by any authority, however, is to add an apostrophe, with or without an s afterward: "The Jones' are coming to dinner" or "The Jones's are coming to dinner" is just plain wrong.
    • In fact, really, an apostrophe is never the right way to make a plural. It's not the 2010's; you don't mind your p's and q's; you don't count by 10's. It's the 2010s, you mind your ps and qs, and you can count by 10s.
      • Okay, many grammatical authorities do differ on this. While using an apostrophe for a plural is absolutely wrong for most words, and certainly for anything with more than three letters, some grammatical authorities do permit it for numerals (but not for spelled-out numbers), for single letters, and for certain very short words such as "no" and "if". But the Wongery convention is that the apostrophe is not to be used even in these cases. (Yes, that may lead to potential ambiguity between, for instance "as" as in more than one a, and "as" as in "as in". But it's not as if the English language (or any language) is otherwise free from potential ambiguities anyway, and only in very unusual cases would it not be clear from the context which was meant.)
  • Don't use a plural as a singular. In particular, there are a lot of Greek or Latin plurals ending in -a that are often mistakenly used as singulars. (They've already been mentioned above, but it's worth bringing them up again here.) Probably the most commonly misused is "data"—"data" is actually a plural, so it's not correct, for instance, to say "the data is compelling";—it would be "the data are compelling". (The singular is "datum", though it's much less often used. A datum is a single piece of data.) Other plurals often mistakenly used as singulars are "criteria" (singular "criterion"), "bacteria" (singular "bacterium"), "algae" (singular "alga"), and "phenomena" (singular "phenomenon").
    • Also, "fungi" is a plural, so the pun "I'm a fungi" doesn't make sense. Yes, we realize it's a joke, but if a joke requires such a contrived grammatical strain, it's kind of a stupid joke. Especially if you're about the fifty thousandth person to use it. Guys, even if was funny the first time, it's really lost its novelty by now.
    • An occasionally similarly misused word not ending in -a or coming from classical roots is "dice". Again, "dice" is a plural; the singular is "die". There's no such thing as "a dice", any more than there's such a thing as "a children". (Well, technically, "dice" exists as an obsolete Scottish form of "dais", so "a dice" could be correct in that sense, but unless you're a nineteenth-century Caledonian that's almost certainly not what you mean.)
    • Along similar lines, there are some words that end in -s in both plural and singular; don't try to "singularize" them by chopping off the s. (This is sometimes called a double singular.) One of the biggest offenders here is "Homo sapiens"; the "-s" is not a plural marker, and there is no such thing as a "Homo sapien", any more than there's a "serie" or a "crisi". Similarly, "kudos" is already singular; you can't give someone a kudo. (Should one want to pluralize "kudos" for whatever reason, it would, according to the Greek third declension to which the original word belonged, pluralize the same as "chaos" and "pathos"; that is, the plural would be "kude" or "kudea".) Other words occasionally mistakenly regarded as plural and doubly singularized include "congeries", "biceps", "triceps", "forceps", and "species". ("Specie" is a word, but it's not the singular of "species", in the taxonomic sense; that's already a singular.)
    • There are, however, some words that were originally plurals but have now become well established as singulars in English. "Agenda", for instance, started out as the plural of the now-rare word "agendum"—referring to a single necessary task—but has now become established as a (singular) word in its own right. Likewise "opera"—which, as mentioned above, is the plural of "opus", but which also (with a different meaning) has become a singular English word. "Wiktionary:Insignia" and "stamina" were plural in Latin (the singulars being "īnsigne" and "stāmen"), but are singular in English. Nevertheless, while the same fate may eventually befall some of the other plurals mentioned here, the Wongery isn't interested in being in the vanguard of this sort of linguistic change, so we'll stick with leaving plurals as plurals and not turning those into singulars that haven't already been firmly established as such.
  • If a word has an unusual ending, it is not clever or funny to give it a plural in -i followed by a question mark, to acknowledge that you are not sure whether or not it really has a plural in -i and to wink at what a wacky language we have. If you really are not sure whether or not it has a plural in -i, you can look it up. (And if you really are sure, well then why are you pretending not to be? Seriously, it isn't witty. It's just annoying.)
    • Yeah, some noted writers have done something like this. I found it annoying when Thomas Pynchon kept writing "stewardii" in Inherent Vice, too. (I guess in his defense maybe it was intended to reflect the quirky mindset of his viewpoint character, and it was supposed to be annoying. Still... well, it was annoying.)
  • And, to address a commonly expressed pluralizational conundrum, yes, the plural of "mongoose" is just "mongooses".

See also