Re: Bad Latin

At 11:37 pm +0000 12/2/01, kam@CARROT.CLARA.NET wrote:
>I may have missed it, but has anyone mentioned "octopi" ("octopii" ??)
>yet?
Nope - but it's yet another example of bad Latin.  The actual Latin plural
is _octopodes_

>I once saw "octopods" in the title of a scientific paper.
'twas once an acceptable English plural, like _chrysalids_ as the plural of
_chrysalis_ (Latin: chrysalis ~ chrysalides).

Both these words, however, were borrowed by Latin from Greek where the
eight-tentacled molusc is _oktopous_.

>Somehow adding the English -s plural to words that already end in <s>
>seems a bit messy and uncertain.
buses, asses, businesses, crosses, bosses, compasses,
Christmases, caucuses, trespasses.........

Don't see the problem.

>I always want to keep duplicating the
><s> -- octopusississis ...
This was not uncommon in rural dialects of southern England, with the
result that in earlier times the Biblical _pharises_ got confused with
_fairies_  - (not kidding!)

>.........So the tendency to extend the < -us / -i >
>pattern from Latin loans may help to remove this sort of uncertainty.
But produces other uncertainty when non-Latin plurals result.

[....]
>
>And while I'm here what about the "Pentium"? "Pention" surely?
If 'pentium' were really Latin, 'pention' would simply be the Greek
singular.  The plural in both languages would be: _pentia_

Ray.



=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================