Re: Adopting a plural

On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, at 09:46 , John Cowan wrote:

> Andreas Johansson scripsit:
>
>> Given that _virii_ apparently is meant to be a pl of _virus_ (which in
>> Latin
>> pluralizes as _vira_), I suspect Jeffrey supposedly wrote wrong forms,
>> suggesting he intends to use that in the conlang too.
>
> In fact, _virus_ 'slime, poison, stench' is a mass noun not recorded in
> the plural.  It's generally thought to have been a 2nd-declension neuter
> with the irregular ending -us, but the evidence is equivocal.
I wasn't aware that it was equivocal. Of course with the Gen., Dat., &
Able. the neuter & masculine forms are identical. It can be equivocal if
and only if:
- either: a clear example is found found of an accusative *uirum.
- or: a clear example is found of a masculine adjective agreeing with the
nominative case.

I am not saying that no such examples exist, only that I am not aware of
them. I thought all the extant examples confirmed it was a 2nd decl.
neuter like _uulgus_ and _pelagus_. It's true that _uulgus_ is sometimes
treated as a masculine, but most writers treated it as a neuter noun; but
I wasn't aware of similar hesitation with _uirus_.

>> Anyway, I thought it should be _octopodes_?
>
> Indeed.  And _rhinocerotes_, too.  But in English it's viruses, octupuses,
> and rhinoceroses (or just rhinos).
>
> But I took the original examples like "virii" to be about *misapplied*
> foreign plural endings;
So did I.

> other such words would be "agendae" and "hoodla".
Ouch! I assume "hoodla" is intentionally humorous or facetious - that one'
s amusing. But 'agendae' - ach y fi! A plural of a plural! How long before
we meet "datae"?

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Replies