Re: There's no such word as `virii'

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 00:48:48 MDT

  • Next message: John K Clark: "Re: "Hysteria, Thy Name is SARS""

    > (Damien Broderick <damienb@unimelb.edu.au>):
    > It's like fingernails down a blackboard, it's like it's for its and its for
    > it's, but stupider, so here's the thing again:
    >
    > As Lee Crocker pointed out the other day, the plural of `virus' is
    > `viruses', damn it. If you wish to swagger and show how much Latin you
    > know, and sound all medical and hi-tech, and like that, the plural is `viri'.
    >
    > NOT `virii'.
    >
    > To make a plural from a word ending with the suffix -us, take it off and
    > add the suffix -i to the stem. Not two, three or more, just the one. It's
    > simple! It's time-saving! It preserves otherwise wasted pixels!

    That's true of most neuter Latin nouns, but "virus" is in a declension where
    most neuter nouns don't have plurals, and there is /no/ attested Latin plural
    for "virus"--it appears only in the singular, like "gunk" in English.

    So, while "viri" is a more educated, erudite mistake than "virii", it's
    still a mistake. "Viruses" is the /only/ plural.

    And don't get me started on "octopus", which isn't Latin at all. :-) 

    -- 
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 14 2003 - 00:59:30 MDT