|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1 |
Words that appear plural but aren't: Species. Many scientists have started referring to a "specie", in an incorrect attempt to avoid using the plural. But "species" is a Latin 5th-declension noun. In the 5th declension, both the singular and plural end in -es.
Words that appear singular but aren't: 1. Apparatus. Some scientists find "apparatuses" too awkward, so they try to form the plural as "apparati". But there are two types of Latin nouns ending in -us. Second declension nouns form the plural by changing -us to -i. But for fourth declension nouns the singular and plural are the same -- both end in -us. Generally -us nouns that originate as participles ("apparatus" means "prepared") are fourth declension nouns. So according to Latin rules, the plural of "apparatus" is "apparatus".
2. Data (plural of datum). The data ARE (not is) consistent....
3. Lots of Italian words related to food: zucchini (singular zucchina) broccoli (singular broccolo) raviolo spaghetto etc etc
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Related to this are the faux Latinate plurals for opus, as *opii and virus as *virii. The real Latin plurals are opera and ... there is no plural for virus.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655
addict
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655 |
And let's not forget graffiti and the camp "campi" as the plural of campus.
My question is, Once these words enter English, how obligated are we to follow the original language in pluralization - or, for that matter, any aspect of their use, including their original meaning? We agreed among ourselves centuries ago to communicate in a language not burdened with fourth declensions and such, so why are we occasionally fixated with these in Modern English?
Tangentially: Biological taxonomic names at the genus level and below are considered Latin words and are (well, should be) treated as such; above the genus level, they are treated as English words (or the vulgate of any country) and, despite their clear Latin and Greek origins, there is no non-Ehglish grammatical structure applied to them.
"I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy. And, frankly, I don't care." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132 |
My question is, Once these words enter English, how obligated are we to follow the original language in pluralization - or, for that matter, any aspect of their use, including their original meaning? Good question. I guess we're as obligated as we want to be... for instance the usual plural of forum is forums and not fora, and data is often used as a singular mass noun. zucchini, broccoli, spaghetti are often used with singular verbs. very was borrowed from a French word meaning "true". There are a lot of words that are plural in their original languages but that are uncontroversially singular in English: agenda, erotica, opera, candelabra, paraphernalia, trivia, graffiti, candelabra, stamina. The belief that we must look to another language to discover how to use English words is known as the etymological fallacy.
Last edited by goofy; 06/12/10 12:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
My question is, Once these words enter English, how obligated are we to follow the original language in pluralization - or, for that matter, any aspect of their use, including their original meaning? We agreed among ourselves centuries ago to communicate in a language not burdened with fourth declensions and such, so why are we occasionally fixated with these in Modern English?
Not at all. I just find it funny that somebody would say virii instead of the much simpler and regular viruses. Same with octopuses, instead of the Graeco-Latinate octopodes. Or the exquisite ignorami for ignoramuses. The later is actually not even a noun in Latin, but a 1st person plural verb.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5 |
I'm mostly with Goofy on this point, except that the sense of "obligation" rubs me a bit wrong: the question is (as it almost always should be), "What communicates smoothly and gets across the speaker's ideas - rather than draws attention to the speaker's choice of strange and awkward words." Of course, we who come daily to "A.Word.A.Day" delight in messing with weird words (singular OR plural); our more normal friends consider us "word weirdos", and we live with that. In this regard, I found taxis, congeries, shambles and kudos worth attention and study . . . but you want WEIRD? "STARETS" is a damned WEIRD RINGER and should NOT have been in this list! First, I don't see it in any modern English dictionary (yet it is in the now old Merriam Webster's 3rd Unabridged), nor is it in my Apple Dictionary (from the "Dock" at the side of my MacPro's screen, though it IS in Wikipedia (where it should be, but Wiki is not a dictionary). In Russian, the word is "старец" and means "elder". Note that last letter "ц": it is sounded like the "-ts" in "cats" and when transliterated makes "starets" looks as if the original word ends in "s", and will fool an innocent into supposing it might be a plural. There is not even the sound of "s" in the original, and the word is therefore a RINGER. But worst of all, who has even heard of this silly word? Test: see if you have even 1 friend who knows it! Then, to cap the absurdity, we're supposed to know that the proper plural is "startsy": the absurdity progresses, because only those of us who have studied the Russian language will know how to form that plural. This word is worth attention in Russian, because "elders" enjoy a status over there which elders here absolutely do NOT enjoy...another reason that "starets" is a ringer, a weirdly-ringing ringer. Beck123 is obviously a conscientious person and wants to use proper plurals; will we find anyone who will teach Beck that it's "startsy"?
Chuckledore (technically a "stranger", but while I'm strange, I don't really feel like a stranger here. . .)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I'm mostly with Goofy on this point Generally a good move in matters linguistic. First, I don't see it in any modern English dictionary You might could wanna get you a better modern English dictionary. It's in AHD4. Beck123 is obviously a conscientious person and wants to use proper plurals; will we find anyone who will teach Beck that it's "startsy"? Not around here you won't. Not in English, anyway. Meanwhile, welcome to the mad house.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
It's in AHD4.It's also in the OED2 (online). It's also in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary 4th ( link). See Outlook's output ( link). Goodness, it's even in Encarta. Basicially it's in every dictionary I use, except the last mentioned herein above. But worst of all, who has even heard of this silly word?Uh, I have. So, I've read a lot of Russian history. The first citation in the OED2 is from 1923. Long enough to be brought into the English family of words, word or otherwise. Another great word from Russian (although it ultimately comes from Latin) is intelligentsia. It's been in English slightly longer than starets, by a decade or two, that its pronunciation has changed from a hard g (/g/) as in the Russian to a soft one (/ʤ/) as is usually the case before an e.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5 |
I'm intrigued by the variety of responses to my ringer-spiel about "starets"! 1. From CarpalTunnel Faldage: "Welcome to the mad house." Thank you for that! 2. From Journeyman Goofy: "The belief that we must look to another language to discover how to use English words is known as the etymological fallacy." Now that helps me see in better proportion why "starets" is a ringer: no matter how many CarpalTunnel types like zmjezhd have found that word while reading Russian History, or how many of their dictionaries may show that word, starets to ME remains a ringer because I don't believe people can use it. If you work it into a conversation, a listener will say, "Star-WHAT?", and you've lost him. 3. From Enthusiast Beck123: "We agreed among ourselves centuries ago to communicate in a language not burdened with ... declensions and such, so why are we occasionally fixated with these in Modern English?" EXACTLY the right question, and posed more eloquently than my ranting about RINGERS. 4. From Stranger Chuckledore: Of course zmjezhd is right that STARETS appears in archival tomes like the OED, and I misspoke when I put to CarpalTunnel types the question, "WHO has even heard of this silly word?"... I should have asked, "WHO of you has ever USED this word?" You'll excuse me; I should have told you where I'm coming from! HINT: I just counted the number of Russian dictionaries on the wall to the right of my MacPro: there are 68. I am an interpreter/translator (E-R and R-E). In my work, I focus on IDEAS, not words (in interpreting one has no time for words: you hear and see pictures and ideas: one paragraph is one idea). You REJECT words that your experience says will be trouble-makers: If I hear "starets" in Russian, I'll likely render it as "spiritual advisor", though it'll depend on context..... but I CERTAINLY won't come up with the supposedly English word "starets" because it's a damned ringer and I'll get glared at. Interpreters are supposed to be essentially invisible; we may never ever attract attention to ourselves: we must remain demure and shy, inconspicuously filtering out RINGERS while rushing to finish the paragraph . . . and avoid getting glared at. Thus I will predictably get into more and more trouble with CarpalTunnel types, assuming I do not first get ejected from this company for myself being too much of a ringer . . .
Chuckledore (technically a "stranger", but while I'm strange, I don't really feel like a stranger here. . .)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655
addict
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655 |
I'd like to bring this back to the original question: words that appear plural but aren't. The word "trousers" and all words related to nethergarb are inevitably written in the plural, yet each is clearly one article of clothing. I know - there are two pant legs. Well, blouses and jackets have two sleeves (a perfect analogy both sartorially and in the underlying biology) but are not referred to in the plural. Pants, pantalones, shorts, undies, tightie-whities, briefs, boxers, etc. Why?
And then there are the utensils that have two parts, yet are demonstrably one item: pliers, clippers, shears, tweezers, scissors, etc.
For many of these, in both classes, the duality is accentuated by referring to a single item as a "pair." A pair of compasses? I've always found that unusual.
"I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy. And, frankly, I don't care." - Anonymous
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,580
Members9,187
|
Most Online3,341 Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
0 members (),
332
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|