Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#117373 - 12/10/03 02:21 AM viruses
Jenet Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/22/03
Posts: 81
I agree 100% it should be viruses, nothing else.

It is an interesting question what it would have been in Latin. Did they ever write aquae, lactes? From the look of it, if it was neuter it would have to have taken -a, and I can't see anything in the stem except vir- (there's an adjective vir-osus meaning slimy), so it would have to be vira if they'd chosen to make one. It's a long i, so it's different from vir = man.


Top
#117374 - 12/10/03 05:43 AM Re: viruses
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13803
it should be viruses, nothing else.

Certainly in English. Max's link raises the question of how to handle it in its new meaning if you are writing a treatise in Latin about viruses. Since it's no longer uncountable you don't have the luxury of ignoring the plural and viruses ain' gone hack it.

PS

Welcome, Jenet, stranger no more.


Top
#117375 - 12/10/03 06:27 AM Re: viruses
Capfka Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 1624
Loc: Utter Placebo, Planet Reebok
Oh, as I said in my first response in this thread, in English it should undoubtedly be viruses. Can you imagine a doctor saying "Well, your offspring has come down with one of two or three candidate viri?" I think not ...

But it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Bingley, the Notre Dame entry specified virus -i, which means it's (a) second dec and (b) either masculine or feminine. The "n" in their dictionary is the part of speech - noun.

I would imagine that it pretty much fitted into the class of uncountable nouns, although there must have been occasions when a plural was necessary. In that case I would imagine that either the singular form was used in a plural context in the same way we use "sheep" as both singular and plural, or the assumption was made that it was second dec and fitted the "normal" formation for plurals. Or some completely different word was substituted, I suppose.


Top
#117376 - 12/10/03 08:45 AM Re: Virii again
birdfeed Offline
member

Registered: 11/19/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Atlanta, GA
"The print in our OED has gotten too small for me to read"

I don't know anything about Latin noun declensions, but I can solve this problem for you. Stop washing that thang in hot water. Didn't your mama teach you nothin', girl?


Top
#117377 - 12/10/03 03:22 PM Re: viruses
Jenet Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/22/03
Posts: 81
I felt really silly after dutifully consulting both a pocket paper dictionary and an on-line one and blithely accepting that "n.". After a while I realised I had no idea at all whether it stood for noun or neuter. In my paper dictionary the adjectives are marked a. but some nouns are marked f. -- not n.f. just f. So I think it's saying virus is neuter, not just a noun.

or the assumption was made that it was second dec and fitted the "normal" formation for plurals

But this is the very question at issue. What is the "normal" plural for a subclass where no normal examples are known? There are no normal second declension neuters with plurals! Very careless of them, I must say. It's not as if they're semantically ruled out, is it? If Greek words like whale and sea can fit in, and they have plurals, why shouldn't Latin have had them? Or, on the other hand, what on earth is a 2nd.decl. neuter doing with the ending -us?

But my claim is that he "normal" plural would have to be -a, if it's neuter.


Top
#117378 - 12/10/03 03:28 PM And while we're at it...
AnnaStrophic Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 03/15/00
Posts: 6511
Loc: lower upstate New York
what did the Romans take to be a virus anyway?


Top
#117379 - 12/10/03 03:44 PM Re: Cogitating, er, go somewhere else?
sjmaxq Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/20/03
Posts: 3230
Loc: Te Ika a Maui
Would this be a fair summary?
The word "virus", as used in English, is truly an English word, and should therefore be pluralised acording to English rules. Further, the Latin word "virus" had no known plural, therefore any who say that the "real" Latin plural of "virus" (in the modern sense of an individual pathogen) is viri, virii, vriacalifragilisticexpialidoci, or whatever, are in fact, just bloviating.

_________________________
noho ora mai
http://maxqnzs.com/References.html

Top
#117380 - 12/10/03 05:44 PM Re: Cogitating, er, go somewhere else?
Capfka Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 1624
Loc: Utter Placebo, Planet Reebok
No, no, Faldage suggested that it might be one of the class of Latin nouns which don't take a plural. There's no proof that this is the case, and the Notre Dame dictionary entry suggests that, in fact, it does take a plural and conforms to the regular Latin second declension noun formation rules.

Jenet is suggesting that s/he thinks it's a neuter noun. I'm saying that I don't think it is. I think it's either masculine (most likely if it's second declension) or feminine, but NOT neuter. Since my "big-as-a-house" Latin dictionary is packed away, I can't look it up so I'm not getting dogmatic about it.

Virus, in its Latin sense, has absolutely nothing to do with viruses in English, although the English word comes from the Latin root. It means "poisoned water" or "tainted water" in Latin. You know, what happened when the Federal soldiers threw dead animals down Confederate wells in the 1860s, that kind of thing, presumably. More e.coli than ebola, if you see what I mean!


Top
#117381 - 12/10/03 05:48 PM Re: Cogitating, er, go somewhere else?
sjmaxq Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/20/03
Posts: 3230
Loc: Te Ika a Maui
Ah, in my summary, I did say that the word had no known Latin plural, which is a little different to saying it had no plural at all, no?

Anyway, thanks for confirming the core part of my attempted synopsis - "virus" as a noun to describe a biological or computer pathogen is an English word, and should be pluralised accordingly.

_________________________
noho ora mai
http://maxqnzs.com/References.html

Top
#117382 - 12/10/03 06:09 PM Re: bad water
AnnaStrophic Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 03/15/00
Posts: 6511
Loc: lower upstate New York
It means "poisoned water" or "tainted water" in Latin.

Thanks, Pfranz.


Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  Jackie 
Forum Stats
8745 Members
16 Forums
13809 Topics
215467 Posts

Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
Newest Members
Johnreed28, Lakshman, dcsteve, Jorg, SouthernBelle
8745 Registered Users
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 27 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters (30 Days)
endymion6 111
LukeJavan8 92
wofahulicodoc 77
A C Bowden 48
Tromboniator 6
TitoMatito 2
tuhin 2
FoFong 1
chicablanca 1
tsuwm 1
Top Posters
wwh 13858
Faldage 13803
Jackie 11609
tsuwm 10523
Buffalo Shrdlu 7210
LukeJavan8 6580
AnnaStrophic 6511
Wordwind 6296
of troy 5400
BranShea 5282

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 2014 Wordsmith