Originally Posted By: twosleepy
Originally Posted By: latishya
Originally Posted By: mitchpowell
I don't know a lot of French


Which does not seem particularly relevant to a discussion of the Latin phrase sui generis. Since the phrase is not French, why would it pronounced as if it were?

This comment does not seem particularly relevant to the question asked by mitchpowell. Since he (?) thought it was French, he also thought it would be pronounced as French. If he knew it was Latin, he wouldn't have posted at all. What is the point of highlighting the fact that he didn't know it was Latin? Yes, the email does say "From Latin", however that does not necessarily mean it is Latin.

mitchpowell: Welcome to the board! I don't know a lot of French, either. You've got good company. I do know some Latin, but I can see how "sui", which I did not recognize, might look like French to some. This phrase is new to me.

President Obama used another phrase which illustrates the kind that always bugs me: "...the only people that really know are the collection of ex-Presidents we have." It sounds wrong to me. I am wanting to put "in" or "part of" after "are": "...the only people that really know are in/part of the collection of ex-Presidents we have." Any comments?


3 PART COMMENT:

1) I totally agree with 2sleepy's read on this.

2) MY first response to sui generis was: If this is Word for a Day, when did it become 2 words for a day? Is Anu bending the rules because it's an expression from a foreign language? Does he sometimes have a two word WORD in english as well? JUST WONDERING...

3) On your final comment sleepy, I was wondering, do you prefer "data are" or "data is"?

I'm slowly getting used to data are, having been committed to "data is", for years. Apparently the Times still uses both. The example you were wondering about seems more natural for me to use the plural because the reference to the "collection of ex-presidents". With data, I guess I've always been used to viewing it as singular.