When is a YART not a YART? I suggest that a word which has not been posted for over a
years bears repetition, because so many new members will not have seen it. Shanks used
such a word a year and a half ago, and Byb repeated it, but neither gave a definition. So
it seems permissible to mention it again and give a definition from article in DISCOVER:
?Gallileo...in 1610....was amazed to find that the Milky Way was in fact 'a congeries of
innumerable stars distributed in clusters' "
As a quibble, it seems to be used only in the plural. But does that make it permissible to speak
of "a congeries" ?
Without looking anything up, is it possible that congeries is singular?
Ha! Went and looked it up. Not unlike series, congeries is both singular and plural.
Dear Faldage: Interesting. Can you think of others in this class?
A "menagerie" is a collection, but although my dictionary doesn't say so,
I presume the plural would be "menageries".
others in this class
Right off the top my head, species is the onliest one pops. I notice they all end in -ies.
In cricket, innings is singular and, I think, plural, too. Any cricket fans out there reading this? Rube? Rhube?
Course, if you just mean words that are their own plurals, many animal names qualify. Sheep, deer, moose, etc.
and then there are peas, which used to be pease (as a singular) but the singular got turned into pea.
and the same hold for cherries.. which used to be singular, and but in time the singular morphed into cherry. the french for cherries is cerice (which is also an english word for a rich medium red)
Are there others?
others in this classhttp://members.aol.com/gulfhigh2/words14.html (page down a bit)
also YART® is its own plural (yet additional rehashed topics).
Any cricket fans out there reading this? Rube? Rhube?
Well, not eggzacly a cricket fan but, yes, you are right:
"This is the first innings that Grace has played in this match."
"How many innings have the Indian side played so far?"
An interesting concept, to be at once singular and plural. Where does "apparatus" fit in this schema? It isn't really "just another" collective noun, but one is hard put to decide on a sensible plural.
Good one, wofahulicodoc: The dictionary gives a plural, but I have never seen or heard
it used.When I speak of apparatus, I think of one or more pieces of equipment that require
additional tools or supplies.
wunderkind/wunderkinder
In the German this takes the new form in the plural, but it English I believe it just takes the s, wunderkinds, just like in one kind or many kinds. Kindergarten was co-opted directly from the German so that doesn't support the -er suffix.
Hmm...does that make kindergartners a redundant plural?
kindergartners !!
Is this what children use to hold there snocks up?
In reply to:
An interesting concept, to be at once singular and plural. Where does "apparatus" fit in this schema? It isn't really "just another" collective noun, but one is hard put to decide on a sensible plural.
Huh? Since when is "apparatus" a collective noun? You could have one apparatus or two apparati, right? Or am I on crack?
You could have one apparatus or two apparati, right? Or am I on crack?
On the other hand, a pair a twos equals four - or else is the start of a low value prile.
>You could have one apparatus or two apparati, right? Or am I on crack?
according to the apparatus of both major sets of lexicographers, you would appear to be cracked in some manner. the plural is given as apparatuses or apparatus, US preference; other way, UK. (OED does mark the plural as "rare".)
actually, it works much like 'furniture'.
...one apparatus or two apparati, right?
Not sure that's the right paradigm even in the original Latin. I recall being told that apparatus is something like a fifth declension noun, and so the plural is not -us, -i but rather -us, -us with a long u, whatever that is.
Anybody left among us who knows Latin? Mine is only by osmosis, and I would jump at the opportunity to be better informed...
fifth declension noun, and so the plural is not -us, -i but rather -us, -usIf it is 5th declension I think the nominative plural would be
apparates but I won't swear. My noun decliner on my machine here at work only goes up to 3rd declension. The genitive singular would be
apparatus. Lessee what AHD has to say, if anything useful.
FWIW, it lists the plurals (it has two) as
apparatus and
apparatuses. When giving the Latin it doesn't use a long
u in the
-us suffix and I believe the
-us in the nominative singular has a long
u.
Well, I went here (
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=apparat&ending=us) and it looks like it's 4th declension, but the plural would be
apparatus.
Yup. It's 4th declension and the plural is apparatus with a long u. The singular is with a short u.
>You could have one apparatus or two apparati, right? Or am I on crack?And you could have one Jazzoctopus or two Jazzoctupi, right?
Ergo, one architectus or two architecti.
two architectiooo. . . I think I'll have to adopt that.
BOHICA. I think you-all are
architecting new rules for this ol' language...(hi, tsuwm).
(hi Jackie). [nothing nonsubstantial to add to an already post-insubstantial thread]
...you could have one Jazzoctopus or two Jazzoctupi, right? I thought we had decided that the plural of octopus was hexadecipus. 'Scuse me while I go look it up...
Edit: Yup.
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=73959
the plural of octopus was hexadecipus
Umm, that's the dual. The plural would be tetradodecormoripus
tetradodecormoripus
Oh, come on now, Faldage...everybody knows a tetradodecormoripus was a cat-like bony fish with four tails that swam the Devonian seas using a motion similar to the modern cormorant (a bird)...go figure.
two architectiooo. . . I think I'll have to adopt that. Uh, 'scuse me Jazzo, but...architecti
®©. The contract's in the mail.