2 ms·
i internalised it as the regular plural of stigma, so i'm guessing i've seen it in books. here's a 2010 Google books result from googling "societal stigmata". h
by zem 11y ago
i internalised it as the regular plural of stigma, so i'm guessing i've seen it in books. here's a 2010 Google books result from googling "societal stigmata". https://books.google.com/books?id=xXTcQ-TyK6MC&pg=PA947&lpg=PA947&dq=societal+stigmata&source=bl&ots=V3YTNA1DAL&sig=QQCL9N7_3R0JqwyjtdJmmrOMVSs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn9PuQlIfMAhUI7B4KHVxwDUIQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=societal%20stigmata&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=xXTcQ-TyK6MC&pg=PA947&lpg=...
- jnbiche 11y agoOK, well done. I'm surprised it's still used by some writers in this manner, and it's very rare. It's definitely not the regular plural of "stigma". Still, I was wrong.