3 ms·

I agree, it’s time we stop pushing words like “cacti” and just accept the inevitable English-ication of words and say “cactuses”. This is a tangent to the arti

I agree, it’s time we stop pushing words like “cacti” and just accept the inevitable English-ication of words and say “cactuses”. This is a tangent to the article, but along these lines people love correcting “octopuses” as “octopi”, but “octopus” isn’t a Latin word, it’s Greek, so the “-i” ending isn’t correct.

pmiller2 6y ago
"Virus" is also a word that frequently gets pluralized incorrectly, if you're thinking of it as a Latin word used in an English context. The only plural form that makes sense in English is "viruses," mostly because the Latin form actually has no plural. [0] That doesn't stop people from writing "virii," however. Both "octopi [1]" and "virii" are examples of linguistic hypercorrection [2], in which a speaker misapplies a known linguistic rule that seems to fit, but does not. Neither of these examples are attested in the source language the word derives from; people literally use them just to sound smart, most of the time. Other examples are using "whom" in places where the correct word would be "who," not using a preposition to end a sentence or clause with [3], and to not split infinitives [4]. --- [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Etymology [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection [2]: I kinda like "octopodes" myself, but that may just be me. [3]: Winston Churchill is frequently quoted saying something like "this is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put." This is most likely apocryphal. See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-prepositi... [4]: My favorite origin theory for this one is basically "you couldn't do it in Latin, so don't do it in English." Early grammarians frequently took inspiration from Latin, because its grammar was already well-codified, mostly due to it being a dead-ish language. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#The_argument_from_classical_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#The_argument_...
cgriswald 6y ago
I think it’s fine to say or write -es or -I in general usage. I think it’s also fine to prefer one or the other in contextual usage. And I think it’s fair to roll ones eyes at people making a big deal of it. But it’s incorrect to say octopus is not a Latin word. That’s like saying utensil isn’t a French word. It is, and it came to English from Latin through French. Octopus came to English through Latin from Greek. It’s a Latin word and it’s a Greek word. So, I don’t think it’s a consistent position to be okay with the Englishification of Latin words, but not be okay at the Latinization of Greek ones!
- occamrazor 6y ago
  But, at least in classical Latin, Greek words used the original Greek plural (transliterated into the Lstin alphabet) rather than the Latinized one.

pmiller2 6y ago

"Virus" is also a word that frequently gets pluralized incorrectly, if you're thinking of it as a Latin word used in an English context. The only plural form that makes sense in English is "viruses," mostly because the Latin form actually has no plural. [0] That doesn't stop people from writing "virii," however. Both "octopi [1]" and "virii" are examples of linguistic hypercorrection [2], in which a speaker misapplies a known linguistic rule that seems to fit, but does not. Neither of these examples are attested in the source language the word derives from; people literally use them just to sound smart, most of the time. Other examples are using "whom" in places where the correct word would be "who," not using a preposition to end a sentence or clause with [3], and to not split infinitives [4]. --- [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Etymology [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection [2]: I kinda like "octopodes" myself, but that may just be me. [3]: Winston Churchill is frequently quoted saying something like "this is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put." This is most likely apocryphal. See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-prepositi... [4]: My favorite origin theory for this one is basically "you couldn't do it in Latin, so don't do it in English." Early grammarians frequently took inspiration from Latin, because its grammar was already well-codified, mostly due to it being a dead-ish language. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#The_argument_from_classical_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#The_argument_...

cgriswald 6y ago

I think it’s fine to say or write -es or -I in general usage. I think it’s also fine to prefer one or the other in contextual usage. And I think it’s fair to roll ones eyes at people making a big deal of it. But it’s incorrect to say octopus is not a Latin word. That’s like saying utensil isn’t a French word. It is, and it came to English from Latin through French. Octopus came to English through Latin from Greek. It’s a Latin word and it’s a Greek word. So, I don’t think it’s a consistent position to be okay with the Englishification of Latin words, but not be okay at the Latinization of Greek ones!

occamrazor 6y ago
But, at least in classical Latin, Greek words used the original Greek plural (transliterated into the Lstin alphabet) rather than the Latinized one.