I have absolute faith that the plural of “bus” is “buses,” yet I see a lot of people writing it “busses” (which I thought was the plural of “buss,” meaning a kiss.)
I’m curious: are there any public transit services that spell it “busses?”
(The STM here in Montreal spells it “buses”, when they’re not busy spelling it les autobus, of course.)
Don’t know, but “busses” is an acceptable variant, at least according to the American Heritage Dictionary. I’ve personally only seen it at “buses,” although I must admit, whenever I see it in print, I stutter, wanting to rhyme it with “fuses.”
And “bused” and “busing” just don’t look right to me without the extra “s.”
Let’s see…San Jose International Airport pussies out on the debate, by spelling it “Buses” in the header, and “Busses” in the subhead.
The Washington State Department of Transportation also seems wishy-washy on the matter. “Busses” in the headline, “buses” in the body text.
The Chicago Transit authority goes with “buses” on their website.
American Heritage Dictionary defines bus / buss:
Strictly, there should be no plural at all. Bus is an abbreviation for the Latin word omnibus, meaning “for all” or “for everyone”. Omnibus vehicles were used by the public at large, not private vehicles.
If you have more than one omnibus vehicle, they are still omnibus.
My 1970 edition of the shorter OED recognises the abbreviation as bus, 'bus, and buss. It describes the last as “occ.” It dates the use of them to 1832.
If “buss” is allowable, “occasionally” then busses must be too. However it is certainly not the norm. The single S tends to be used when the core word derives from Latin or Greek. So, we say “crocuses” and “he focuses the camera”.
Wow, “buss” is occassionally used for “bus”? Weird. I have never ever seen that. However, we don’t need the form “bus” to justify the use of “busses.”
Doubling the consonant before adding a suffix is not an unusual phenomenon in English, and usually it serves to erase confusion of pronunciation. For example, under normal pronunciation circumstances, “buses” should be pronounced “BYOO-zuhs”. Except it isn’t. With “busses” there is no such confusion. A similar pattern can be found in “traveler” and “traveller.”
I understand that the single “s” does tend to be used in Greek and Latin-derived words, but there seems to be a unique problem with the word “bus,” namely, it’s a single syllable. There’s really no confusion (in my opinion) with words like “focuses.” There’s enough orthographic data before the ending that mispronunciation is not probable. Also, it doesn’t really look like any other word. With “bus” there is a bit of a problem. “Buses” at first glance looks like it should rhyme with “fuses,” as I’ve previously stated. Hence the alternative spelling to help avoid confusion. So while you may be right about the single “s” in Latin- and Greek-derived words, languages always develop exceptions to rules, and this could be argued as one of them for the reasons stated.
Sorry, just chuckling at myself. Orthographic data?!?!? Umm…more commonly known as “letters.”
Since it’s Latin, shouldn’t the plural of bus be ‘bi’?
As we all know, “buses” is what we’re supposed to accept as the plural of “bus”.
As we all know from experience, though, the mind sees “buses” and insists on pronouncing it within the head as if it rhymed with “fuses”, which gets really annoying after awhile.
I was not aware that dictionaries were accepting “busses” as a variant spelling, but for once I’m inclined to say “more power to them”.
When I was in the bus building business, to describe more than one bus is, coaches.
No, not in this case.
As I get more senile, my fluency in Latin is fading - fellow posters have detected serious errors in my syntax and grammar. I am of course too polite to point out theirs.
As you know, the proper plural of focus is foci, because it is a masculine noun in Latin. The same applies to many other Latin words ending in “us”. However, the “us” in omnibus does not denote a masculine ending.
The Latin word “omnes” is a plural word meaning “all”. Omnibus is a case form of this plural word, meaning “for all”. As it is already plural, you can’t plural it. It would be like saying “sheeps” or “mices”.
However, thank you for your interest.
Not that English has anything against pluralizing words that are already plural. “Children” contains two plural markers. “Child”+“er”+“en”. The “er” ending was a northern English plural marker. “-en” was southern England. For more obscure words, “pierogi” is already plural, but most people I know say “pierogis,” as in “I love pierogis.” That’s okay…it works the other way, too. Chicago Poles (but not native Poles) pluralize already pluralized American words. As in “Hotdogsy” instead of the proper “hotdogi”. There just seems to be a tendency to regularize foreign plurals to conform with the base language.
Sorry, I’m going off on a tangent here…back to the original discussion.
Balor
I should apologize for trolling for Latin purists. It’s too easy, because they always take their Latin way too seriously.
At any rate, you forget about this important work of literature:
Motor Bus
by A.D.Godley
What is this that roareth thus?
Can it be a Motor Bus?
Yes, the smell and hideous hum
Indicat Motorem Bum!
Implet in the Corn and High*
Terror me Motoris Bi
Bo Motori clamitabo
Ne Motore caedar a Bo -**
Dative be or Ablative
So thou only let us live:
Whither shall thy victims flee?
Spare us, spare us, Motor Be!
Thus I sang, and still anigh
Came in hordes Motores Bi,
Et complebat omne forum
Copia Motorum Borum.
How shall wretches live like us
Cincti Bis Motoribus?
Domine, defende nos
Contra hos Motores Bos!
*Streets in Oxford
** So that I may not be killed by…
Dtilque - Te saluto, amice
Thank you for giving that poem back to me. I read it long ago when the world was young - and I thought of it when I saw this thread. However, I did not know where to find it.
Unfortunately, it is a meaningless joke to the 99% of readers of the SDMB, who did not study Latin. How sad.