Can my fellow dopers help solve a scrabble debacle? The Hasbro scrabble dictionary says ‘squids’ is a legitimate word but google informs us that the plural of Squid is Squid. So what is the etymology/meaning of ‘squids’???
EDIT: Out of interest I checked m-w.com for ‘squids’ (which it listed as an alternate spelling of the plural of squid) and ‘mooses’ (which it did not list). So why is ‘squids’ acceptable and mooses unacceptable?
Similar to fish/fishes.
A catch of all the same species can be several hundred fish, but the by-catch might have dozens of fishes.
But I don’t believe “squids” is a legitimate would, unless you are referring to naval personnel.
Might be similar to “fish,” where you can refer to a collection of different species of fish as “fishes,” awkward though that sounds.
It may be informal, but I’ve never had anyone complain when I mutter about “a bunch of [del]drunk, idiot[/del] squids on liberty.”
I don’t know if many dictionaries accept that use of squid to mean sailor, though.
As for what is an isn’t an acceptable Scrabble word? Usually it seems to me that if the word is one that some highly educated member of the English upper classes might have known from schooling in the classics, or from their service in India, it’s usually good. Otherwise not so good. I get really annoyed with all the Indian import words that are allowed (and are now common Scrabble words) when other common import words are still unallowed. Like “gi,” for example.
“Squids” just doesn’t look right to me. I’d question it too.
Webster’s unabridged, 1913:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster’s&word=squid&use1913=on&use1828=on
Seems to be the collective noun is squid, while the term for two or more kinds/species of squid is squids. Yep, you’d get by on it, but you’d need the dictionary within easy reach.
Oh, stop quibbling. I got to play ‘cunt’ the other day, and it was honestly the best move I could make. Honest.
In seriousness, there is perhaps the lack of the removal of obsolete words which regular dictionaries perform. ‘Qi’ would have surely gone long ago - haven’t we all standarised on ‘chi’? The former isn’t in the Cambridge online dictionary, for example.
Back when I was a marine bio student…about a year ago, I had one professor who’s whole deal was to study the squid. My roomie and I found it quite amusing that he called more than one squid “squids.” So amusing, his nickname, behind his back, was Squids.
And this dude knows his stuff. He and his team were the ones that found that female squid clutching her eggs (presumably encasing baby “squids”) close to her body in the depths a couple years ago.
I’m sure he had a look over his bio before it was uploaded, if he didn’t write it himself, but the expert goes with “squids.”
Personally, I can’t bring myself to say that. So I’ll go with squid.
While we’re on the subject of plurals of marine life, and going off of a previous post, I had ANOTHER professor, this one a shark pro, who, too, said “fishes.”
I guess, technically, yes, the plural can be either, but who the heck says “fishes?”
There are plenty of fishes in the sea I suppose.
Drove me nuts…and yes, her nickname became Fishes.
It can be a verb, as well, you know?
Squids, and sometimes Sicilians, sleep with the fishes.
I’m sure, for someone of your known distaste for questionable humor, in all it’s myriad forms, would never choose a Scrabble word simple for shock or humor value, but only for the score you could make with it.
There’s only one species of moose (Alces alces)? Possibly, a vertebrate paleontologist could talk about extinct mooses and get away with it, but the rest of us have no excuse.
So, no excuses when speaking of Mooses?
From American Heritage dictionary:
squid n., pl. squids or squid. Any of various marine cephalopod mollusks of the genus Loligo and related genera, having a usually elongated body, ten arms surrounding the mouth, a vestigial internal shell, and a pair of triangular or rounded fins. [Origin unknown.]
My understanding was always that plural “squid” is used as a mass noun, ie. when there is uncountable bulk of squid, like all squid in the sea. When you have a specific, countable number of squids - say, those three squids swimming in aquarium, you use “squids”.
The same rule for the fish/fishes.
Squids is a perfectly legitimate word on several levels.
The following is from OED.
First, in its normal sense, look at the cites and note the plurals with s among them.
Secondly, in this sense:
Thirdly, this one:
Fourthly, there a verb, to squid, which would add s in the third person singular.
In other words, use squids in full confidence and let them go argue with OED if they object.
I suggest we take up a collection to get Squink a new dictionary.
1913? Talk about your saving ways!
Tris
If I wrote a book about being attacked by a number of squid, I think I would go with a name such as “Attack of the Squids”, which is more specific than “Attack of the Squid”…
…'cause, you know if you read the second title you would picture one squid attacking a boat or something, whereas the first title clearly indicates this book is about more than one squid.
No thanks. Fighting the Kaiser changed our native tongue forever, to say nothing of Hitler.
The only way to avoid those corrupting influences is to harken back to a time before they appeared.
You wouldn’t want to not call them squids just because Wilhelm II did, would you? 