Crab meat is uncountable, like beef, therefore it should be treated as singular for any type of agreement.
I would say “octopi” but more and more I’m seeing “-uses” as being acceptable. “Hippopotamuses” is also acceptable today.
The indefinite article “a/an” is never used with plurals.
In this question form, you are asking for information that is unknown to the asker at the time of asking, e.g. Is there a post office nearby? In this case, the singular “it” should be used.
Right on, and I say that with pride. I will never eat shellfish.
Right, but in this case you’re talking about them as discrete things. “Crab” is the foodstuff that’s made from crabs. You can get a plate of crabs, eat a bite of one, then say “I just ate crab.”
But although octopi may not always have been “correct” English, it pretty much is now. Ultimately – to the dismay of many a pedant – a language rests in the hands of those who speak it.
More info on octopuses/octopi/octopodes from Wikipedia
I’m all for octopuses, given that I tend to dislike foreign language plurals. (For instance, it drives me nuts when I hear “stadiums” referred to as “stadia.” Granted, not that often, but I was at one business presentation when this came up repeatedly.) But, when I want to be a pedantic, intellectual smartass, I pull out “octopodes.”
Pedant me no pedants. The people largely use “octopuses.” It’s pretty rich that the people in this thread who are propounding a minority usage are taking the stance that “octopuses” is kids with backwards caps and pants down at their knees and then falling back on a descriptivist defense. Talk about arguing in the alternative.
The concept of “wrong” and “incorrect” was introduced into this thread by the octopi-anists. If any form is incorrect, it is octopi. That’s the issue.
I never made a case against octopuses. (It’s probably what I’d say, in fact, if I ever needed to describe more than one octopus, which seldom happens.) My point is that octopi has pretty much wriggled its way into being generally accepted as correct as well. Such is the nature of our language. So what if it’s not proper Greek or Latin construction? English ain’t Greek or Latin.
I would say it is recognized as accepted, rather than strictly speaking as “correct.” None of the dictionaries list it as the preferred form, and as you note the OED rejects it.
Really, there is no good reason to use octopi, a phony hi-falutin pseudo-foreign plural, rather than octopuses, a normal down-to-earth everyday-type English plural. In fact, using octopi, and even more so “correcting” people who use the preferred form octopuses (to the extent of asserting it is incorrect) is essentially pseudo-pedantry - rather like the supposed rule against ending a sentence with a preposition.
It’s English, and that’s exactly why octopi shouldn’t be used. Why use a non-English (and an incorrect one to boot) plural form when a perfectly good English plural exists?
Antenna/antennae/antennas
People/peoples/person/persons (what’s the singular or plural for which ones?)
Hair (uncountable)/a hair (countable)
data/datum
Look, I don’t really have an octopus in this fight, and as I noted, I’m more apt to use the -es form myself.
The only point I was trying to make is that, with a living language such as English, if enough people recognize a word (or phrase or grammar construction or whatever else) as correct, eventually it will become correct.
And at the same time, some people will use their dying breaths to continue to argue that it’s wrong. Those are the ones I consider to be hi-falutin pseudo-pedants.
Don’t forget the context of the conversation (ordering in a restaurant) brings into play an understood, i.e., that they are ordering meat (if I may be permitted to call it that) to consume.
Therefore:
“Do you like crab (meat)?”
“My father likes octopus (meat).”
“I want octopus (meat). Do you have it?”
(Although “I want…” would sound childish if said to the waiter in ordering, but less childish if said in discussion with the rest of your party while deciding what to order).
Thankfully, octopi hasn’t reached that stage yet. As has been noted, it is rejected by some dictionaries and many usage guides, and even those which include it note that it is the less-preferred form. So at the very least, people should be discouraged from “correcting” the preferred form octopuses to octopi. While some dictionaries may accept it, it’s the kind of thing that makes you look knowledgeable to the ignorant, but ignorant to the knowledgeable. Of course, people can decide for themselves which they prefer to be.
First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who posted here. I guess I wanted confirmation on my original thoughts. Proofreading is one of my freelance jobs here in Japan as a native speaker of English. FWIW, I’m an American from Southern California.
Very often Japanese ask me questions concerning English usage and grammar. After answering them, they might come up with “Why is that?” or “What about in this case?” I can usually give them the rule or logic behind why we say things a certain way and they are satisfied or at least informed with what I tell them. However, there are some times when I can’t really explain.
In this case, when I had originally sent in my corrections to the Japanese editor of the textbook in question, I answered them this way:
Then the editor started asking questions about other “foods/meats” such as “shrimp, prawn, clam, etc.” That’s where I drew a blank in the general usage rules. So I came to the SDMB to ask for opinions. I’m glad to see the discussion that developed.
Thanks again to everyone for their detailed explanations and examples. Along with looking up some of the links listed here, I’ll be printing this entire thread to use when I’m talking with the editors.
The Dopers have done it again! Okagesamadeshita!
(PS: That was a typo on #3. Should’ve been “I want an octopus/octopuses.” )
