This is not a discussion of “octopuses/octopodes/octopi.” Nope. Nope. Nope.
I was watching a program on one of the Discovery channels this weekend, and the subject was the octopus (or at least one kind).
I could have sworn that several times the narrator used the word “octopus” itself as a plural, as in “Octopus are often found looking for crabs.” I’m also reasonably sure he never used on of the three “commonly documented” plurals.
Now, knowing that the narrator was just reading a script, the question(s):
Is “octopus” sometimes used as a plural form?
Maybe it’s used as a plural form for multiple species (in a reversed sort of way that “fishes” is used)?
Maybe it was just for the script because “octopuses” sounds dirty, “octopodes” is too obscure, and “octopi” is a coined plural.
Maybe I just misheard him, and he never referred to “multiple eight-legged cephalopods.”
Just found a site that refers to Octopus being accepted as a collective term. link below.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus
Are you sure Carl? I don’t see that.
Here’s the quote, x-ray, that you missed from Carl’s link:
I wonder if this sort of collective form is common in dealing with marine life and/or seafood.
For example, this page, http://www.mi.mun.ca/mi-net/fishdeve/shark.htm, from the Marine Institute of the Memorial University of Newfoundland says
This page, http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/notebook/shellfsh/dungie.htm, from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game says
This page, http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/ALIR-4YPV32?open from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries Water & Environment says
I note that “shark”, “crab” and “lobster” all have straighforward, well-known plural forms.
The online dictionaries I checked (Websters on Dictionary.com, Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary) only give octopuses and octopi, but a google search shows the plural phrase “two octopus” is more common than “two octopuses”, and ditto for three. Which I guess is due to people not knowing which plural to use.
The food thing is one theory, but I think it’s more the same kind of Discovery Channel “safari speak” that uses “lion”, “zebra”, “elephant” and just about any other animal name as a plural. I always think it sounds horribly affected… I can just imagine the Great White Hunters talking about how many lion they’d bagged before breakfast.
Same with chicken. When an animal becomes meat it changes from “count” to “non-count” Just make a sentence in which you have to choose “much” or “many” and you will see – the former being non-count and the latter being count.
I have too many chickens in my coop.
I ate too much chicken for dinner.
Personally I’m all for the utter elimination of irregular plurals. But Im also for spelling reform, so I m probably weird.
Chicken is IIRC originally the plural of chick, but has through the years come to be singular.
I’m not sure that this is a good example - unless you’re a real glutton, you presumably ate less than one whole chicken, so the plural wouldn’t come into it. Similarly, you wouldn’t say “I ate too many oyster last night.”
I think it’s more of an “animals as livestock” thing. YMMV.