The question is mainly concerning pluralization Octopus.
Case Sensitive and others familiar with Greek know that Octopi is wrong and insist it should not be used.
I have provided the hard copy cite:
Case Sensitive correctly points out:
and he explains quite well why in this post:
This arose most recently from this thread.
Jim
I say; it doesn’t matter which one it is. The only important things when selecting words is being able to get across what you mean, and being able to get across what you mean specifically. Octupi? To me, that says many Octopus. Octopuses, same thing. As long as everyone understands what you’re talking about, there’s no problem; to suggest otherwise is just pedantry.
What RT said. I know it drives the purists crazy, but we’re dealing with American Standard here, which is an evolving and chaging language. If we want to apply the rules for making a plural from one dead language to a root from another language, so be it. Does everybody understand what you are refering to? Then we call it good and get on with our lives.
I’m with RT here on this one. The point of language is to convey meaning. The word octopi successfully conveys the meaning “more than one octopus” as well as octopuses does.
I think however that “octopoda, octopodes, or even octopods” (quoting Case Sensitive) actually obscure the meaning more than they enlighten. The majority of English speakers will not have the necessary background in Greek and Latin to get much meaning at all from these words than they would from octopi or octopuses.
With apologies to language purists, I have to say, octopi is fine.
On topic joke: A wildlife supplier was writing a delivery letter to a zoo. He wrote “Please find enclosed the mongooses you ordered.” That looked funny, so he backed up and wrote “Please find enclosed the mongeese you ordered.” That looked even worse. “Please find enclosed the mongi you…” No, that wouldn’t do either. Finally, he wrote “Please find enclosed the mongoose you ordered. Also, please find the other mongoose you ordered.”
Then they damned well ought to have! Language should not be reduced to its lowest common denominator simply to pander to ignorance. I’ve quoted George MacDonald Fraser on this subject before, and I’m going to quote him again:
“So there Lardo sits secure, waiting reinforcements, and Sheba hangs naked in her cage down a great black cliff o’er pool o’ ravening octopi-”
“Not octopi. Sorry to interrupt, but it’s Greek, not Latin. Octopods, octopodes, take your pick, but not octopi.”
“O’er pool o’ ravening octopusses, then!” snarled Blood.
George MacDonald Fraser, The Pyrates {1983}
I really do understand your point Case Sensitive, but if you acknowledge that living languages change and evolve, then why cannot English throw of the shackles of Greek and Latin if it chooses.
If what you said was true, Latin & Classic Greek would still predominate the Western World as would a handful of Old Celtic/Germanic tongues. Modern English and Olde English are barely the same language and your average American can barely read even Geoffrey Chaucer.
Jim
Didn’t he write the bestseller My Gun Has Bullets?
People who use octopi should be gored by rhinocerotes!
This “shackle” is a link to meaning, and disposing of it makes the language that bit less expressive: if you know that more than one octopus are octopods, you can make the link to podiatrists, podiums, pedestrians, pedals and pedestals. If you call them octopi, you make the link to nothing, and the language loses something.
I agree that language is constantly in flux, and I have no problem in calling podiums podiums rather than podia, or rostrums rostrums rather than rostra: adopting standard English pluralisation in this case doesn’t detract from the meaning. Similarly, more than one octopus can be octopuses and I’ll be quite happy.
But adopting a Latin pluralisation - not, you’ll note, Standard English in itself, and by your argument, a shackle itself - and getting it wrong only serves to obfuscate and confuse the language, not to clarify it. That’s the problem I have with octopi.
It obfuscates and confuses Latin, certainly. I don’t see how it confuses English; after all, the meaning is clear whether it’s octupi or octupuses. If you’re trying to write in Latin, or claim something as Latin, then certainly you should stick to the rules of grammar and word construction for that language. But if I use octupi, i’m not thinking “I should use the Latin/Greek/German-derived rules for creating a plural” and getting it wrong, i’m just thinking “Yep. Makes sense to me. Makes sense to them”. If the word “Glorfhut” was understood by everyone to mean “many octopuses”, i’d use that, too, and that doesn’t conform to *any * rules of Latin.
Case Sensitive, do you see the same problem with Pegasi as opposed to Pegasuses? There is a slight difference as Pegasus was the name of a particular flying horse and its name became the term for Flying Horses.
Still a problem or acceptable? What would you use in place of Pegasi if you do object?
I think most Americans would easily recognize both Octopi and Octopuses as the plural of Octopus, so the meaning is not loss. The other three choices you provided were octopoda, octopodes, or even octopods. The first two will problem get you a confused look and the third sounds like it would be a family of 8 legged creatures that included Octopuses and other near relatives. Indeed the Order that octopuses belong to is octopoda so using that term would add a great amount of confusion in scientific circles and discussions.
Jim
We all know the origin of Octopus, and do’t take it too literally… if someone where to throw “Octopods” or “Octopodes” at me I would most likely think they were trying to refer to a grouping of animals that were ambulatory via eight limbs (taking podes / pods to be related to the “pedal” part of bi-pedal)
Although rules can be subjugated to everybody undersanding meaning, it is very very important that “standard” (forgetting brit vs US) useages are maintained…otherwise meaning DOES get obsured.
Well, that’s what I meant by understanding a specific meaning. I can use the word “fish” to describe a shark, and it’s a correct meaning, but it isn’t the only meaning. So I use the word “shark” to describe a shark; it’s both a word that others will understand and that they will understand to mean a specific thing.
As long as the two rules of understanding of meaning and understanding of a specific meaning are kept to, it doesn’t matter what word you use.
Well, overlooking the fact that winged horses aren’t real and octopods are, Pegasus was a proper noun, a name for a particular flying horse, and I have never heard it used as a designation for the class of flying horses, let alone pluralised as Pegasi: I would call them either winged horses or, if I wished to classify them scientifically, hippopteryxes.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
Question: “octopus” is a direct borrowing from Greek, or was it a Greek borrowing into Latin that subsequently got borrowed into the Western languages?
IOW … what is the Latin word for an octopus? Probably “octopus”, borrowed from Greek. Therefore, “octopi” would be a reasonable Latin plural, which in turn may have passed into modern European languages.
It all hinges upon whether or not Latin was the intermediary for this particular word, though.
Y’see, this is one of the things that amused me about English when learning it – it wouldn’t always form plurals by its own current rules, ignoring the root language’s (unlike my mother tongue); but then it would at times seem to be making a wild blind guess as to what was the root language.
Substitute “English” for “European languages” above. I was assuming “octopus” was more or less pan-European, but a quick search reveals that it’s not so.
More words under heaven and earth, Horatio…
This meaning crops up all over the place in the fantasy genre, and “pegasi” is the accepted plural.
Your last sentence shows the first paragraph isn’t much of a concern for you. If more than one octopus are octopuses, then you’ve lost exactly the same thing that you’ve lost by calling them octopi.
I suspect that this is a point of pedantry for you that you’re trying to buttress with arguments about the beautiful complexity of language and the dangers of losing its complexity.
Daniel