[QUOTE=bordelond]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Octopi would be correct only if octopus were a second declension noun in Latin, which it isn’t. As stated here, octopus is a third declension noun in Latin whose correct plural (in Latin) is “octopodes”
[QUOTE=MilTan]
Octopi would be correct only if octopus were a second declension noun in Latin, which it isn’t. As stated here, octopus is a third declension noun in Latin whose correct plural (in Latin) is “octopodes”
[/QUOTE]
Interesting – did Latin borrow that “-odes” plural ending directly from Greek? Are there a siginificant number of Latin plurals like that? It seems so exceptional.
genus – genera: no problem
focus – foci: no problem
datum – data: no problem
octopus – octopodes: :recordscratch:
I’ll point out the obvious: English is a different language than Greek and Latin and there’s no reason it should follow the same rules.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’ll point out the obvious: English is a different language than Greek and Latin and there’s no reason it should follow the same rules.
[/QUOTE]
Which brings up another question; What would be the most appropriate English pluralization of Octopus. Would it actually be Octopuses?
Jim
I’m usually descriptivist rather than prescriptivist in terms of language, but I really don’t like the word octopi. It sounds to me to be an attempt to appear literate that falls flat. In fact, this whole English tendency to try to form plurals in -i and -ii with words that sound Latin (such as the often discussed virus -> *virii and penis -> *penii) just grates on my eyes. My native language, like JRDelirious’s, usually uses its own pluralization rules for foreign words (or doesn’t modify them at all when pluralization), so maybe it’s just that I’m used to it this way. I would use octopuses as the plural of octopus (although I must admit that I do like octopodes).
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: proper Greek pluralization of “pteryx” (“wing”) is “pteryges”, so “hippopteryges”.
Of course, wouldn’t “hippopteryx” translate as “horse-wing”? Wouldn’t “pterohippo” be a better term (proper plural “pterohippoi”)?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’ll point out the obvious: English is a different language than Greek and Latin and there’s no reason it should follow the same rules.
[/QUOTE]
And English doesn’t follow the same rules. But one of English’s rules seems to be:
If a word is imported, with rare exceptions, adding -(e)s is an acceptable way to construct a plural; but
If a word is imported from a language that forms plurals by adding a suffix, the preferable way to pluralize the word in English is to retain the other language’s plural.
Greek words that were adopted into Latin first in classical times and then into English tend to use the Latin forms in English – but in general such words retain the modified imported-Greek endings, as quasi-third-declension Latin nouns.
[QUOTE=Misscegnist]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Yes, there does come a point at which common usage must trump history; however, when common usage is perpetuated by misconceptions, then we must fight those misconceptions before giving in. Languages do change, but we must still have a measure of stability – a standard, as you put it.
For example, some say that only medical physicians are real doctors, and Ph.D.s are not. (This is evidenced in the current thread, “Are you a doctor?”) The typical argument is that most people only think of physicians as doctors, which makes that the correct usage. This is an example of ignorance at work, though, as this claim violates years of history. What’s more, it also runs counter to common knowledge, as there are many highly educated individuals who are commonly called “doctor,” even though they hold no medical degree (e.g. Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Isaac Asimov, Dr. Joyce Brothers).
My point? Language does indeed evolve over time; however, this does not mean that we should automatically declare the common usage to be correct.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
My point? Language does indeed evolve over time; however, this does not mean that we should automatically declare the common usage to be correct.
[/QUOTE]
Just my 2sense
[QUOTE=2sense]
I’d say you are missing the point. The point of language, as Revenant Threshold alluded to, is to convey meaning. As such the common usage is always correct.
[/QUOTE]
No.
Sure, language is supposed to convey meaning. Sometimes, this is done by adopting the common usage. At other times, it should be done by fighting ignorance. Common usage should not always win out.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
Agreed.
Yes, there does come a point at which common usage must trump history; however, when common usage is perpetuated by misconceptions, then we must fight those misconceptions before giving in. Languages do change, but we must still have a measure of stability – a standard, as you put it.
…snip…
My point? Language does indeed evolve over time; however, this does not mean that we should automatically declare the common usage to be correct.
[/QUOTE]
In this case however Octopi has been considered proper for over 100 years. Usually that would be enough time. We are not talking thru for through here.
Jim
[QUOTE=JThunder]
Common usage should not always win out.
[/QUOTE]
:shrug:
There’s no “should” about it – common usage always wins in the end. Common usage needs no sanctions. The worst that can happen is that a style of language can be marked in some way or another. But pundits declaring that Fiddy Cent’s speech is “substandard” English doesn’t have the magical effect of making his peers unable to understand him.
Then let’s take the reins of octopi and steer it into a new common usage.
Octopi = 25.132741228718345907701147066236
Doesn’t arguing over the proper declension assume that the word came to us through proper classical Latin? Surely there’s some point in the development from Latin into Italian, Spanish or French where the ordinary speaker applied the ending for whichever declension seemed to fit. Besides there is just something very pleasant about saying “octopi.” Octopi. Octopi. Try it.
Ahhhhh, another prescriptivism vs descriptivism thread.
Has anybody else consistently misread the thread title as “Proper Geek pluralization?”
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
This “shackle” is a link to meaning, and disposing of it makes the language that bit less expressive:
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. The language is still able to express the plural form of octopus.
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
if you know that more than one octopus are octopods, you can make the link to podiatrists, podiums, pedestrians, pedals and pedestals.
[/quote]
Or if you’re a native speaker and thus an informant you know that your language includes exceptions, and would know the grammatically proper use of “podiums”.
There are all sorts of irregular words in English. Hasn’t made English any less expressive, at all.
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
If you call them octopi, you make the link to nothing, and the language loses something.
[/quote]
Define exactly what the language loses, please. And no, it doesn’t make a link to nothing, it makes a link to the plural of octopus.
Run —> ran
Throw —> threw
Kill —> killed
Has the use of varying forms which do not follow the use of ‘ed’ as a suphix rendered people unable to communicate well, or to confusion, or to a lack of expressive power in English?
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
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.
[/quote]
Then why, specifically, does ‘octopi’ change things?
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
Similarly, more than one octopus can be octopuses and I’ll be quite happy.
[/quote]
Why are you not happy if they’re octopi?
Should the past tense of throw be throwed, the past tense of run be runned?
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
But adopting a Latin pluralisation - not, you’ll note, Standard English in itself,
[/quote]
You are incorrect. If a native speaker told you that it was a grammatical construction, then it would be part of SAE, The fact that it’s root is a corruption of Latin doesn’t alter the fact that it has meaning for an informant being asked about SAE.
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
and getting it wrong only serves to obfuscate and confuse the language, not to clarify it.
[/quote]
I propose an experiment.
Start a thread in IMHO asking how many people are confused about the meaning of the word “octopi”, and how many people find it obfuscative. I predict that native speakers will, with close to 100% cohesion, tell you that it’s neither confusing nor obfuscative. It’s just the plural of the word.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
as a suphix
[/QUOTE]
Make that “suffix”… Yeeeeeeeeeeesh.
My all-time favorite example of linguistic migration is the word “children.” Originally, “child” was properly pluralized as “childer.” But after a few hundred years, that no longer looked right to folks; “childer” looked like a singular noun, so people properly pluralized “childer” as “children.” Now, there are folks who don’t see “children” as a plural, so they pluralize it as “childrens.”
At what point did the incorrect linguistic analysis of the word lead to a loss of meaning?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
At what point did the incorrect linguistic analysis of the word lead to a loss of meaning?
[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously, at the point at where it stops making sense to me personally. Get off my lawn you damn linguistic ruffians! 
“Childrens”, to me, looks like a possessive plural that someone left the apostrophe off of. But I suppose, of course, that with a large enough sub-group, it becomes a valid dialect. With a large enough group, it could replace current conventions in SAE.
But I’m curious at who uses the word “children” as if it’s singular… besides Chef on South Park? I’m not trying to be a dick, I’d really like to know. How recent/common is this view?
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Doesn’t arguing over the proper declension assume that the word came to us through proper classical Latin? Surely there’s some point in the development from Latin into Italian, Spanish or French where the ordinary speaker applied the ending for whichever declension seemed to fit. Besides there is just something very pleasant about saying “octopi.” Octopi. Octopi. Try it.
[/QUOTE]
But, as bordelond pointed out, in many cases we do use the proper plural form as required by the Latin declension. Many words, such as “genus” and “opus,” while appearing to be second declension, are properly pluralized according to their third declension rules (so “genera” and “opera,” respectively).
This is all academic, though. While I try not to say “octopi,” I also don’t say “octopodes,” as no one would know what I was talking about. For all the talk of obfuscation, the fundamental problem is that, in this case, the proper plural is the one that is obfuscatory.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Well, obviously, at the point at where it stops making sense to me personally. Get off my lawn you damn linguistic ruffians!
“Childrens”, to me, looks like a possessive plural that someone left the apostrophe off of. But I suppose, of course, that with a large enough sub-group, it becomes a valid dialect. With a large enough group, it could replace current conventions in SAE.
But I’m curious at who uses the word “children” as if it’s singular… besides Chef on South Park? I’m not trying to be a dick, I’d really like to know. How recent/common is this view?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that “children” is used as a singular so much as “childrens” is used as a plural. here are some examples.
Daniel