I generally find lapsing to esoteric plurals (campi, circi, etc.) to be annoying and pedantic, so it’ll be nice to catch someone out using octopi.
Of all the options, I think “octopodes” is the most fun to say. It trips off the tongue. And it makes me giggle. So that’s what I choose.
Daniel
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, that bible of prescriptivism, Fowler’s MEU states that “the only acceptable plural in English is octopuses.”
Oh good lord, the grammar in that sentence is atrocious. It’s Fowler’s that is the bible of prescriptivism, not Wikipedia!
I squint at your modifier.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This meaning crops up all over the place in the fantasy genre, and “pegasi” is the accepted plural.
[/QUOTE}
With the greatest of respect, I’m not about to accept a Dungeons and Dragons manual as a guide to usage. I have never encountered the word “pegasi”, and I hope I never will: you might as well claim that Cyrus Jones and Cyrus Smith are both cyri.
Not really: “octopuses” at least has the virtue of following the basic English rule of pluralisation: if you are going to throw out Latin and Greek endings bag and baggage and just add an “s” to make plurals, fine - you lose some of the meaning, true, but at least gain consistency.
Faux-learned plurals like “octopi”, though, sacrifice both meaning and consistency, and further muddy the waters by suggesting that the correct way to pluralise any word ending in “us” is to add an “i”: thus abominable constructions like “Pegasi”. One might as well insist that the plural of octopus is octopuxen.
To a certain extent, yes, I am: one of the nice things about Greek and Latin constructions in English is that they fit together like Lego blocks, and by assembling them correctly it’s possible to make new words; by dismantling them it’s possible to decipher meaning and links to other words: your use of the word “pedantry” is amusingly apt in the context of this thread. It’s a strength of the language, and it would be a pity to sacrifice it on the altar of ignorance.
How do you lose meaning?
Does it still not signify a plural word?
Does anybody not understand what “octopi” means?
Meaning is not lost. Prescriptive conformity of the language is.
Can you tell us, in specific, how meaning is at all altered, or why we need consistency (as long as the irregularites are understood by native speakers) when English is full of exceptions to the rules? Do you object to the words “ran” and “threw” as well?
You object to it because you believe it suggests that other words with roots in ancient languages might follow a similar patterns? Well then simply treat it as an English word that we changed when we took it from another language. Problem solved.
Again, how does it sacrifice meaning? Does it not mean “the plural of octopus?” Is there anybody who is a native speaker who doesn’t know what octopi means?
Where is such a thing “suggested?”
Do all words with are exceptions to the rule suggest that they are the rule?
The word “ran” does not ‘suggest’ anything about how to construct the past tense of all words. Likewise, “octopi” suggest nothing but how to construct the plural of octopus.
If it was the commonly understood plural, then it would be.
You seem to be missing my point: what’s being lost is the “podes” part of the plural: if I see that I can figure out that “octo” plus “podes” = eight feet. If I had never seen such a creature before, was completely unaware of its existence, but encountered the word “octopod/e/a/es” I could still make a shrewd guess as to its meaning, just as you can work out what a paedophage is despite the fact that I just made the word up.
That’s one of the benefits that adopting Greek and Latin constructions has given English, the ability to combine parts to create meaning, and to dismantle them to deduce meaning, and by whittling it away the language does lose something.
I’m pushing for Octopussy.
It seems easier to type 8p
Does anyone have a link to one of the very old public Domain Britannica’s? I am wondering what that Encyclopedia lists as the plural.
I still think that after 100 years **octopi ** is not wrong but correct.
Yes, you could make a shrewd guess, and I could make a shrewd guess and probably a good part of this board could make a shrewd guess to the meaning, but most Americans would not be able to and rarely have a good grasp of linguistic roots.
Jim
That’s a fair point, but I disagree. First off, you’re speaking about “something being lost” as though calling many octupus octopi or whatever is single-handedly destroying our ability to understand meaning. That’s not so; we still have “octo” for eight. And who, exactly, is going to lose “podes”? I didn’t know it referred to feet. I would imagine most people don’t know it refers to feet. In order to know, in fact, you’d likely be a word pedant like many in this thread. Losing podes is not a loss to the general public; and pedants aren’t going to use the grammatically incorrect octupi. So, who’s losing something?
You do now. This knowledge also now deepens your understanding of the words podiatrist, podium, cephalopod, sesquipedalian, podcast, and, if you’d care to check the eytomology, pedant itself. Ahem.
As for it “single-handedly destroying our ability to understand meaning”, nowhere did I make that claim: all I pointed out was that perpetuating the error whittled away, in however small a fashion, at the ability to dismantle and thus further understand a word. This I regard as A Bad Thing, and a loss to language, which ought not to pander to ignorance.
According to the OED, it comes to us from Linneaus, and not through any intermediate languages. Note also the discussion of octop- in the second paragraph.
I’m not sure when this entry was updated so I don’t know when they started saying “more common octopi”. I’ll see if I can’t suss out the date on that.
Heh, figured it out. That language was added sometime after the 1989 printing. Carry on.
Also of interest is that by saying “octopi” (or, heaven forbid, “pegasi”) you lose not sounding like a twit. What’s next, mooses and gooses and mouses coming to invade our houses?
So ignorance is defensible on the grounds that being informed makes one sound affected? That’s an…interesting…position. Do you apply it to any other fields of learning?
I found an online copy of the 1911 Britannica
Originally appearing in Volume V19, Page 993 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Octopoda is clearly being used to describe the class that the Octopus belongs to and unfortunately I cannot find an example of the plural of Octopus.
Jim
You need to go back and parse that sentence again. “By saying ‘octopi’ you lose not sounding like a twit.” I’m on your side here. 
:smack:
I would go one step further than bordelond. I would say that common usage not only always wins out but that common usage defines winning out. The form that “wins” is the one that is most commonly used. That is not to say that a person shouldn’t do what they can to support a less common form of a word that they consider superior if they are so inclined.
Just my 2sense