[QUOTE=sinjin]
operae = operases? I love it, optimissa!
sinjin 
[/QUOTE]
Silly sinjin: the plural of operae is operodes!
Daniel
Is Magna Opera anything like the Bolshoi Ballet? 
According to Baldrick, a great work is a Magificent Octopus.
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
According to Baldrick, a great work is a Magificent Octopus.
[/QUOTE]
And so we have come full circle.
Is a magnum opera anything like a switchblade symphony?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Is a magnum opera anything like a switchblade symphony?
[/QUOTE]
That’s where “Mack the Knife” comes from, right?
[QUOTE=Pazu]
That’s where “Mack the Knife” comes from, right?
[/QUOTE]
No, that one was not Magnificent but merely Threepenny. 
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
No, that one was not Magnificent but merely Threepenny.
[/QUOTE]
Not Magnificent, only Munificent?
[QUOTE=MilTan]
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).
[/QUOTE]
Well, since we use opera as a singular, you might want to pick a third example…
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, since we use opera as a singular, you might want to pick a third example…
[/QUOTE]
Good point. “It should be on all our agendas while in Milan to take in a few operas.”
This is the point at which synonyms are encouraged. “Of all Rossini’s [strike]opera[/strike] musical works, the only ones he is remembered for are his operas.”
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Good point. “It should be on all our agendas while in Milan to take in a few operas.”
This is the point at which synonyms are encouraged. “Of all Rossini’s [strike]opera[/strike] musical works, the only ones he is remembered for are his operas.”
[/QUOTE]
“Of all Rossini’s [del]opera[/del] musical works, the only ones he is remembered for are his operas.”
I think you were going for this affect using the [ del ] … [ /del ] code.
Jim
[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]
A, you mean hippopteryces, & 2, you obviously are unfamiliar with Gygaxian fantasy.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
A, you mean hippopteryces, & 2, you obviously are unfamiliar with Gygaxian fantasy.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not so much that he’s unfamiliar with it that irks me; it’s that he seems to think that, because it’s not of high literary value, the way it uses words is insignificant. That’s a bizarre attitude.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It’s not so much that he’s unfamiliar with it that irks me; it’s that he seems to think that, because it’s not of high literary value, the way it uses words is insignificant. That’s a bizarre attitude.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Yeah! Because normally we can expect prescriptivists to be reasonable and logical in their approach to language.
On the other hand, it’s particularly inconsistent that he’s willing to cling to a half-assed excuse that the source in question isn’t quality literature, and yet I’ve never once seen a prescriptivist back down when I’ve cited Shakespeare, who’s committed just about every one of those prescriptivist bugaboos.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Yeah! Because normally we can expect prescriptivists to be reasonable and logical in their approach to language.
[/QUOTE]
Heh, fair point. I guess I just hadn’t seen that particular lame argument before in quite that form.
Daniel