Multum Nugarum
"Multum Nugarum"
"A Lot of Nonsense"
Yeah, from this page of the book Subtleties of Scientific Style By Matthew Stevens:
I see this often on the Internet. The plural of the English word virus is viruses. The plural of the Latin word virus (for slime), viri, was virtually never used by anyone in ancient Rome
It would not have been used because it is not a plural form of a neuter! Viri, as a form of virus, is the genitive singular form!
beause it's the same as the word for "men" (and who wanted to talk about slimes?).
Um, homophony did not stop the Romans from using word pairs like testis ("testicle") and testis ("witness").
The word "octopus" comes from Greek: okto (8) + pous (foot). It is Latinized, but it is not a Latin word.
...and that hinders the use of Latin terminations, how?
The same argument as for octopus goes for platypus.
And just as wrong-headed.
It looks like the Octopus article at Wikipedia has been changed recently:
The Oxford English Dictionary (2008 Draft Revision[34]) lists octopuses, octopi and octopodes (in that order); it labels octopodes "rare", and notes that octopi derives from the "apprehension" that octōpūs is a second declension Latin noun, though it is not.
So, are they finally admitting that octopi is not necessarily wrong?
I wish they would actually say it.
It is a Latinization of Greek third-declension masculine oktṓpous (ὀκτώπους, 'eight-foot'), plural oktṓpodes (ὀκτώποδες).
And in the process of Latinization, Greek-derived words can change form, and there can be changes in declension.
Greek third-declension Τάρας, for instance, became Latin second-declension Tarentum.
Greek third-declension Ὀρφεύς became both third-declension and second-declension Orpheus.
The list goes on and on and on.
The fact is that when Greek words are Latinized and treated as Latin words, they may be shoehorned into Latin orthography and inflection paradigms.
If the word were native to Latin, it would be octōpēs, plural octōpedes, after the pattern of pēs ('foot'), plural pedēs, analogous to "Centipede"[35].
True, but irrelevant to Octopus.
The actual Latin word for octopus and other similar species is polypus, from Greek polýpous (πολύπους, 'many-foot'); usually the inaccurate plural polypī is used instead of polypodēs.
What? What?! Inaccurate? To whom?!
Is the Latin plural form polypi "inaccurate" only because the -pi element does not line up perfectly with the declension and stem of the Greek word element?!
Does that definition of "inaccurate" not make both Tarentum and Orpheus also "inaccurate" since their endings do not line up perfectly with the original grammatical attributes of their Greek counterparts?
Once a Greek-derived word is shoehorned into Latin orthography and an inflection paradigm, it could be said to be "inaccurate" to the grammatical attributes of their original Greek counterparts. But once the Latinizations have gone through that linguistic threshold between Greek and Latin, these new forms, from the perspective of the Latin language, become accurate.
This means that the only coherent definition of "inaccurate," when applied to polypi, would also apply to inflected forms of words like Tarentum and Orpheus. Surely, the word "inaccurate," when used that way, is not indicating some sort of inadequacy on the part of polypus, but rather indicating that Latinized Greek words do not necessarily have to match up with their Greek etyma!
Even besides all of that, it turns out that when the Greek word πούς ("foot") is used as a final member of a Greek compound, it may have the usual third-declension form -ποδ-, as we would expect, but it may have the alternate second-declension form -πο-, as seen in τρίπος (tripos), πώλυπος (polupos), and in neuter singular forms of adjectives like τρίπουν (tripoun)! It also is the case that the Latin polypus is a Latinization of a form of the Greek πολύπους that uses the second-declension form -πο-: πωλύπος! So, the Latinization actually does retain the grammatical attributes of its original Greek counterpart (second declension, o-stem). And polypus, being of Latin's second declension, has the nominative plural polypi after all!
So, the "inaccurate plural" statement in the Octopus article is not only not an indication of some sort of inadequacy on the part of polypus, but it is also flat-out wrong!
Iustinus of the Straight Dope Message Board put it very well:
While "octopus" should really be third declension, treating it as second declension seems to be very old. Compare the similar and often synonymous polypus, which is treated as second declension in Latin (plural polypi) even though historically it should be third (plural *polypodes). Furthermore, it turns out that even in Greek it was sometimes treated as second declension. I mean, if it only happened in latin we could attribute it to dumb Romans making up "pseudo-Greek plurals," but if even the Greeks got it wrong then... well I guess it isn't wrong
Thus the "Octopi is wrong!" claim dies in a fire!
And to top it off, the statement in that article is asserted without citation!
What all of this means is that Octopus really has two possible Latin inflection paradigms:
And, naturally, all of this also applies to the word platypus (from πλατύς, "flat," and πούς). In other words, the "Platypus is wrong!" claim also dies in a fire.
I firmly stand behind the idea that neither octopi nor platypi is wrong.
More can be read about the misconceptions about these words here:
http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/2145562.html
Whew, that was fun!
"A Lot of Nonsense"
Yeah, from this page of the book Subtleties of Scientific Style By Matthew Stevens:
I see this often on the Internet. The plural of the English word virus is viruses. The plural of the Latin word virus (for slime), viri, was virtually never used by anyone in ancient Rome
It would not have been used because it is not a plural form of a neuter! Viri, as a form of virus, is the genitive singular form!
beause it's the same as the word for "men" (and who wanted to talk about slimes?).
Um, homophony did not stop the Romans from using word pairs like testis ("testicle") and testis ("witness").
The word "octopus" comes from Greek: okto (8) + pous (foot). It is Latinized, but it is not a Latin word.
...and that hinders the use of Latin terminations, how?
The same argument as for octopus goes for platypus.
And just as wrong-headed.
It looks like the Octopus article at Wikipedia has been changed recently:
The Oxford English Dictionary (2008 Draft Revision[34]) lists octopuses, octopi and octopodes (in that order); it labels octopodes "rare", and notes that octopi derives from the "apprehension" that octōpūs is a second declension Latin noun, though it is not.
So, are they finally admitting that octopi is not necessarily wrong?
I wish they would actually say it.
It is a Latinization of Greek third-declension masculine oktṓpous (ὀκτώπους, 'eight-foot'), plural oktṓpodes (ὀκτώποδες).
And in the process of Latinization, Greek-derived words can change form, and there can be changes in declension.
Greek third-declension Τάρας, for instance, became Latin second-declension Tarentum.
Greek third-declension Ὀρφεύς became both third-declension and second-declension Orpheus.
The list goes on and on and on.
The fact is that when Greek words are Latinized and treated as Latin words, they may be shoehorned into Latin orthography and inflection paradigms.
If the word were native to Latin, it would be octōpēs, plural octōpedes, after the pattern of pēs ('foot'), plural pedēs, analogous to "Centipede"[35].
True, but irrelevant to Octopus.
The actual Latin word for octopus and other similar species is polypus, from Greek polýpous (πολύπους, 'many-foot'); usually the inaccurate plural polypī is used instead of polypodēs.
What? What?! Inaccurate? To whom?!
Is the Latin plural form polypi "inaccurate" only because the -pi element does not line up perfectly with the declension and stem of the Greek word element?!
Does that definition of "inaccurate" not make both Tarentum and Orpheus also "inaccurate" since their endings do not line up perfectly with the original grammatical attributes of their Greek counterparts?
Once a Greek-derived word is shoehorned into Latin orthography and an inflection paradigm, it could be said to be "inaccurate" to the grammatical attributes of their original Greek counterparts. But once the Latinizations have gone through that linguistic threshold between Greek and Latin, these new forms, from the perspective of the Latin language, become accurate.
This means that the only coherent definition of "inaccurate," when applied to polypi, would also apply to inflected forms of words like Tarentum and Orpheus. Surely, the word "inaccurate," when used that way, is not indicating some sort of inadequacy on the part of polypus, but rather indicating that Latinized Greek words do not necessarily have to match up with their Greek etyma!
Even besides all of that, it turns out that when the Greek word πούς ("foot") is used as a final member of a Greek compound, it may have the usual third-declension form -ποδ-, as we would expect, but it may have the alternate second-declension form -πο-, as seen in τρίπος (tripos), πώλυπος (polupos), and in neuter singular forms of adjectives like τρίπουν (tripoun)! It also is the case that the Latin polypus is a Latinization of a form of the Greek πολύπους that uses the second-declension form -πο-: πωλύπος! So, the Latinization actually does retain the grammatical attributes of its original Greek counterpart (second declension, o-stem). And polypus, being of Latin's second declension, has the nominative plural polypi after all!
So, the "inaccurate plural" statement in the Octopus article is not only not an indication of some sort of inadequacy on the part of polypus, but it is also flat-out wrong!
Iustinus of the Straight Dope Message Board put it very well:
While "octopus" should really be third declension, treating it as second declension seems to be very old. Compare the similar and often synonymous polypus, which is treated as second declension in Latin (plural polypi) even though historically it should be third (plural *polypodes). Furthermore, it turns out that even in Greek it was sometimes treated as second declension. I mean, if it only happened in latin we could attribute it to dumb Romans making up "pseudo-Greek plurals," but if even the Greeks got it wrong then... well I guess it isn't wrong
Thus the "Octopi is wrong!" claim dies in a fire!
And to top it off, the statement in that article is asserted without citation!
What all of this means is that Octopus really has two possible Latin inflection paradigms:
- Octōpūs, Octōpodis
- Third declension, with the -ποδ- form of the stem, like τρίπους, τρίποδος, and the Latinized tripūs, tripodis; the Latin nominative plural form is Octōpodēs if masculine or feminine (but Octōpoda if neuter, as in the scientific classification Order Octopoda).
- Octōpus, Octōpī
- Second declension, with the -πο- form of the stem, like τρίπος, τρίπου, and the Latinized pōlypus, pōlypī; the Latin nominative plural form is Octōpī.
And, naturally, all of this also applies to the word platypus (from πλατύς, "flat," and πούς). In other words, the "Platypus is wrong!" claim also dies in a fire.
I firmly stand behind the idea that neither octopi nor platypi is wrong.
More can be read about the misconceptions about these words here:
http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/2145562.html
Whew, that was fun!