WTF are octopi?
I brought this up on SFD and thought I may as well clarify.
OK, so I have a number of sad habits and one of them is that I get irate and mail people at dictionaries to tell them they are doing it wrong.
I have to admit that Merriam-Webster are VERY cool about it - they always respond thoughtfully.
(Just wait until I tell you guys about Chambers!)
Anyway, I mailed Merriam-Webster to say that I was disappointed that they listed "octopi" as a possible plural of octopus and worse, they didn't even mark it as common usage in the online dictionary. I said that I hoped that the print version, at least, clarified the pluralization rules that should apply.
This was the response I received:
Dear Faymar,
Thanks for your e-mail. We don't make a distinction between "common usage" and "proper usage" at the entry for "octopus" in our current print dictionaries--though I don't doubt the Noah Webster himself probably had a strong opinion on the subject and may have commented on it. We base all our entries on printed, edited use of the word and all its forms in current (predominantly American) English prose. And we have lots of evidence for a variety of plurals for "octopus."
The plurals of Latinate words like "octopus" are an object lesson in grammatical trends of the 17th and 18th centuries . As you can see from our dictionary, "octopus" entered the English language in the mid-1700s and both come directly from New Latin (New Latin is Latin as used since the end of the medieval period especially in scientific description and classification). During this time, many grammarians, frustrated with English's irregularities, sought to bring what they considered to be order to a seemingly disordered language. They tried to accomplish this by introducing a good number of Classical Latin and Greek words into the language, and imposing what they thought were Classical Latin endings on Latinate words. As "octopus" entered the language, grammarians took it to be a Classical Latin noun, not an English word, and so it was declined like fourth declension Latin nouns are declined. The plural of Latin nouns ending in _-us_ is _-i_; hence, "octopi." Of course, as English is a wild and unruly language, "octopuses" was already well established in the vernacular; the vast majority of the public didn't know Latin or New Latin.
This is a pattern that is evident throughout the history of our wild and crazy language: grammarians may meddle with words to make them more scholastically palatable, but the general speaking and writing public will ignore them and forge ahead anyway. There is no "pattern" for knowing when a Latinate-sounding word will have a plural ending in "-i" or a plural ending in "-es." You can be glad that not all Latinate words are like "octopus," however: not long after introducing "octopi," other grammarians noted that this was a false Latin ending, and so demanded that the "correct" Latin _octopodes_ (still not terribly correct by Classical Latin standards) be established. It was, though that plural is used predominantly in British English today.
In short, "octopus" has three "valid" plurals: "octopi," "octopuses," and, if you live on the opposite side of the Pond, "octopodes." You may use whichever you like with impunity.
I hope I've been helpful. Thanks for taking the time to write, and if you have any further questions or comments, please contact us again.
<3
OK, so I have a number of sad habits and one of them is that I get irate and mail people at dictionaries to tell them they are doing it wrong.
I have to admit that Merriam-Webster are VERY cool about it - they always respond thoughtfully.
(Just wait until I tell you guys about Chambers!)
Anyway, I mailed Merriam-Webster to say that I was disappointed that they listed "octopi" as a possible plural of octopus and worse, they didn't even mark it as common usage in the online dictionary. I said that I hoped that the print version, at least, clarified the pluralization rules that should apply.
This was the response I received:
Dear Faymar,
Thanks for your e-mail. We don't make a distinction between "common usage" and "proper usage" at the entry for "octopus" in our current print dictionaries--though I don't doubt the Noah Webster himself probably had a strong opinion on the subject and may have commented on it. We base all our entries on printed, edited use of the word and all its forms in current (predominantly American) English prose. And we have lots of evidence for a variety of plurals for "octopus."
The plurals of Latinate words like "octopus" are an object lesson in grammatical trends of the 17th and 18th centuries . As you can see from our dictionary, "octopus" entered the English language in the mid-1700s and both come directly from New Latin (New Latin is Latin as used since the end of the medieval period especially in scientific description and classification). During this time, many grammarians, frustrated with English's irregularities, sought to bring what they considered to be order to a seemingly disordered language. They tried to accomplish this by introducing a good number of Classical Latin and Greek words into the language, and imposing what they thought were Classical Latin endings on Latinate words. As "octopus" entered the language, grammarians took it to be a Classical Latin noun, not an English word, and so it was declined like fourth declension Latin nouns are declined. The plural of Latin nouns ending in _-us_ is _-i_; hence, "octopi." Of course, as English is a wild and unruly language, "octopuses" was already well established in the vernacular; the vast majority of the public didn't know Latin or New Latin.
This is a pattern that is evident throughout the history of our wild and crazy language: grammarians may meddle with words to make them more scholastically palatable, but the general speaking and writing public will ignore them and forge ahead anyway. There is no "pattern" for knowing when a Latinate-sounding word will have a plural ending in "-i" or a plural ending in "-es." You can be glad that not all Latinate words are like "octopus," however: not long after introducing "octopi," other grammarians noted that this was a false Latin ending, and so demanded that the "correct" Latin _octopodes_ (still not terribly correct by Classical Latin standards) be established. It was, though that plural is used predominantly in British English today.
In short, "octopus" has three "valid" plurals: "octopi," "octopuses," and, if you live on the opposite side of the Pond, "octopodes." You may use whichever you like with impunity.
I hope I've been helpful. Thanks for taking the time to write, and if you have any further questions or comments, please contact us again.
<3