You think you can handle Paris Troika?
Today's Wonderella uses that "Paris Troika" pun, which has not yet become a cliché (but surely will some day-it's just too natural). In the comic Paris Troika is a super-villain who has the ability to split herself into three duplicates of herself. Wonderella is not impressed, because she's easily powerful enough to beat three people. You can go read the comic to find out what happens next.
Why am I blogging this? Well, notice the alt-text (if you don't know, to see the alt-text, hover your mouse over the comic, and it should pop up): "Is it Parises or Parii"
OK, this hits on one of my pet peeves, which I have meant to blog about for ages: this weird -ii thing. People seem to think that -ii is the plural of just about any Latin noun. This is aggravated by the fact that English pronounces most unstressed vowels more-or-less the same, so it's easy to lump words that end in, say, -as, -es, -is, or -ys in with -us. This is jocularly extended to English words that sound vaguely Latin, like, say, Elvis.
It's a joke. Yes, I get it. But to anyone who knows anything about Latin it comes across as just plain weird. There are, you see, many Latin plural suffixes (-ae, -i, -es, -us, and for neuters -a), but only a few Latin words form their plural in -ii. Specifically substantives of the second declension that happen to end in -ius in the nominative singular. So it's a little weird that -ii has come to be the emblematic Latin plural used for this joke.1
Nor am I convinced that it's always a joke. I'm pretty sure at least some people genuinely believe that things like syllabii, apparatii and (God help us) penii are genuine Latin forms. In fact they would be the plurals of, respectively, *syllabius, *apparatius and Penius. (If you're curious, the correct Latin plurals are syllabi,2 apparatus (with a long u), and penes).
I have even on occasion seen such monstrosities as Starbucksii and Apiciusii. That latter one really threw me for a loop because the proper plural of Apicius is in fact Apicii. In this case, -ii was, for once, right, so the person really had to go that extra mile to get it wrong!
So what is the "correct" Latin plural of Paris? Well, actually there's two ways to handle this:
And don't even get me started on virii!
1. There are only a few Latin words used in English with a -ii plural, the most common of which is probably "radii." I assume the actual reason this suffix gets overused in English is because it is extremely common in scientific names, but as a genitive singular rather than a nominative plural. This is because -ii (implying a nominative -ius) is the preferred method to Latinize and genitivize a vernacular male name in biological Latin-few biologists nowadays know Latin, and even fewer have "official" Latin names, so this simplifies things greatly.
2. Well, syllabi inasmuch as syllabus is a Latin word at all. In Classical Latin it only exists as a ghost word, resulting from misreadings of sittybus and syllabe (in Cicero and Augustine respectively). But I think it's fair to say the word exists now, even if its origin is spurious. Cf. Diaphanus's Pluralitas Latina.
Why am I blogging this? Well, notice the alt-text (if you don't know, to see the alt-text, hover your mouse over the comic, and it should pop up): "Is it Parises or Parii"
OK, this hits on one of my pet peeves, which I have meant to blog about for ages: this weird -ii thing. People seem to think that -ii is the plural of just about any Latin noun. This is aggravated by the fact that English pronounces most unstressed vowels more-or-less the same, so it's easy to lump words that end in, say, -as, -es, -is, or -ys in with -us. This is jocularly extended to English words that sound vaguely Latin, like, say, Elvis.
It's a joke. Yes, I get it. But to anyone who knows anything about Latin it comes across as just plain weird. There are, you see, many Latin plural suffixes (-ae, -i, -es, -us, and for neuters -a), but only a few Latin words form their plural in -ii. Specifically substantives of the second declension that happen to end in -ius in the nominative singular. So it's a little weird that -ii has come to be the emblematic Latin plural used for this joke.1
Nor am I convinced that it's always a joke. I'm pretty sure at least some people genuinely believe that things like syllabii, apparatii and (God help us) penii are genuine Latin forms. In fact they would be the plurals of, respectively, *syllabius, *apparatius and Penius. (If you're curious, the correct Latin plurals are syllabi,2 apparatus (with a long u), and penes).
I have even on occasion seen such monstrosities as Starbucksii and Apiciusii. That latter one really threw me for a loop because the proper plural of Apicius is in fact Apicii. In this case, -ii was, for once, right, so the person really had to go that extra mile to get it wrong!
So what is the "correct" Latin plural of Paris? Well, actually there's two ways to handle this:
- The city of Paris was called Lutetia in Roman times. The later name, still used today, derives from the name of the Gaulish tribe who lived in the area, the Parisii. So, even though I kvetched about the horrid Apiciusii above, one can easily make a case for Parisii.
- The personal name Paris would be Parides (three syllables, stressed on the first) in the plural.
And don't even get me started on virii!
1. There are only a few Latin words used in English with a -ii plural, the most common of which is probably "radii." I assume the actual reason this suffix gets overused in English is because it is extremely common in scientific names, but as a genitive singular rather than a nominative plural. This is because -ii (implying a nominative -ius) is the preferred method to Latinize and genitivize a vernacular male name in biological Latin-few biologists nowadays know Latin, and even fewer have "official" Latin names, so this simplifies things greatly.
2. Well, syllabi inasmuch as syllabus is a Latin word at all. In Classical Latin it only exists as a ghost word, resulting from misreadings of sittybus and syllabe (in Cicero and Augustine respectively). But I think it's fair to say the word exists now, even if its origin is spurious. Cf. Diaphanus's Pluralitas Latina.