Of Octopi and Platypuses

[Quid est Veritas?]

So recently I was wondering where the Platypus got its name, and found it meant flat-footed. Strangely, for something with a Latinate name, its scientific nomenclature is Ornithorhynchus Anatinus. This means roughly 'bird-snout duck-thing'. Turns out, it had two initial scientific names which were later merged, of which Platypus survived as the common name. This replaced terms like Duckmole that I for one, think much nicer.

Anyway, the ending is latinised Greek for foot, so technically the plural of Platypus should be Platypodes. I know English favoured Platypuses, but this turned my attention to that old pedantic canard of Octopi. That is the same ending, so Octopi is wrong - Octopus should become Octopodes. I had never realised this. Based on the example of Platypus or Ignoramus (from Latin for "we don't know", not a noun ending), Octopuses is the right English form.

So while Fungi, Hippopotami, or Nuclei are clearly right; Octopi, Platypi and Ignorami aren't.

It reminds me of a discussion I had a while back on the correct plural of Elvis - Elvii, Elves or Elvises. Latinate plurals in English can be tricky. I opted for Elves, by the way, with a long e.

 

[Dave-W]

So while Fungi, Hippopotami, or Nuclei are clearly right; Octopi, Platypi and Ignorami aren't.

American comic Shelly Berman used to have a fun time with plurals: Sherifim, Stewardi, and “two Jack Ai.”

 

[Rubiks]

Should we have Latinized genitives as well?

the cactus's thorns > the cacti thorns

the cactuses's thorns > the cactorum thorns

 

[durangodawood]

Should we have Latinized genitives as well?

the cactus's thorns > the cacti thorns

the cactuses's thorns > the cactorum thorns

I believe thats spines, not thorns... as long as we're being particular.

 

[Chesterton]

It reminds me of a discussion I had a while back on the correct plural of Elvis - Elvii, Elves or Elvises. Latinate plurals in English can be tricky. I opted for Elves, by the way, with a long e.

FYI, this link, flyingelvi.com, shows the case is settled, and it agrees with my earlier decision. So there. Though I admit I was surprised to find there is an actual need to refer to multiple Presli.

 

[USincognito]

I've started using octopodes, but I'm going to stick with platypus for the plural.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Either way, as a connoisseur of all things Platypus, "Platypus gustavit nice quod. " (Platypus tastes nice).

In keeping with the Australian lunch menu of a meat pie, I usually order Platypus Pie, which translates as "I'll have a Platypie thanks."

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't bother with the plural form anymore. I just refer to an Octopus legion (for they are many) ...

How many recent films can you name that have used that line?

 

[durangodawood]

....Octopus legion....

The abrasion on your skin from octopus tentacle suckers?

 

[jayem]

This is off topic in a lexicology thread. In one of his concert gigs, the late Robin Williams had one of the funniest evolution jokes I've heard. It mentions the platypus. I'm a firm evolution believer, but this is too funny. As I recall:

"This is what was God thinking when he made the platypus: 'I'll take a beaver, slap on a duck's bill, and have it lay eggs. OK Darwin, go figure that one out.'"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To continue, what of Virus?

So in Latin, this is a mass noun, so no plural is recorded in classical Latin for it. Microbiology doesn't use a plural unless speaking of more than one type of virus, so a 'sample of virus' is the correct form. Generally usage favours viruses nowadays, which is perfectly acceptable as no Latin form is extent. If we extrapolate, it can perhaps be Vira, though.

I read a while back that some early computer engineers used predominantly the form Viri or Virii for computer viruses, until normal people appeared on the internet. Thereafter it was abandoned, once people realised that it is a completely grammatically incorrect pluralisation of the Latin noun.

 

[Chesterton]

...until normal people appeared on the internet.

 

[Rubiks]

To continue, what of Virus?

So in Latin, this is a mass noun, so no plural is recorded in classical Latin for it. Microbiology doesn't use a plural unless speaking of more than one type of virus, so a 'sample of virus' is the correct form. Generally usage favours viruses nowadays, which is perfectly acceptable as no Latin form is extent. If we extrapolate, it can perhaps be Vira, though.

I read a while back that some early computer engineers used predominantly the form Viri or Virii for computer viruses, until normal people appeared on the internet. Thereafter it was abandoned, once people realised that it is a completely grammatically incorrect pluralisation of the Latin noun.

If we are going to follow Latin, why not use the actual Latin definition of virus: slime or poison. Pretentious grammar foreignism are arbitrary and is a slippery slope.

I say we go with "viruses" because that's actually how plurals are formed in English.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If we are going to follow Latin, why not use the actual Latin definition of virus: slime or poison. Pretentious grammar foreignism are arbitrary and is a slippery slope.

I say we go with "viruses" because that's actually how plurals are formed in English.

There is a delightful little Poem:

We'll begin with a fox and the plural is foxes,
But the plural of ox should never be oxes,
One fowl is a goose and the plural is geese,
But the plural of moose won´t therefore be meese.

So also for mouse the plural is mice,
But for house it´s houses - we never say hice.
And since the plural of man is always called men,
For the plural of pan, why can´t we say pen?

Then one may be that and three may be those,
Yet rat in the plural is never called rose.
And the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!

So English, I fancy, you all will agree,
Is the most lawless language you ever did see.

Most of these are good English words, of Anglo-Saxon pedigree, so 'actually how plurals are formed' is itself a bit dodgy. I have no qualms with following usage in practice, generally a good rule, so agree with viruses. However, when it isn't established, common or obvious, etymology is a good standard to follow, in my opinion. Latinate plurals are well established for certain words, like Fungus or Gladiolus or Alumnus, so it has gone native long ago as a special form of English pluralisation.

Strictly speaking, classical Latin has no plural extent for virus, which is a mass noun - so really we should be treating virus as both singular and plural etymologically, akin to sheep for instance. This is in fact what microbiology/virology does for specific virus, only pluralising if more than one type of virus is found.

 

[Dave-W]

There are Hebrew plurals in English as well; mostly from words in the KJV bible.

One Seraph, several Seraphim.
One Cherub, many Cherubim.

I can't think of any words (other than untranslated Hebrew) that use the -ot Hebrew plural form.