Same right for every couple!

[OphidiaPhile]

Hubba-hubba. You know how I love the truth. Reality is so, so . . . oh never mind.

Same rights for a very loving couple.

FIXED

 

[Freodin]

They are both used by taxonomists as one is plural and one is singular, ...

Well, that is - at least in the original form - incorrect. The singular is "homo sapiens" - the wise man.

Must be an english abomination, from people who got confused about the ending-s.

 

[cantata]

Well, that is - at least in the original form - incorrect. The singular is "homo sapiens" - the wise man.

Must be an english abomination, from people who got confused about the ending-s.

That's my understanding too.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Do you know how degrading it is when you constantly have to announce that you don´t care about this and that, whatever your opponent just stated?

I was responding to Beanieboy about his being wrong about my not knowing what I was doing on the Freudian slip thing. Here:

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan Ahhhh, did I misspell Birklee. Uh, Berkeley?Fruedian slip I'm sure. I always feel so safe in your english studies classroom Cantata. Dangit! Freudian.

Beanieboy: Freudian slip.
This is the second time that you have misused Freudian slip as well.
A misspelling of a word is a typo.

Freodin: But I guess you also don´t care about what other people think about you, or what they tell you, or what they ask you.

This said by an atheist debating at a Christian website? Something tells me you don't care about that. Am I over at dubyuh dubyuh dubyuh bashachristianwithatheistnonsense dot com insulting nongodians?

Hmm, OK, maybe sometimes . . . but I don't go there "as a Christian," looking for converts . . ., just as a guy looking for debate and humor. But c'mon now, this is just the web. Does anyone really care about cyber arguments? C'mon now. We click log out and go about our real lives.

You atheists just don't seem to be able to take what you dish out. Go over to Dawkin's website and be wrapped in warm and fuzzy brotherhood.

I am railed against as a matter of course (and discourse) by the usual suspects, but so what? Opinions are just opinions. I call some atheist/freethinker/secularist/liberal/progressive/humanist/leftist a bobblehead doll or some other style of limited thinking joke, and they freak out and demand an apology or something. Diminishing a persons views is not a flame or a bait. It is just honesty. "You guys" come here to bash and denigrate Christians and "prove" that we are backwards, unread, country bumpkins, when almost all of us are well-versed in your worldview and have rejected the nonsense of chaos to order being caused by chaos.

No freudian slip this time.

This is just a debate site. Do I get all in a tiff everytime dear beloved Cantata corrects my spelling and slight grammer mistakes? This is just a bebate. Our fingers move faster hen our desires to get an A in Ms. Cantata's class. No one is confused by an apostrophe used wrong and a word spelled incorrectly. She's 21, let her have her day.

Same right for every couple or single right?

Let's muv awn.

 

[Freodin]

I was responding to Beanieboy about his being wrong about my not knowing what I was doing on the Freudian slip thing. Here:





This said by an atheist debating at a Christian website? Something tells me you don't care about that. Am I over at dubyuh dubyuh dubyuh bashachristianwithatheistnonsense dot com insulting nongodians?

Hmm, OK, maybe sometimes . . . but I don't go there "as a Christian," looking for converts . . ., just as a guy looking for debate and humor. But c'mon now, this is just the web. Does anyone really care about cyber arguments? C'mon now. We click log out and go about our real lives.

You atheists just don't seem to be able to take what you dish out. Go over to Dawkin's website and be wrapped in warm and fuzzy brotherhood.

I am railed against as a matter of course (and discourse) by the usual suspects, but so what? Opinions are just opinions. I call some atheist/freethinker/secularist/liberal/progressive/humanist/leftist a bobblehead doll or some other style of limited thinking joke, and they freak out and demand an apology or something. Diminishing a persons views is not a flame or a bait. It is just honesty. "You guys" come here to bash and denigrate Christians and "prove" that we are backwards, unread, country bumpkins, when almost all of us are well-versed in your worldview and have rejected the nonsense of chaos to order being caused by chaos.

No freudian slip this time.

This is just a debate site. Do I get all in a tiff everytime dear beloved Cantata corrects my spelling and slight grammer mistakes? This is just a bebate. Our fingers move faster hen our desires to get an A in Ms. Cantata's class. No one is confused by an apostrophe used wrong and a word spelled incorrectly. She's 21, let her have her day.

Same right for every couple or single right?

Let's muv awn.

Have I ever said something insulting? Have I attacked you, denigraded your views? Somehow I don´t think so, it is not my style. But it seems to be yours, and I don´t like it.

You are correct, this is a debate board. You are not debating - you are ranting.

Have a nice life.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Have I ever said something insulting? Have I attacked you, denigraded your views? Somehow I don´t think so, it is not my style.

You just have to kick back and watch your club members do the bullying eh?

But it seems to be yours, and I don´t like it.

Too bad.

You are correct, this is a debate board. You are not debating - you are ranting.

At a loss for more creative comebacks? You guys usually only have just a few anyway.

Have a nice life.

I have a very nice life.

Thanks for caring.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Well, that is - at least in the original form - incorrect. The singular is "homo sapiens" - the wise man.

Must be an english abomination, from people who got confused about the ending-s.

The ending s denotes plurality in English but in this case in Latin it does not.

Homo sapiens is Latin for thinking man and is in fact singular according to strict grammar rules (plural would be homines sapientes,) but many incorrectly take homo sapiens to be plural, and homo sapien to be singular.


http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Back_formation

 

[OphidiaPhile]

That's my understanding too.

And by the way I do not get offended when someone correct me or debates spelling or grammar, I just wanted to throw that out there because it seems that some people or "plastic fish" get offended when you do so.

 

[Freodin]

The ending s denotes plurality in English but in this case in Latin it does not.

I´m not sure I got that right.

Yes, the in english, the "s" denotes plurality. "sapiens" though, is not english, it is latin. It is still singular. The word "sapien" does not exist in latin. That means that "homo sapien" is NOT a correct latin phrase. Neither in singular nor plural.

So I wonder, might it be an anglizised form?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I´m not sure I got that right.

Yes, the in english, the "s" denotes plurality. "sapiens" though, is not english, it is latin. It is still singular. The word "sapien" does not exist in latin. That means that "homo sapien" is NOT a correct latin phrase. Neither in singular nor plural.

So I wonder, might it be an anglizised form?

The anglicized plural of the Latin is Sapien whereas true Latin pluralization is Homines Sapientes.

 

[Freodin]

The anglicized plural of the Latin is Sapien whereas true Latin pluralization is Homines Sapientes.

The plural? Shouldn´t that be "sapiens", and the anglicized singular "sapien"?

Sorry, you are confusing me.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The plural? Shouldn´t that be "sapiens", and the anglicized singular "sapien"?

Sorry, you are confusing me.

Not when you are discussing Latin, Sapiens is singular and Sapien is Plural, the s denotes the epithet of the species not plurality. But since we are not using the true Latin pluralization which is Homines Sapientes the anglicized version would be Sapien.

And I posted a section from a dictionary that states the same thing.

 

[Freodin]

Not when you are discussing Latin, Sapiens is singular and Sapien is Plural, the s denotes the epithet of the species not plurality. But since we are not using the true Latin pluralization which is Homines Sapientes the anglicized version would be Sapien.

And I posted a section from a dictionary that states the same thing.

Call me stupid... I just cannot follow you.

The latin singular is "sapiens". The latin plural is "sapientes" (not sapien).

The term used for the designation of our species is, latin, "homo sapiens". Designations are always used in the singular form, because they describe a singular, a single species.


The back formation that your posted article describes forms new singular terms from "mass nouns". That does not correctly apply here, because the term in question is not a mass noun (or adjective).

But let´s say that "sapiens" got incorrectly identified as plural, and an english singular form was added. Then this new form would be "sapien".

So why now is "sapien" the english plural form, instead of the singular form?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Call me stupid... I just cannot follow you.

The latin singular is "sapiens". The latin plural is "sapientes" (not sapien).

The term used for the designation of our species is, latin, "homo sapiens". Designations are always used in the singular form, because they describe a singular, a single species.


The back formation that your posted article describes forms new singular terms from "mass nouns". That does not correctly apply here, because the term in question is not a mass noun (or adjective).

But let´s say that "sapiens" got incorrectly identified as plural, and an english singular form was added. Then this new form would be "sapien".

So why now is "sapien" the english plural form, instead of the singular form?

Because the s has never denoted plurality in this instance and generally at least from my discussions with Taxonomists it is the correct form of plurality. But I am no way a Taxonomy major.


This is all I can find that pertains at all.




http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/plurals.htmAnd, finally, there are nouns that maintain their Latin or Greek form in the plural. (See media and data and alumni, below.)

more than one nucleus = nuclei
more than one syllabus = syllabi
more than one focus = foci
more than one fungus = fungi
more than one cactus = cacti (cactuses is acceptable)
more than one thesis = theses
more than one crisis = crises*
more than one phenomenon = phenomena
more than one index = indices (indexes is acceptable)
more than one appendix = appendices (appendixes is acceptable)
more than one criterion = criteria

 

[Freodin]

So instead of "sapien" being an incorrectly anglicized singular form, it is an incorrectly latinized plural form.

My, my, my... anglosaxons!