T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
248.1 | Take your choice | APTECH::RSTONE | | Wed Sep 24 1986 17:01 | 4 |
| My reference gives both "octopuses" and "octopi" in that order.
However, the same reference lists "cacti" then "cactuses". I guess
your choice depends on what kind of impression you wish to make
on your audience. :^)
|
248.2 | Octo(pl) | DRAGON::MCVAY | Pete McVay, VRO (Telecomm) | Wed Sep 24 1986 17:17 | 3 |
| I don't have it handy, but some years ago the "Chicago Manual of
Style" listed "octopi" as preferred, but "octopusses" is gaining
acceptance. I think "octopusses" is now more popular.
|
248.3 | fell right into my trap | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Wed Sep 24 1986 17:25 | 21 |
| re .1,.2:
Exactly the reason I ask.
I once had a professor who was quite fond of octopussies for various
reasons (their vision system, their presence in greek mythology).
He argued that "octopi" was absolutely wrong in that you are applying
a Roman pluralization to a Greek suffix. Also you are trying to
pluralize something that is already plural, namely 'pus' being the
plural of 'pod'.
So, his pluralization of "octopus" was "octopods" (or was it
"octopodes"?)
Any argument?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
248.4 | | AKOV68::BOYAJIAN | Forever On Patrol | Thu Sep 25 1986 04:23 | 29 |
| (1) The "-i" plural suffix is Latin, and "octopus" comes from two
Greek words, "octo" (eight) and "pous" (foot). One should never
(well, hardly ever) use a Latin suffix for a Greek root (or vice
versa). Thus, "octopi" is technically incorrect.
(2) The Greek plural for "pous" is "podes", so using the Greek
scheme for creating plural forms, the plural for "octopus" is
"octopodes".
(3) The proper plural suffix for an English word ending in "s" is
to add "es" (or "ses" if the "s" is preceded by a vowel). Since
"octopus" is a English word and not a Greek word, the proper plural
should be "octopusses".
The reason I say that "octopus" is English and not Greek is
because, though it's formed from two Greek words, the word "octopus"
(or "octopous") doesn't exist in Greek. The mollusk we call an
octopus, the Greeks call a polypous (many feet).
It should be noted that the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (the
hardcover, not the abridged paperback *thing* that seems to be
the DEC Standard Dictionary) lists the plurals for "octopus" in
the order "octopusses", "octopodes" (pronounced ok-top'-a-deez),
and "octopi".
"Octopods" is not valid, as it is the plural of "octopod", which
refers to any eight-armed mollusk. An octopus is also an octopod,
but not all octopods are octopusses.
--- jerry
|
248.5 | Rug rats again? | TMCUK2::MISC | Rule Britannia | Thu Sep 25 1986 07:24 | 8 |
| Oh no, cats again
Why not call them Octo-rug-rats?
That solves the problem
dcb
|
248.6 | and who's the audience | REGENT::MERRILL | Glyph it up! | Thu Sep 25 1986 08:54 | 7 |
| I think .1 is correct: an oceanologist is more likely to call
them "octopi" while the person-in-the-street is more likely to call
them "octopussies", influenced no doubt by the James Bond movie
"Octopussy"!
RMM
|
248.7 | we're not talking common usage here | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Thu Sep 25 1986 10:18 | 24 |
| RE .6:
Please, let's not make this another "common usage" debate.
I know what the common usage is.
The question is: is that "technically correct"?
But, it may be interesting to discuss why "octopi" is the common
form of the word. Is it just ignorance of Latin vs. Greek derivations?
Did it start as humor, then just propagate (as many computer jargon
words seem to)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, jerry, The DEC issue dictionary lists the plural as
"octopuses", not "octopusses". (quibble, quibble)
^ ^^
It also lists its etymology as:
_
Gk 'oktopous', eight-footed
/
( ___
) ///
/
P.S. jerry, good analysis, though, regardless of my quibbles.
|
248.8 | Octo-corn | TOPDOC::SLOANE | Notable notes from -bs- | Thu Sep 25 1986 10:55 | 5 |
| As one octopus said to another, "I want to hold your hand, your
hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your
hand."
-bs
|
248.9 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Sep 25 1986 13:23 | 6 |
| Re .7:
Define "technically correct".
-- edp
|
248.10 | some feet ! | RAYNAL::OSMAN | and silos to fill before I feep, and silos to fill before I feep | Thu Sep 25 1986 15:43 | 11 |
| Re .8 (!):
I don't see why he's say all that. I mean, do you say to
a heart throb "I want to hold your hand, your hand." ?
Re .*:
Well, we have the word "centipede", and "millipede", so why
"octopus" instead of "octopede" ?
Here's a little diamond: /Eric
|
248.11 | gimme a break | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Thu Sep 25 1986 16:36 | 12 |
| re .9:
As I said, I do not want this to become a debate about common usage.
"technically correct" is defined by its context (by its common usage)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
248.12 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Sep 25 1986 17:38 | 15 |
| Re .11:
I asked that question to avoid introducing common usage. In effect,
you have asked why something is correct while denying a correct answer.
To avoid that, please define what "technically correct" means. I see
no way to determine its meaning from context, and I am not aware of its
common usage, at least not enough to determine exactly what you mean in
this case. Please explain what you meant. If you want to avoid
discussing common usage, then please explain what you meant without
talking about common usage. Under what circumstances is something
"technically correct" or not?
-- edp
|
248.13 | octopedes... I like that | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Thu Sep 25 1986 18:47 | 30 |
| re .12:
.11 was facetious. The plain fact is that I cannot think of a good
definition for "technically correct". I can only think of examples
of the usage.
An example of the obverse, "technically incorrect", would be the
use of "octopi". It is technically incorrect because of the Latin/Greek
problem mentioned earlier. It is, however, correct because "octopi"
is the common pluralization of "octopus".
Usually, "technically correct" is embedded in a phrase such as:
"Yes, that is technically correct, but {you'd be a fool to do it
that way}."
What I mean by "technically correct" is something like "apply the
rules to the point of absurdity" (but not exactly).
I'm sorry to be so fuzzy about this, but this note was intended
to just have some fun with etymology. Not to convince anyone to use
"octopodes" instead of "octopuses" (I just can't bring myself to
accept "octopi" anymore, though).
Does that muddy things enough?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
248.14 | | ERIS::CALLAS | O jour frabbejais! Calleau! Callai! | Fri Sep 26 1986 14:57 | 10 |
| Frankly, I don't understand why there's a loathing to mix Latin and
Greek affixes. It never bothered the Romans. Might have bothered the
Greeks, but they weren't really in a position to object.
I did a bit of research on the subject, and near as I can tell, the
prohibition arose in the 18th century, when the Evil Lexicographers :-)
were busy calcifying the English language and forbidding other things
that didn't suit their fancy, like ending sentences with prepositions.
Jon
|
248.15 | is this the only one? | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Fri Sep 26 1986 15:57 | 18 |
| re .14:
> Frankly, I don't understand why there's a loathing to mix Latin and
> Greek affixes.
"Loathing"? I think that's a little too strong of a word to use
in this discussion. Remember we're talking "literal application
of the rules almost to the point of absurdity" here.
Is this the only word that has this 'problem'? (it's the only one
I can think of)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
248.16 | Quadraphonic | NOGOV::GOODENOUGH | Jeff Goodenough, IPG Reading-UK | Mon Sep 29 1986 08:20 | 1 |
|
|
248.17 | hexadecimal | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Mon Sep 29 1986 17:52 | 0 |
248.18 | those aren't what I asked for | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Mon Sep 29 1986 18:17 | 11 |
| re .16, .17:
I was asking for something like the octopus/octopi situation.
Octopus/Octopi represents the application of a Latin rule to a
Greek word, not just a composite of Greek and Latin words.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
248.19 | Is it _really_ Greek? | APTECH::RSTONE | | Tue Sep 30 1986 10:10 | 3 |
| Ah, but did not someone note that "octopus" is an English word,
not a Greek word?
|
248.20 | Fallback Position | INK::KALLIS | | Wed Oct 01 1986 12:40 | 5 |
| When in doubt:
"I saw an octopus. Then I saw three more of them." ;-)
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
248.21 | that's stretching things | REGINA::OSMAN | and silos to fill before I feep, and silos to fill before I feep | Tue Dec 16 1986 15:44 | 1 |
| Please see 152.15./Eric
|
248.22 | 32 drumsticks | TOPDOC::SLOANE | | Wed Dec 17 1986 10:06 | 8 |
| I caught an octopus. Then I caught 3 more.
I baked them for 30 minutes at 350 degrees, and we sat down and
ate the octopie.
It tasted awful.
-bs
|
248.23 | | TKOV52::DIAMOND | | Tue Feb 20 1990 01:58 | 5 |
| 2 of them = Sextadecapus.
3 of them = Tetravigipus.
4 of them = Bitrigipus.
What's 0 of them?
|
248.24 | What a work of art is no octopus! | ULYSSE::WADE | | Tue Feb 20 1990 10:51 | 5 |
| >> What's 0 of them?
An opus, of course
|
248.25 | more misplaced rules | MARVIN::KNOWLES | intentionally Rive Gauche | Tue Feb 20 1990 14:46 | 20 |
| � <<< Note 248.18 by CACHE::MARSHALL "beware the fractal dragon" >>>
� -< those aren't what I asked for >-
�
� re .16, .17:
�
� I was asking for something like the octopus/octopi situation.
� Octopus/Octopi represents the application of a Latin rule to a
� Greek word, not just a composite of Greek and Latin words.
A more common analogue of this situation is the application of
an _inappropriate_ rule - not necessarily a Latin rule on a Greek
root or a Greek rule on a Latin root; an example is *`syllabi'.
As, in Latin, the word `syllabus' (derived from Greek, as it happens,
but that's not what I'm talking about) is a fourth conjugation noun,
its plural is `-us' [with a long U].
I'm a Fowler man myself: use an English plural wherever it's admissible
- `syllabuses'.
b
|
248.26 | as in NOP | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Tue Feb 20 1990 20:25 | 5 |
| re: .24
No, no, no. A nopus!
--bonnie
|
248.27 | | GLIVET::RECKARD | Jon Reckard, 381-0878, ZKO3-2/T63 | Tue Feb 20 1990 20:49 | 1 |
| Woe is me! My life's work, my magnum nopus, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
|
248.28 | strangling in nopi | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Thu Feb 22 1990 18:53 | 3 |
| no, but it's got 8 legs to swim with.
--bonnie
|
248.29 | So _that's_ the plural | MARVIN::KNOWLES | intentionally Rive Gauche | Fri Feb 23 1990 14:16 | 7 |
| <<< Note 248.28 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
-< strangling in nopi >-
Really bonnie - that should be `nopera'.
b
|
248.30 | gee whiz | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Fri Feb 23 1990 14:20 | 5 |
| I stand corrected.
I conclude that the correct plural of octopus is "octopera"?
--bonnie
|
248.31 | octopera ? | GLIVET::RECKARD | Jon Reckard, 381-0878, ZKO3-2/T63 | Fri Feb 23 1990 18:37 | 2 |
| Oh, no, not another marathon contest. What's this, to see who can last through
eight consecutive operas?
|
248.32 | | AITG::DERAMO | Dan D'Eramo, nice person | Sun Feb 25 1990 19:39 | 3 |
| Spell it octoptera and you have some kind of mutant fly?
Dan
|
248.33 | maybe this should go in the collective nouns note? | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:08 | 3 |
| And octopteradon is a flock of ancient flying dinosaurs.
--bonnie
|
248.34 | Which part? I don't know. | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:42 | 3 |
| Octaria: part of an octopera.
Arie
|
248.35 | Wellll... | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:28 | 4 |
| Arie, if you had studied more about how octopuses mate, you'd know
which part.
Ann B.
|