| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 669.1 | Add an s | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Running old protocol | Fri May 19 1989 15:19 | 3 |
| The plural is `proformas'. Only ignorami suggest otherwise.
b
|
| 669.2 | | SKID::LIRON | | Fri May 19 1989 16:00 | 7 |
| 'Proforma' is an English word, so ...
The Latin expression "pro forma", meaning "pour la forme",
["for the sake of formality" (or something like that)],
has no plural.
roger
|
| 669.3 | resisting the obvious temptation | IOSG::GARDNER | Eugene Gardner | Fri May 19 1989 16:00 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 669.1 by MARVIN::KNOWLES "Running old protocol" >>>
> The plural is `proformas'. Only ignorami suggest otherwise.
The plural of most singular latin words ending in ~us is ~i
One notable exception is 'ignoramus' whose plural is 'ignoramuses'.
Most latin nouns ~a become ~ae in the plural - but not all.
|
| 669.4 | Pro formibus | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | I'll pick a white rose with Plantagenet. | Fri May 19 1989 20:36 | 7 |
| But the "pro" in the phrase is a preposition, and therefore the
noun must be given the appropriate case. "Forma" would be either
dative or ablative. (The only other choice is accusative, which
would be "formam".) Fortunately, the plural is the same for both
cases: formibus.
Ann B.
|
| 669.5 | pro formis | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Sat May 20 1989 09:36 | 10 |
| > "Forma" would be either dative or ablative.
It's ablative, in this case.
> Fortunately, the plural is the same for both cases: formibus.
Oh Ann, shouldn't it be "formis", with a long "i"?
;-)
Arie
|
| 669.6 | this meaning is different... | LAMHRA::WHORLOW | 1:25000 - a magic number | Mon May 22 1989 06:45 | 13 |
| G'day,
Err excuse me, but a 'pro forma invoice' is a document, 'in the
shape of' an invoice for informational purposes only. I always
understood - and now I'm about to be told "incorrectly so" - that
pro forma meant just that - "in the shape of,as substitute for".
If one wishes to create something, a pro forma can be used as a
model or a guide to ensure similarity of style.
derek
|
| 669.7 | Yes | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Running old protocol | Mon May 22 1989 14:39 | 23 |
| Re .3
Exactly. The plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses. `Ignoramus' was never
even a Latin noun, so the concept of a plural form of it is
mind-blowing.
I agree with the substance of .-1. As a matter of interest, in the .-1
interpretation, although `forma' is a noun it _doesn't_ apply to any
particular form; it's abstract. There's no case for giving its plural
a latinate ending, because no latin ending, however accurate in theory,
could conceivably be appropriate.
When `proforma' needs a plural, as in an example like "there
are proformas for all requirements...", the word (as .2 said) is
English. The standard way to form a plural in English is to add an
`s', except in a few cases where there are linguistic reasons for using
some irregular form. There is no such reason in this case.
And in cases where people are talking about forms, I wonder why they
don't say forms?
b
|
| 669.8 | Show us yer chitty | CHEFS::BUXTON | | Fri Jun 23 1989 18:32 | 9 |
| British military do use expression proforma in writing but the more
common spoken usage was chit or chitty which means a piece of paper.
I believe the word comes from British India but am not sure. Proforma
sounds like lawyers jargon especially coined to look impressive
in official documents or regulations. I was often asked to show
people my 'chitty' but never mt 'proforma'.
Bucko...
|