Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Karl Henning]

Octopi is idiotic, of course. Latin plural for a Greek loanword in English. . .

I was going to post similarly, but when I reached for my American Heritage Dictionary, the etymology included an intermediary New Latin form . . . and octopi is arguably legitimate for the middle-man import 

[kishnevi]

Confusion exists in music as well.

Concerti
Concertos

Most people seem to go for concertos, but not everyone.

[Karl Henning]

Confusion exists in music as well.

Concerti
Concertos

Most people seem to go for concertos, but not everyone.

I think tolerance of both is eminently practical.

It can get a bit messy when writing of more than one Concerto grosso.

[North Star]

I was going to post similarly, but when I reached for my American Heritage Dictionary, the etymology included an intermediary New Latin form . . . and octopi is arguably legitimate for the middle-man import 

Fair enough - there must be many more similar cases.

[Sergeant Rock]

My Random House Dictionary wants octopuses as the primary plural, and octopi as a (less standard) secondary form.

And here I thought it was octopussys.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

And here I thought it was octopussys.

Sarge

Must be the New New Latin.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Ken B]

My Random House Dictionary wants octopuses as the primary plural, and octopi as a (less standard) secondary form.

The issue here is what is the source language. Octopus traces back to Greek so should not take a Latin plural. Octopi is a Latin plural. Its creeping acceptance is like the creeping acceptance of literally to mean figuratively: a concession to ignorance and folly.

Cactus also derives from Greek, so the correct plural should be cactuses.  I for one will eat cactuses but not octpuses.

[Cato]

  I for one will eat cactuses but not octopuses.

Wise advice!      "Include me out"* when the calamari is on the table! 

(Such phrases of fractured English have been attributed to movie legend Samuel Goldwyn.)

[Ten thumbs]

I tend to follow Fowler's Modern English Usage, which advocates English plurals for foreign words brought into English when speaking in the vernacular. When the matter is technical a different approach may be appropriate. The usual stumbling block to those who like classical plurals is ignoramus, which is not a Latin noun.

[Cato]

This is not a grammar grumble per se, but more of a "What Are You Thinking, Mr. Ad Man?"  0:)

A certain restaurant chain (Panera) has the following slogan in its new ad campaign:

"Our food will be 100% clean by the end of the year!"   

Now to be sure, the first half of the ad says that "clean food" is devoid of hormones, pesticides, artificial colors, etc.

So if you miss that part, the slogan will sound very odd!      Even so, to our ears it still sounds like an odd thing to trumpet!

[Ken B]

This is not a grammar grumble per se, but more of a "What Are You Thinking, Mr. Ad Man?"  0:)

A certain restaurant chain (Panera) has the following slogan in its new ad campaign:

"Our food will be 100% clean by the end of the year!"   

Now to be sure, the first half of the ad says that "clean food" is devoid of hormones, pesticides, artificial colors, etc.

So if you miss that part, the slogan will sound very odd!      Even so, to our ears it still sounds like an odd thing to trumpet!

Not necessarily clean of trichinella, or E. coli, just of the nasty stuff.

[Jo498]

The issue here is what is the source language. Octopus traces back to Greek so should not take a Latin plural. Octopi is a Latin plural. Its creeping acceptance is like the creeping acceptance of literally to mean figuratively: a concession to ignorance and folly.

Cactus also derives from Greek, so the correct plural should be cactuses.  I for one will eat cactuses but not octpuses.

I don't follow. Why should the plural be anglizised for Greek but not for Latin words? Especially as for "kaktos" the plural "kaktoi" would be pronounces very similar to the Latin "i" in modern Greek.

I'd say one should either anglizise almost everything except for technical language or other cases where a "classical" plural is suffiently well known. And here it will sometimes be a latinate plural of a Greek word because that's how tradition worked. ("It's all Greek to me" probably stems from a time when reading Latin was very common but Greek for specialists only.)
We pronounce and stress most Greek names also usually in anglizised versions of latinate versions (it once took me a long time to figure out what was meant when someone talked about "Theaetetus" in common English pronunciation because I was used to a German/Greek "Theaitetos" (more like Ta-Y-ta-tos). But many ancient names are also latinized (especially the stress) in German usage and sometimes endings dropped (one will find "Theätet" in older writings).

Or stick as closely as possible to the original plurals. Which sometimes gives the impression of pomposity and it is somewhat inconsistent because we usually do not put the words in the proper grammatical case anyway (unlike many German texts at the time of Bach who still put "Jesum" when it's accusative).

[Ken B]

I don't follow. Why should the plural be anglizised for Greek but not for Latin words? Especially as for "kaktos" the plural "kaktoi" would be pronounces very similar to the Latin "i" in modern Greek.

I'd say one should either anglizise almost everything except for technical language or other cases where a "classical" plural is suffiently well known. And here it will sometimes be a latinate plural of a Greek word because that's how tradition worked. ("It's all Greek to me" probably stems from a time when reading Latin was very common but Greek for specialists only.)
We pronounce and stress most Greek names also usually in anglizised versions of latinate versions (it once took me a long time to figure out what was meant when someone talked about "Theaetetus" in common English pronunciation because I was used to a German/Greek "Theaitetos" (more like Ta-Y-ta-tos). But many ancient names are also latinized (especially the stress) in German usage and sometimes endings dropped (one will find "Theätet" in older writings).

Or stick as closely as possible to the original plurals. Which sometimes gives the impression of pomposity and it is somewhat inconsistent because we usually do not put the words in the proper grammatical case anyway (unlike many German texts at the time of Bach who still put "Jesum" when it's accusative).

I am not sure there is ever a cogent reason why languages should be the way they are. I am simply giving you you the rule.
The reason probably is that English is half French, and French derives from Latin. In French Latin nouns usually brought their plurals with them, and then brought them hence into English. That happened with the other major parent of English, the Germanic languages. Sheep is a Germanic word and brought its irregular plural with it, as did numerous others. Unless a word has such a genealogy it will have a regular plural.

[zamyrabyrd]

Octopi is idiotic, of course. Latin plural for a Greek loanword in English. . .

Octo-pie, yum!!!

[Karl Henning]

With Cool-Whip!

[zamyrabyrd]

and a cherry on top...

[Ken B]

What can we bitch about on this thread? So, on a recommendation I tried reading one of the medieval mysteries by Paul Doherty. Lots of rave reviews. You can try samples through Amazon.

I defy anyone who cares about the use of English to get through three pages.

[Karl Henning]

GREAT (well, wrily amusing) typo!

[Cato]

What can we bitch about on this thread? So, on a recommendation I tried reading one of the medieval mysteries by Paul Doherty. Lots of rave reviews. You can try samples through Amazon.

I defy anyone who cares about the use of English to get through three pages.

I am intrigued!   

Never heard of the author, but that he has been published (apparently with success) and has "won awards," yet, as you say, can commit crimes against English with impunity, is par for the course these days! 0:)

[Ken B]

I am intrigued!   

Never heard of the author, but that he has been published (apparently with success) and has "won awards," yet, as you say, can commit crimes against English with impunity, is par for the course these days! 0:)

Page 1 of his latest medieval mystery.

Athelstan, Dominican friar and parish priest of St Erconwald's in Southwark, moved restlessly. He breathed a prayer for help against the horrors he half-suspected lurked behind the door, now being forced, on the upper gallery of the guesthouse at Blackfriars. Athelstan swallowed hard and stared at the wall painting to the right side of the door. In the circumstances, the painting was most appropriate. The artist, whoever it was, had certainly caught the present times. The wall fresco depicted the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities of the plain, which tumbled from God's grace into the deepest destruction. The painting presented a vivid scene of divine wrath: all the elements of nature running riot, the black-horizoned landscape glowing with flame. Strife held sway over raging hordes of warriors bristling with weapons. Fiery furnaces and hellish volcanoes burnt fiercely, the blackness beyond them constantly pricked with globes of light which illuminated fang-faced demons armed for war. 'Do you fear the worst, Brother Athelstan?'