“Latin Plurality”
Here are some explanations of certain Latin plurals:
Octopus is a Latinized Greek word (ὀκτώπους) that is used as a Neo-Latin (or New Latin) genus name. (The Greek word is an adjective that literally means “eight-footed.” It can be used as a noun.) Some people imply that because it is a Latinized Greek word, it cannot follow Latin grammatical rules. Latinized Greek words in fact can be treated as Latin words. Latin allows several ways to come up with a plural for Octopus.
We could treat it as a noun of Latin’s third declension on the analogy of of the related word tripus (Latinized form of τρίπους), which would have the nominative plural form tripodes. In that case, the nominative plural form of Octopus would be Octopodes (or Octopodes, without macrons) if it is masculine or feminine. (That is similar to the Greek form ὀκτώποδες.) If the word is supposed to be neuter, the nominative plural would be Octopoda. (That is similar to the Greek form ὀκτώποδα. The Order name Octopoda comes from those Greek and Latin forms.) The stem of the word would be Octopod-, which is analogous to the Greek stem ὀκτώποδ-. The nominative singular form, Octopus, has a long u.
We could treat it as a noun of Latin’s second declension on the analogy of the related word polypus (Latinized form of πολύπους), which would have the nominative plural form polypi. In that case, the nominative plural form would be Octopi, and the base would be Octop-. Admittedly, this is the less etymologically-correct plural form. The nominative singular form, Octopus, does not have a long u.
So if Latin grammar could allow Octopodes and Octopi as plural forms, why is Octopi (or Octopi, without the macrons) considered undesirable? I can think of at least one reason. Since the Superorder name is Octopodiformes instead of Octopiformes, and the Order name is Octopoda, we can tell that the chosen base is Octopod-, not Octop-. Octopod- (where the is treated as a third-declension noun) is more etymologically correct. Octop- could have been chosen as the base (and be a second-declension noun), but some people who are not familiar with polypus and polypi would have considered it an error. However, Latin grammar does not disallow it.
If you chose to use “octopi” in English, and someone says that it is wrong, you could say that while “octopodes” would be the etymologically-correct Greek and Latin plural, Latin could allow “octopi” as a collateral form.
Platypus is another Latinized Greek word (πλᾰτύπους, with the literal meaning of “flat-footed”) that was originally used as a Neo-Latin genus name. However, it is no longer used as a genus name. The word can be treated much like how we treated Octopus above:
If we treat it as a third-declension noun, its nominative singular form would be Platypodes if it is masculine or feminine, but it would be Platypoda if it is neuter.
If we treat it as a second-declension masculine noun, its nominative singular form would be Platypi.
The third-declension method is more etymologically correct. However, Latin grammar does not disallow it.
If you chose to use “platypi” in English, and someone says that it is wrong, you could say that while “platypodes” would be the etymologically-correct Greek and Latin plural, Latin could allow “platypi” as a collateral form.
The spelling syllabus came from a fifteenth-century edition of Cicero’s Letters to Atticus where it is a misspelling of a form of the word sittybus, which refers to a strip of parchment. However, now syllabus is thought of as a Neo-Latin word with a plural form of plural is syllabi (or syllabi), so it is a second-declension masculine noun.
If you chose to use “syllabi” in English, and someone says it is wrong, you could say that the word is now, regardless of its origins, a Neo-Latin word, and such a plural may be formed.
Virus is a second-declension neuter noun that ends in -us. Unfortunately, forms of Latin before Neo-Latin do not indicate what a plural form of such a noun should be. Moreover, the word seems to be a mass noun like the English word air, so a plural form would not usually be used. The writer Ammianus Marcellinus seemed to have used the word as a fourth-declension masculine noun, so its genitive singular and nominative plural would be virus. There is a hypothesis about how the word virus could be interpreted as a accusative singular in the Ammianus passage. (However, it must be understood that using the word as a accusative singular is not an error. Such a usage is not an example of a misunderstanding of the writer.)
Neo-Latin, which uses the word to refer to our modern concept of viruses, uses the plural form vira (on the analogy of officia, nominative plural form of officium). It might be argued that such a method of pluralizing the word assumes that virus should work like neuter nouns that in -um, and not like masculine nouns that end in -us. (It does neither.) The method of pluralization can be based on something else. We know all of the forms of second-declension neuter nouns ending in -um, but we do not know all of the forms of second-declension neuter nouns ending in -us, and we would like to use a plural form, so for want of a better method, why not use forms of second-declension neuter nouns that we do know of and use them to fill in the blanks in the paradigm for virus? According to that idea, vira can be used as a nominative plural form. (Virorum would mean “of the viruses,” and it is different from virorum, meaning “of men.”) Sure, such forms are heteroclitical, and there is no known precedent for such a paradign, but then we are not dealing with a common situation. An usual paradign for virus should not surprise us.
William T. Stearn’s Botanical Latin contains two plural forms for virus: vira (implied long i) and virorum. Unfortunately, Mr. Stearn does not explain how he came up with those forms. Nuntii Latini, a weekly review of world news in Latin, has used vira as a plural for virus: vira computatoria, meaning “computer viruses.” The writers do not explain how they came up with that form, either. The LEXICON RECENTIORIS LATINITATIS, an online dictionary of recent Latin neologisms, uses vira ordinatralia for “computer viruses.” They also do not explain how they came up with that form. It is likely that the LEXICON RECENTIORIS LATINITATIS writers, the Nuntii Latini writers, and Mr. Stearn simply used known second-declension neuter forms to fill in gaps in the paradigm for virus (as I explained in the previous paragraph).
If you chose to use “vira” in English, and someone says it is wrong, you could say that the word virus has the modern meaning of “virus” in Neo-Latin, and the users of Neo-Latin tend to use that plural.
The spellings “virii” and “viri” are pseudo-Latin.
Hippopotamus is a Latinized version of the Greek word ἱπποπότᾰμος, meaning “hippopotamus” (the Greek word literally means “river-horse”). The Roman writer Pliny the Elder used the word at least once in his writings. Since the word is a first-declension masculine noun, its nominative plural is hippopotami.
The spelling “hippopotamii” is pseudo-Latin.
Rhinoceros is another Latinizated Greek word (ῥῑνόκερως). Again, Pliny the Elder used it. Its nominative plural is rhinocerotes, so it is third-declension noun, not a second-declension one.
The spellings “rhinocerii” or “rhinoceri” are pseudo-Latin.
Penis is a third-declension masculine noun, so its plural is penes.
The spellings “penii” and “peni” are pseudo-Latin.
Synopsis is a Latinization of the Greek word σύνοψις, meaning “synopsis” or “general view.” Its plural is synopses.
The Romans rendered the Greek word Ἶρις into Latin as Iris, which refers to the goddess of the Rainbow (Iris), the rainbow itself, and the iris of the eye. It actually has two possible plural forms: Ires and Irides. There is a section of the moon named Sinus Iridum (“Bay of Rainbows”) and an eye condition named Heterochromia Iridum (“Different Colors of the Eyes”). You are like to see people write the common misspelling “Heterochromia Iridium.” However, it can not be “Iridium” because the Latin word is not an i stem when its genitive singular is Iridis. Iridium is the name of a chemical element.
Latin Plurals of Tempus, Opus, Genus, and Venus
The first three words are neuter and the last one is feminine. They are all third-declension nouns. Their plurals are, respectively, tempora, opera, genera, and Veneres. When opera is used as a feminine word of the first declension, its nominative plural form is operae.
Latin Plurals of Census, Hiatus, Sinus, Fetus, Apparatus, Habitus, Lacus, and Arcus
All of those words are masculine nouns of the fourth declension. Their plural forms do not end in -i, but in us: census, hiatus, sinus, fetus, apparatus, habitus, lacus, and arcus. Lacus apparently also has a genitive singular form laci, as well as a dative plural and ablative plural lacis, which indicate that has been treated as a second-declension noun.
In classical Latin, the word ignoramus is verb that means “we do not know.” However, the word was used as a Neo-Latin masculine proper name of the second declension in George Ruggle’s play Ignoramus. If the word is then used metonymically to refer to an ignorant person (or an ignoramus) in Neo-Latin, as it is in English, the nominative plural would be ignorami. (That would be similar to how we might refer to a sexually precocious young girl as a lolita. The word seems to have been taken from the name of the main character in Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.)
If you chose to use “ignorami” in English, and someone says it is wrong, you can say that while “ignoramus” is a verb in Classical Latin, it is also a noun in Neo-Latin.
Latin Plurals of Trauma, Drama, Dogma
Those three words are Latinized neuter Greek words of the third declension: τραῦμα, δρᾶμα, and δόγμα. Their plurals are, respectively, traumata, dramata, and dogmata. Dogma can be used as a feminine noun of the second declension, but such a usage is rare. If it is treated as a second declension noun, its nominative plural form is dogmae.
Cactus, another Latinized Greek word (κάκτος), is a masculine noun of the second declension, so its nominative plural is cacti.
Pāginae Latīnitātis | DIĒS GAUDIĪ
© 2005-2008 Ian Andreas Miller. All rights reserved. Those statements refer to all of the original content on this page.