Now this is pendantry


  • SockDev

    Continuing the discussion from Topic failed to load:

    @abarker said:

    GAAAAHHHH!!!!!!

    First, the Oxford English dictionary only recognizes viruses as the proper plural of virus. Since I don't have a subscription, here's an indirect reference:

    >First off, the OED gives nothing but viruses for the plural. Here's its abbreviated entry:
    Etymology: a. L. virus slimy liquid, poison, offensive odour or taste. Hence also Fr., Sp., Pg. virus.

    >1. Venom, such as is emitted by a poisonous animal. Also fig.

    >2. Path. a. A morbid principle or poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some disease, esp. one capable of being introduced into other persons or animals by inoculations or otherwise and of developing the same disease in them. Now superseded by the next sense.

    >      b. Pl. viruses. An infectious organism that is usu. submicroscopic, can multiply only inside certain living host cells (in many cases causing disease) and is now understood to be a non-cellular structure lacking any intrinsic metabolism and usually comprising a DNA or RNA core inside a protein coat (see also quot. 1977). [ Formerly referred to as filterable viruses, their first distinguishing characteristic being the ability to pass through filters that retained bacteria. ]

    >Other sources that support viruses include Birchfield (né Fowler 🙂 in Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), and also the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.[1]

    Second, neither version of the Latin pluralization works. Let's take a look at viri first:

    >Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men. And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular, not the nominative plural. And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative.[1]

    So viri is either "men" or a genetive singular version of virus, which means that option is out. So what about "virii", as you claimed?

    >Those confused souls who write *virii are tacitly positing the existence of the non-word *virius, and declining it as though it were like filius.[1]

    Oops. Virii would be a plural form or virius, which isn't the word we are working with, not to mention virius doesn't exist.

    So neither Latin pluralization is valid, and Oxford English Dictionary only recognizes viruses. The tile you were objecting to (The Offical @Sockbots are Viruses Thread) was correct as I wrote it.

    @abarker, doing it in style!

    …and I have no idea if my flag went through or not…


  • mod

    Damn, I just noticed a typo in there …


  • BINNED

    @abarker said:

    Damn, I just noticed a typo in there …

    Maybe I should flag this one instead...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Muphry strikes again!


  • mod

    @abarker said:

    Damn, I just noticed a typo in there …

    Fixed in original post now!



  • @RaceProUK said:

    …and I have no idea if my flag went through or not…

    What does it mean for a flag to "go through?"


  • SockDev

    As in the PM the flag generates



  • This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.