Talk:Plural form of words ending in -us

message: *I've removed the following highly disputed assertion from the article:
**According to  the word Virus is originated from greek, and has the following declensions
*** nominative singular Virus
*** vocative singular Virus
*** accusative singular Virus
*** genitive singular viri
*** dative singular viro
*** ablative singular viro
*** nominative plural Vira
*** vocative plural  Vira
*** accusative plural Vira
*** genitive plural virorum
*** dative plural viris
*** ablative plural viris
**According to this table, the plural for the nominative case is vira in Latin.  The same may be true for English because it uses the nominative case and no others in this table.
* There are numerous problems with this text:
** The French Wikipedia article asserts as fact that "virus" is of Greek origin, but there is no supporting evidence provided for this and neither do any authorities make this assertion.  The nearest that anything comes to this is the discussion in the first cited reference for this article, "What's the plural of Virus?", which attributes the idea that "virus" is a 4th declension noun (rather than a 2nd declension one) to a possible mis-understanding of Latin by a Greek writer, and which, moreover, specifically also states that "virus does not appear to be of Greek extraction" (my emphasis).
** The French Wikipedia article also asserts as fact something that simply isn't attested.  It asserts that "virus" pluralizes as do 2nd declension neuters in -um rather than as do 2nd declension masculines in -us.  But, as the very first cited reference points out, there are problems with both hypotheses, and no solid foundation for claiming either to be unequivocally correct in the manner that the French Wikipedia does.  Using the French Wikipedia as a reference for this article seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
* Of course, all of this was pointed out in the text of the article that was already there, before this new text was added.  It was pointed out in the very next paragraph, even. 
* Finally: Saying that "English uses the Nominative case of Latin" is an erroneous simplification, although I realize that that was an attempt to clarify something that was, simply, wrong. Uncle G 15:22, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Virus is indeed usually thought of as a second-declension neuter noun.  However, the Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. (compiled by Alexander Souter) cites an instance in Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri where vīrus has a genitive singular form vīrūs, which would make the word a fourth-declension masculine noun.  The word wasn't used in the plural, but its plural can be inferred to be vīrūs. Sure, this usage doesn't seem to be from the Classical Latin
period, but users of Neo-Latin (like me) might not have a problem with it if they are using to refer to viruses (in the modern sense).  In Neo-Latin, "computer viruses" might be vīrūs computātrālēs.  However, I don't recommend using "virus" as an English plural.
I decided to look at the Virus entry at the Latin version of Wikipedia.  We already know most of the information in the "etymologia et grammatica" (etymology and grammar) section (such as that the word virus is neuter, and a plural form of it wasn't used in antiquity), but it also indicates that the regimen sanitatis Salernitanum has a plural form virus. Ian-Miller 4:35, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that part of the article (including the "The first is classical, from Ammianus" part).  I wanted to make a specific reference other than Andreas Waschbuesch.  Moreover, Andreas Waschbuesch's comment didn't seem to me to refute the idea that the word is in the genitive in that Ammianus passage (mainly because of the "it's (very hypothetical!) possible he understood virus" part).  As far as I can tell, accusativus respectus (Accusative of Respect) is used in Latin, but it's not as common in Latin as it is in Greek.  As I see it, using virus as a accusativus respectus is not so much a misunderstanding of Latin as an instance of a phenomenon that is more common in the guy's native language.  I suppose one of the reasons that virus is thought of as a fourth declension noun there is that there are more words being used in special ways according to the "very hypothetical" possibility that Andreas Waschbuesch suggests (a combination with virus that's based on ones with forms of exuberare combined with lucrum, and copia being used as an adverbial expression). Ian-Miller 9:21, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute assertions based upon the French Wikipedia

message: * "Viruses", google search, 14,200,000
* "Virii", google search, 360,000 (2.5%?)
* "Viri", google search, 434,000 (3%?)
Not trying to convince anyone here, just writing down the numbers to save you looking them up!  Viri is a family-name, b.t.w., and all of those searches refer to the pluralisation debate within the first page of results.
---
:Some updated results, as of 2009-12-02:
* 562,000 for "computer viruses"
* 14,300 for "computer virii"
* 2,220 for "computer viri"
* 8,050,000 for viruses
* 265,000 for virii
* 1,310,000 for viri (includes usages such as 'Viri Galilaei' and 'viri novi' which are nothing to do with viruses)
:It appears that the last five years have not been kind to the alternate spellings; this page has probably contributed substantially to their ongoing demise. --Oolong (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick note 

message: My Latin knowledge and books show this:
(from: Latin/Dutch dictionary, Amsterdam University Press)
Vīrus, ī  n
meaning: word vīirus, gen sing virī, neutrum
(from: Redde Rationa Retinenda, Wolters-Noordhoff Groningen)
Nomina Substantiva:
Only two possible declensions of vi&299: O-declination masculinum and O-declination neutrum. The dictionary tells us the word is neutrum, which means the word should have this declension:
     	    	o-decl. n
sing.	nom.	virus
     	acc.	virus
     	abl.	viro
     	dat.	viro
     	gen.	virī
plur.	nom.	vira
     	acc.	vira
     	abl.	viris
     	dat.	viris
     	gen.	virōrum
However, the dictionary shows nothing about the existance of the plural in Latin. The existance of the word vir does not mean  virus cannot be declensed with the O-declination; virī can be the gen sing. of either vir and vīrus, and the nom plur. of vir.
One other important thing, IMO, is that a latin plural is not automatically a correct english plural.
(Just my $0.02)
----
It would appear that the word is not attested in classical Latin in the plural, and it is almost the only example of a neuter second-declension noun in -us (vulgus, the only other such word that i know of, similarly does not have a plural) so I think it's impossible to say what a Latin plural should have been if there had been one. But the existance of the word vir has nothing to do with the matter: vir in all its cases has a short i in its first syllable whereas in virus it's always has a long i - vīrus, vīrī, vīrō. By the way I can't find any justification in my reference books fro regarding it as fourth declension.  rossb 23:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin

message: Footnote 2 on this page claims that
:The first meaning given for this word, a slimy liquid, slime, in the most widely used Latin–English dictionaries is inaccurate; the error has been corrected in the more recent Oxford Latin Dictionary.
Can anyone present a source for that meaning being inaccurate, apart from the fact that one recent dictionary doesn't have it? Nordstedts Latin-Swedish dictionary (2001), presumably produced independently from the undefined "most widely used Latin-English dictionaries", has a similar definition ("slem, saft"). I don't think it's impossible for it to be inaccurate, but I'd like to see a source. EldKatt (Talk) 19:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 2 (slime) 

message: I'm taking out the some-say-others-say tripe again:
"... are also used by some ...": Used by whom?
"... Some users of the Internet feel ...": What users feel?
"... considered correct ... includes them as correct ...": Considered by whom? "Correct" meaning what? Standard? Dialectal? Jargon? Orthodox?
"... The misformed plural virii ...": Misformed? But "Some-Say ..."
"... is frequently perceived to be ...": Perceived by whom?
"... It may have originated as whimsical usage on BBSs ..." Please. Says who? Based on what?
"... some claim that ... This claim also asserts that ...": Who claims that?
"... Supporters of this viewpoint are often accused of ...": What supporters? Accused by whom?
"... One opposing view is that ...": Whose opposing view?
"... Rather, it is said ...": Said by whom?
Note that the various "views" are still mentioned. But it adds nothing to lard them with vague authority pulled out of what some say could be something or other. Also, it's more accurate to acknowledge that, whether viri/virii are nonstandard or nonwords, people use them for different reasons. It isn't much of a mystery. Squib 21:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: It seems this made up plural form has spread to other words, like octopuses and such, does this classify Virii as a virus?
:Considering how well-established a form such as octopi is compared to virii--the former is occasionally mentioned in dictionaries, and is doubtlessly older than the latter--it's probably inaccurate to claim that virii is "spreading" to other words. These two are examples of the two chief sources where we might get misformed Latin-like plurals: octopi coming from ordinary people somehow misunderstanding something (in this case thinking a Greek word is Latin); virii from members of some subculture using it humorously, and others misunderstanding them. These are separate phenomena. EldKatt (Talk) 10:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original poster meant that virii has spread into forms like octopii and alumnii. -Silence 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Virii as a Virus

message: I've removed a "linguists note" added by .  It is completely unsourced, and states a point of view without attributing that point of view to the person who holds it, contrary to our neutral point of view policy. Uncle G 10:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. --FOo 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linguists note" removed 

message: Okay, as a Latin teacher, and having read through this whole thing, I'm walking away with the following:  The plural of virus is either viri (masc, plural, nominative, 2nd declension); virora (3rd neuter), virus (4th masc), or viru (4th neut).  I really don't know if there's any evidence to argue for any of them.  It all seems one big stretch to me to insist it must, or would have any wont to be, neuter.  The OLD says viri, so that's what I'll preach publicly.  --Mrcolj 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like I have a spooky doppelganger who happened to read this page a few hours before I did.  My Latin is rustier than his, though.  And my take is different...I think virus (the Latin word) may not have a standard plural form, but if it did, or if someone were to coin one (say, to make a Latin pun), it would be vira -- neuter, plural, nominative, second declension; and yes, kinda weird looking.  As for the English word "virus," borrowed and Anglicized: the plural is "viruses".   Using "virii" is either slang, jargon, or hypercorrectness.  Silarius 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Another theory holds that virus, if it was a 2nd declension neuter, must go to *vira in the plural as do its -um neuter brethren in the 2nd declension. However, that assumes that it works like a -um form, not as a -us form does. And it really seems to do neither. If it were a -us form (again, as a 2nd declension nominative), then its vocative would have to be *vire; but it's really only virus. You also expect an accusative form *viros, but that too is missing; it's still just virus in the accusative. And if it were a -um form, then its vocative would have to be *virum. But it's not--here again, it's only virus. (Vocative examples of virus are not particularly common. Apparently the Romans seldom addressed their slime in a personal fashion. :-)" -What's the Plural of Virus? Asking what the plural of virus is in Latin is as meaningless as asking what the plural of meat or knowledge or spaghetti or furniture or rice or mathematics is in English. It misunderstands the grammatical function of the word in either case. -Silence 01:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summation 

message: The supposed link to the archived peer review is a link no nowhere.  There is not even a matching page in the deletion log.  What's going on here? — The Storm Surfer 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I'm just some random net jackass, so pardon me if this is a solecism:  Isn't the fourth declension plural of virus actually virūs rather than viruus?  Is "uu" some kind of alternate spelling for a long u?  — 63.249.110.32 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the u is long, but it is not spelled any differently. The mistaken correction has been fixed. Adam Bishop 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Declension Plural 

message: Virus is coming in English language.  its latin word "virus" means "poison;venom",  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.146.98 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  virus meaning(ram prasad) 

message: I think that a merge to Virus may be in order - it's not a terribly long article, and it doesn't do much to separate itself from the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: We seem to have a new editor who has not contributed before, who feels that the article should be removed, perhaps in reaction to my restoration of his un-discussed deletions of a whole section. Now he wants it all gone.  Those who feel differently ought to make their thoughts heard now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNameWithNoMan (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete 

message: I have removed the rescue template. There is no reason to think there will be additional information that would meet the objections being raised at the afd, which are rather about whether or not the article is  fundamentally appropriate, not lack of sourcing. DGG (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On of the nomination reasons was The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation...speculation or speculate is defined in Wikitonary as # (intransitive) to make an inference based on inconclusive evidence; to surmise or conjecture. It is for this reason that I put the resuce template on.--Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: rescue template

message: So we "keep" it by changing the title so that no one can find it. What's the betting that someone will now start a new "Plural of Virus" topic? TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voted to keep, destroyed anyway 

message: Mass nouns — such as air, rice, and helpfulness in English — pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the non-existence of plural forms.
Does this mean non-existence of attestations of such plural forms or non-existence of the possibility of a legitimate plural form?  My guess is the former because the latter would make a self-contradicting sentence.  ("They do pluralize (in special circumstances), but plurals can't exist.")  Anyone else read the quote as ambiguous?  —63.249.110.34 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "non-existence of plural forms"

message: I have removed some references to the self published material.  The material in question was a self published rant/essay that was from a non-authoritative source.  The author of the essay is a well respected writer of programming books about Perl but expertise in one domain does not automatically transfer to another domain. please don't get upset if you happen to like the man's work. I happen to like his work myself. Turning around in my chair and counting it looks like I have about 9 of his books, because every time a new version Of one of them comes out, I have to buy it!
I have been trying to understand Wikipedia requirements for citations and sources lately and it's been an interesting read. I've added the shortcut to the Wikipedia verifiability page which addresses a ton of different aspects of issues about sources. If you want to take a peek at it before adding any citations to the article it couldn't hurt. WP:V
This entry was created using Dragon NaturallySpeaking's speech recognition system. This creates the possibility that there may be mistranslated text in this entry.
:I have reverted this removal of material, for a few reasons. First, let me say that I would not object to a reworking of the section "Use of the form virii", but removing all of the material and sources and leaving a single line saying "Usage of virii has met with some resistance" to me is not a good wiki-edit. Hence the revert. Don't mistake this as an unwillingness to (perhaps drastically) rework the section.
:To address the concerns directly though, it's important that you understand why Tom Christiansen's article is notable and relevant. In particular, it has nothing whatever to do with his linguistic chops and so to attack it on that basis is specious. The truth is that the use of the term "virii" was a relatively short-lived but at the time very pervasive internet fad. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, lots of people were adopting the term "virii" and there were a number of folks that claimed that it was correct in general, or that it was correct specifically for computer viruses, etc. This took place, like most things on the internet at the time, in mostly technical forums. Tom Christiansen wrote the linked article in question and it was the ammunition that eventually won the virii vs viruses war, if you will. Everytime someone claimed that virii was an acceptable plural, someone would link to that article. Because technical people typically like to be pedantic and correct, within a year the only holdouts using the term virii were people trying to make a point about linguistic perscriptivism and its lack of merit.
:Nowadays of course the internet is no longer a special club for techie types, and since the use of virii was always a fringe sociolect phenomenon I very much doubt many people today would even recognize virii as a word.
:There's a part of me that feels like this stuff should be preserved à la Jargon file somewhere, because it represents an important part of early internet culture and I think it's safe to say that the development of the internet is one of those social changes that, like the industrial revolution, will be studied and talked about far into the future. Whether or not Wikipedia is the right place for that is of course up for debate.
:Thanks for your edits though, other than this particular one I thought they improved the article a lot. Please don't forget to sign your edits with four tildes (~).  Thanks! Eniagrom (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed material 

message: The article claims that the Oxford English Dictionary (2004) lists "octopi" as a plural. My own (print form) 2004 Concise Oxford Dictionary does not list it at all as a plural, but it quite simply says: "The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for Latin plurals, is incorrect." Unless someone can show that the Oxford Dictionary has changed its stance, I propose to change this claim. — Quondum 13:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Concise Oxford is not the same thing as the Oxford English Dictionary. The proper OED is a huge book, two-man carry, normally found only in libraries. I have an old ~1972 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which is in two large volumes, still abbreviated from the full version (the Concise is even smaller). This Shorter OED does not mention octopi at all, through it has octopodes and octopusses. Interestingly, as I type, the spell checker in Firefox (I have the British English dictionary installed) flags ALL of these plural forms as errors. edit- Ah! octopuses doesn't have a double "s". So that is the only spelling accepted by Mozilla, at least when one spells it correctly. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation of Oxford English Dictionary: "octopi"? 

message: Isn't it a general rule that Greek donor words ending in -us add -es to form the plural?  As in hippopotamuses? Perhaps it would be better to add a section on Greek donor words instead of listing octopus and platypus as exceptions.  Right now the article only really considers Latin derived words.  Any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Schulien (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: AIUI: though originally Greek, Hippopotamus came to English via Latin. The Greek ending is generally -os (plural -oi), not -us. 86.139.62.158 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek donor words