Talk:Plural form of words ending in -us

viri
Example of viri being used in medicine and virology:

http://supfam.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/SUPERFAMILY/cgi-bin/gen_list.cgi?genome=ha for more examples please see: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=viri+herpes&btnG=Search

There doesn't seem to be any mention here of 'virii' being the accepted plural of _computer_ virus.
 * It's nowhere near universally accepted, for obvious reasons, and are you sure it's much more widely used for computer viruses in particular than for viruses in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolong (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the published standard work on a subject makes a clear statement of fact, it is not valid for contributors to bring Wikipedia into [further] disrepute by ignoring that statement. Cassell's Latin Dictionary is the standard work on the subject and clearly states, in the 1959 edition, that the plural of virus is viri. I suggest consulting that work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejanus.sejanus (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edit (in the article) is argumentative in style, which is not the proper way to add to an article. This is not a gladitorial arena. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find it argumentative. It is simply a statement of a fact, to whit: an acknowledged reference book on the subject makes a statement flatly contradicting the entry. I'm simply following Wikipedia guidelines that entries must not be speculative. I will be happy to see the edit revised in a manner that you find less contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejanus.sejanus (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an accepted method of adding references to external sources, many of which you can see in the appropriate section of the article. Your recent edit has been made in such a way as to contradict all other sources and content (from many contributors), rather than adding a note of an alternative source.


 * In any case, this article is about plurals in English, where the accepted plural of virus is viruses. Much of the material is about the original Latin, and the Cassells reference is relevant to that, but it is not relevant to the English plural. English dictionaries do not give "viri" as a plural for viruses. Even if one did, no one reference work trumps all others. Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Please add your reference in the proper manner, to the relevant portion of the article, rather than try to take over the entire article. I would suggest an entry after the one about Whitakers treatment of the issue. I am too lazy to do this work for you and do not in any case have Cassells to hand. I also wonder if there is not a more recent edition than one from half a century ago. And please sign your edits on the talk page with four tildes. It looks newbish to make the robot do it for you. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of taking over the article and hope that the latest version is acceptable to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejanus.sejanus (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy about the plural in mainstream English as you have been writing. Your source relates to the plural in Latin, of which there is a lengthy discourse in the article with references to other sources. At one time this article contained a paragraph referring to the belief by some that computer viruses in particular have or should have a plural in variance with common usage, but that was removed on the grounds that it was not appropriate or relevant, although much of the exposition on the Latin plural (or lack thereof) derived from that belief. Your source is an appropriate addition to the Latin information, but does not have any bearing on established English usage.


 * You still have not discovered how to add a reference in the approved manner. I suggest looking through the rest of the article, in edit mode, to see how others do it, and try your edits with the preview button before saving. You should NOT sign edits to the article, only your comments on this discussion page. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cassell's is not the only standard reference; it's a good small one but there are a few larger ones (Lewis and Short? OLD? Aren't those truer standards?). Anyway, are you sure that's what Cassell's says? Are you sure it gives the plural, and not the genitive singular, which is also "viri"? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It gives the singular as virus; the plural as i (the stem being vir) and the gender as n. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejanus.sejanus (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my Cassell's is in a box somewhere, but as far as I remember it is just like every other Latin dictionary, which gives the word, the genitive singular, and the gender. So what you're seeing is not the plural, but the genitive. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I found an edition of Cassells online (scanned pages,circa 1915). I also did not realize that the suffix given after the nouns was not the plural, but the genitive singular. There was nothing in the first pages, with abbreviations and other lists, to indicate that. I guess you just have to know.


 * Probably most people familiar only with English dictionaries automatically assume that the suffix listed after a noun is the plural. Maybe that is the enduring source of this persistent confusion. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have in front of me the 1959 edition (actually the third edition of that, from 1964, edited by D. P. Simpson), and it says on p. viii, under "Declension, conjugation, etc", "The Latin word printed in bold type at the head of an article is followed, first, by any alternative form in which it may be found...Next come, if the word is a noun, its genitive and gender and further details of its declension if not regular..." This is just how Latin dictionaries work. The nominative and genitive will almost always be sufficient to figure out the rest of the declensions, provided that you already know the declension paradigms. Cassell's says nothing about a plural, and since there are no plural examples we are probably expected to infer that there are no plural examples to cite. (This actually isn't a regular neuter word, but Cassell's doesn't need to tell me that, I can extrapolate that because it is neuter, the nominative and accusative will be the same, even if it is unexpected -us ending. This is all processed unconsciously if you already know the declensions, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam, it's quite clear that your research trumps mine. I apologise if my efforts seemed confrontational but am pleased that the outcome was to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejanus.sejanus (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Prescriptivism is not encyclopedic
Please keep in mind that the rules for making plurals and conjugating verbs were made up out of whole cloth to explain how already existing lanuages work. They do not exist to to "rule" languages. Languages are dynamic. In order for Wikipedia to become a leader and authority as a reference it has to lead, not follow.

Example, The OED just added 'bootyliscous' to its online dictionary. Prescriptivists would insist that it is not a word, but words are... whatever people are using, whether they follow the static rules or not. When the words people are using don't follow the rules then it is the rules which are incorrect and out of date, not the word. (Note - yes it is understood that not all made up words enter a given language. There has to be some minimum amount of large scale adoption, but how much adoption it takes is a grey area.) Jjk 20:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of misspellings archived on Google. For instance, "mispelling" is represented on 42,100 pages, vs. 444,000 for "misspelling". This is around the same 10:1 ratio attested for "computer virii" vs. "computer viruses". Does this make "mispelling" a correct alternate spelling? No, it does not.


 * Correct. And as it turns out almost all words with three syllables that also have two "doubled" letters in them are misspelled or "typo-ed" about 10% of the time.  Look at "occurrence".  Virus is only two syllables with no doubled consonant, viruses is three syllables, and no doubles.  ''viri(i)' is not a mispelling or accidental typo.  It is a deliberate choice. This plural form is not a simple  transformation from the root word.  People are not accidentally using the virii form because they mispelled "viruses".  They are choosing this form.  they aren't forgetting to double a letter, and they aren't dropping a letter by accident.  This is a deliberate selection of a specific and different form. It is clearly not a mispelling.  It is a decision. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is a misspelling, and one which is frequently used whimsically -- that is, deliberately doing something "wrong" in order to be funny or to make an in-joke.


 * small, simple words are not misspelled 10% of the time. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You should look at those entries returned by google. They are not being whimsical.  1 person in 10 is making a deliberate choice to use the viri(i) form. They aren't mispelling anything, and they are not using it in a joking fashion.  Jjk


 * You haven't addressed the issue. Does 1 in 10 usage of "mispelling" make it an attested spelling of "misspelling"? If you want to be descriptivist, you still need some way to distill actual usages from casual mistakes or misuse. Otherwise, every common typo, mondegreen, and misunderstanding becomes a fully-fledged alternate spelling -- from "teh" to "facist" to "all intensive purposes".


 * When I worked for Dragon Systems on their speech recognition software we had similar problems. The answer is to group similar objects which have the same distinguishable characteristics.  Fortunately for us, there already exists a substantial body of knowledge about why and how people spell and type words incorrectly.   Small simple words are not mispelled 10% of the time.  Do a few Google searches on 3 syllable words with 2 doubled letters in them and then search on their common misspellings.  Then do the same on some simple words.  You will see an amazing level of difference in the ratios. Also the transformation from virus to viri(i) is not a typical spelling mistake like transposing letters, dropping a double letter, or adding an extra non-doubled letter.Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There are some cases that are clearly mistakes ("mispelling", or "teh", except as used whimsically by gamers), and some that are based on mishearings of a common phrase (like "all intensive purposes" for "all intents and purposes"). If a descriptive account of a language cannot distinguish these from live usages, then a descriptivist dictionary would be a truly remarkable thing. It might collapse under its own gravity. --FOo 04:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So now you're saying that people are mishearing the word viruses as viri(i)? very unlikely.Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's what is going on with "virii". The word is propagated as intentional, self-deprecating slang; an in-joke; a way of simultaneously communicating and saying "look what a computer nerd I am" --


 * Refuted above. Do look at the google entries. Jjk


 * just like "Unix boxen" or "VAXen" or "mouses". "Virii" is, moreover, simply not used in a serious context; it is eschewed by people who need to write professionally or academically about viruses. It is, therefore, accurate to call it a slang usage of the particular sub-subculture that chiefly uses it; that is, script kids, crackers, and security hangers-on.


 * Wrong. I am not part of that sub-culture, nor are most of the computer professionals I regularly interact with. We all have multiple decades of experience.  We all view viri or virii as a reasonable alternate choice. Jjk


 * As a computer professional, specifically in the security field, and more specifically in the anti-virus field, I certainly do NOT view viri or virii as reasonable alternate choices (hmmm... interestingly, neither does the spell-checker in Firefox). It is simply a poseur's mistake, based on a misunderstanding of both English and Latin.  So if this is about some kind of vote, bring on "all" those computer professionals with whom you regularly interact so we can count them. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (It does not appear to be used in medicine whatsoever, even humorously: contrast Google search for "infectious viruses" vs. "infectious virii" -- of course, doctors and medical researchers who save people's lives do not have as much time to make up silly slang for the fun of it as we computer geeks do.)


 * It is used in both medicine and virology. There is a link at the top of this very discussion which shows the term being used in medicine and virology. That link was there before you started participating in this discussion.  Did you read it?  Did you look at any of the other references cited there?  Please do an evaluation of the information being presented. Jjk


 * Whoops! That was a use of "viri", not "virii". The two are not the same. "Viri" is pretty rare. ("Computer viri" gets 1/3 again fewer Google hits than "computer virii".) There's also a fraction of a Latin explanation for "viri", which there is not for "virii". --FOo 04:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you look through this thread more closely you will see that I mention both viri and virii. Also this is a discussion of the English word viri(i), not the the Latin one.Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand computer slang and joke usages. I use them myself when writing informally -- I run Linux boxen; my cow orker W. is a vaxherd; what-have-you. But if I'm writing about computers running Unix on Wikipedia, I write "computers running Unix" or "Unix-based computers" (or maybe "Unix systems" if it's obvious I don't mean varieties of Unix) -- not "Unix boxen". The latter is perfectly well-formed Silly Computer Geek; but it is not an understandable English usage.


 * That's good but its not relevant to this discussion. We are discussing whether or not Virii is a already in use as the plural of virus (it is).  Not how you feel about other computer words.


 * The next para is repeat of your second paragraph/point above. It has already been refuted. repetition does not make the point more valid. Jjk


 * "Virii" is a joke usage. It stems from a subculture that thrives on joke usages and silly words -- see the Jargon File for hundreds of other examples. But this Wikipedia is not written in computer nerd slang, and it is not written about computer nerd slang (as the Jargon File is). It is written in English, and it is written about the world as it is. When it refers to entities which have English names (such as computer viruses) it refers to them not by slang names, but by their English names (such as "computer viruses").


 * Refuted above Jjk


 * Disputed above, you mean. It's a fact that computer geeks, as a population, create and collect torrents of neologisms, slang words, and silly expressions. Some of these make their way into techspeak, then mainstream English usage. Take, for instance, "firewall", which was a rather picturesque analogy long before it was a word that anyone would use to sell a product or describe a policy. Other expressions do not. --FOo 04:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * yes some geeks do. But the ratio of leetspeak words to their non-leetspeak forms are orders of magnitude larger than viri(i) to viruses.  Clearly the numbers are saying that viri(i) is an active part of the normal english lexicon for technical use. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not, by the way, prescriptivism. It is accurate descriptivism. Attempting to cast it as an "NPOV" matter is simply hyper-relativism of the "Some people say  ; however, others disagree" school that makes for very bad Wikipedia articles. --FOo 23:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The numbers (10% usage) indicate that this is not a minor "slang" term. It is in active use.  If it were only being used by a tiny fraction it would be an "absurd claim", however, with that high a usage rate, which is growing, it is not an absurd claim.  It is a reasonable one.


 * My point there was chiefly that people seem to be jumping on the "NPOV" expression pretty damn quickly of recent, when the dispute is not really one of POV or opinion at all, but one of accuracy. It's a shame, because it leads Wikipedia to be full of weasel expressions. Perhaps a better subject for a different discussion. :) --FOo 04:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that what you are calling accuracy is an opinion that has been numerically demonstrated to be incorrect. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Saying that language can't be allowed to change is what prescriptive grammarians do. They are always wrong.  Language always changes and the numbers from google already show that viri(i) has entered the computer vocabulary lexicon.  I'm sorry that upsets you, but the fact of its usage stands on its own.  It is not refutable just because you don't like it.  As encyclopedists all we can do is document the usage and explain the controversy.  We don't get to pick sides. Jjk 02:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset; I'm amused.


 * Sorry, When you are disrespectful to other people in your edit comments, it makes you appear to be upset. (Please try be more respectful of other people.)Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that your attempt at linguistics is based on a misguided sense of egalitarianism -- an idea that, somehow, if we point out that "virii" is not on the same level of usage, understandability, and respect as "viruses", then we are saying something bad about people who use the word. I don't think that's the case; we're just acknowledging -- describing -- facts about the language and the way people use and read it.


 * All of my edits indicate that the viri(i) form is an alternate form to the main form "viruses". none of them indicated that viri(i) had the same level of usage as viruses.  This is not egalitarianism. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To be accurately descriptivist, we need to state the case about how different usages are perceived. It's a fact of the matter that people who are writing antivirus software, research into viruses, and the like, do not use the word "virii" in so doing.


 * Demonstrably False. Check the results for viri(i) from google.  A large fraction of them are instances used by official college websites, and others are postings by vendors of technology and technology services talking to their customers. Clearly they are not using any form of leetspeak. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's, likewise, a fact that this usage is promulgated among a particular subculture or sociolect; just as the pronunciations aks for ask, and nucular for nuclear, are found in particular dialects.


 * The fact that a particular group of people use the form does not exclude it from being used by the general population as well. As the 10 to 1 ratio indicates, this form is in use by the general population. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is, likewise, a fact that if someone wants to sound like a script-kid, they would be well-advised to write write "virii", whereas if they want to sound like a security researcher, they would be well-advised to write "viruses".


 * This is speculation. While some people may share this opinion with, it is not a fact. It is only an opinion and you are perfectly within your rights to have that opinion, but you may not present your opinion as a fact. Sorry. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A naïve egalitarianism is quite remarkably bad for making accurate descriptions of the world. For instance, if Wikipedia claimed that "in every regard, men and women are equal" it would be simply wrong, since men do not menstruate and women cannot be kicked in the balls. Some people think it would be nice if men and women were in every regard equal; that's fine, but it would be a mistake to state as fact that they are. --FOo 04:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no egalitarianism going on here. As mentioned above there has never been any attempt to present the viri(i) forms as being the equal of the viruses form. All edits indicated that viruses is the main form and that viri(i) were alternate forms.  Trying to ignore that reality of its common and growing usage is the problem here. Jjk 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm reopening an old debate, but the phrase "This form of the plural is correct" on the top of a wikipedia article looks very out-of-place in comparaison with our neutrality on other articles. If that statement is true then it must mean that the linguistic debate of Prescription and description has been conclusively solved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Yet the relevant linguistics pages don't seem to support that level of certaintly, that one word can be labelled as "correct" and another cannot.

The Linguistics page has this quote:

"Whereas prescriptivists might want to stamp out what they perceive as "incorrect usage", descriptivists seek to find the root of such usage; they might describe it simply as "idiosyncratic", or they may discover a regularity that the prescriptivists do not like because it is perhaps too new or from a dialect they do not approve of."

which gives an interesting perspective to this article: people have arrived at this place out of curiosity about a particular word, what it means, who uses it and why. And in response we tell them "x is correct, y is not" in the first paragraph. Should we not investigate the history and usage of virii here, rather than lecturing the reader (if that's possible!) about why their favourite word is wrong.

Ojw 23:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New proposal
Jjk and Fubar Obfusco, I think that with a few simple changes, we can address both of your concerns in this article. I'd like to hear what you think about the following proposal:

Jjk: Is it acceptable if we do not state in the article that "virii" and "viri" *are* alternative forms, but just that they are *used* as such? That would maybe solve Fubar Obfusco's complaint that using a word does not make it an "alternative form". Readers can form their opinion about whether it is an alternative or not based on the argument list in the article.

Fubar Obfusco: It is acceptable to mention the arguments for the correctness of the alternative plurals? If I understand Jjk correctly, he just wants that this position is mentioned in the article, not that it is actually endorsed.

Sietse 22:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sietse, I'm looking for an actual NPOV treatment of this subject. This means we can't lead in with any statement that "Viruses" is the only correct form or that only sript kiddies use the viri(i) forms.

For a fair and balanced treatment of the subject those arguments have to go in the the "arguments" section of a the article, with appropriate citations for their source of authority. The lead in statements should just introduce the concept and the issue being examined. So far Fubar does not seem to be interested anything resembling that. But it would be great if he is. (How 'bout it, Fubar?) Jjk 06:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that an article describing the pluralization of "virus" needs to mention "virii" and "viri". To fail to do so would be simple ignorance. Moreover, an article that avers that "virii" is not a plural of "virus" claims something strange; what, then, is "virii"? However, an article which implies that "virii" or "viri" are equivalent to "viruses", particularly in the sense that readers should expect to be able to use them and be understood as easily as if they used "viruses", is simply inaccurate.


 * (Whether this is a subject for Wikipedia or Wiktionary, I'm not sure -- I haven't used Wiktionary very much, or edited it at all.)


 * I agree that Jjk has established that the form "viri" is used (albeit quite rarely) in a biomedical context, and that the form "virii" is used by some security writers who are not script-kiddies. I wish to have it understood, however, that antivirus software authors and professional security writers are observed to eschew "virii" in favor of "viruses". (If we are in the habit of taking Google searches as an authority, simply compare the search results for "computer virii" to "computer viruses" and find that the antivirus firms are found with the latter. But see below for why Google searches are not a good index of usage.)


 * I understand Jjk's objection to "prescriptivism" in the sense of lecturing our readers on what is right or wrong usage, as if it were immoral or mind-stunting to write "virii" or uplifting to write "viruses". Indeed, to that extent, I concur with Jjk's objection. However, I cannot concur with a naïve descriptivism that wants to place all attested usages on an artificially equal footing. My objections are threefold, based on facts which a naïve "descriptivism" would fail to describe:


 * It is a fact, and therefore deserves description, that some usages are more easily understood than others. That is, "viruses" is a simple English plural, and thus easily understood by any English-speaker as a plural of "virus"; while "virii" is a cod-Latin plural, and not as easily understood by one unfamiliar with it. Thus, a reader who wishes to be widely understood would be better-advised to write "viruses" than "virii". A description which places them on an equal footing fails to describe this fact.
 * It is likewise a fact, and therefore deserves description, that some usages are more professionally recognized than others. That is, those who write professionally about viruses largely eschew "virii" in favor of "viruses" -- as observable by reading edited publications such as books, newspapers, edited Web sites (e.g. columns on SecurityFocus), or the documentation of software. (No, college IT department Web sites don't count here.) This is a status difference, yes; but status differences in language can be described from NPOV just as much as (say) religious beliefs can. A description which places the usages on equal footing fails to describe this fact.
 * It is, lastly, a fact, and therefore deserves description, that some usages are more mainstream than others. Not only is "virii" less widely used, but its usage is not equidistributed; it is clustered largely in one social group. First, it is used only to refer to computer viruses -- again, "viri" is a distinct usage. Moreover, it is, to a certain extent, sociolect; it is used chiefly by (a subset of) the tribe Computer Geek, and not in the mainstream population. (The mainstream population read about viruses in newspapers, which print "viruses", not "virii".) The tribe Computer Geek is overrepresented in an unfiltered sample of Web pages, which is a problem with taking Google searches as an index of usage. It is this tribe's tongue that is represented in college IT departments' advice for "removing virii from your computer". (Yeah, I work in Dot Edu, I know what college IT departments are like.) As with the plural "boxen", using "virii" marks one's writing into this sociolect, just as pronouncing "ask" as aks marks one into a particular sociolect. A description which places the usages on equal footing fails to describe this fact.


 * If these facts are addressed, then the "descriptivism" which addresses them is a good one. If these facts are swept under the rug, then the "descriptivism" which does so is a poor one.


 * Sietse, as for your question about mentioning the arguments for the correctness of the alternative plurals, I'm not sure what to say. What I see in the article are some rather goofy attempts to defend "virii" from the (obviously prescriptivist, classist, classicist, cultural-imperialist, racist, fascist, and evil) claim that "virii" is a bad usage because it's phony Latin made up by folks who wanted to sound clever. (Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.)


 * If we follow Jjk's position that prescriptivism is irreconcilable with NPOV, then both sides of the question of "correctness" must either be deleted, or else be bracketed so it's clear that the article does not take a prescriptivist stance. --FOo 07:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Jjk, you said that the arguments concerning correctness need to go in a separate section. Fubar Obfusco, as I understand you 1, you mostly agree, except that we need to make clear in the main text that "viri" and "virii" are not on equal footing with "viruses", and that the "virii" form is mostly specific to certain groups.


 * I have edited the article so that it now does not (as far as I can see) contain any judgements about the alternative forms outside the "arguments" section. It also makes clear that "viruses" is used most frequently, and that this is the only form about which everyone agrees that it is correct. Explanation of the structure:
 * Introduction: mentions that "viruses" is correct and used most frequently. "viri" and "virii" are also used.
 * Sociolinguistics: explains which groups use the alternative forms most frequently (this section still needs some work, esp. references)
 * Arguments: The old section about pro/contra


 * What do you think of it? Sietse 22:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Footnote (1): I'm not a native speaker of English, and am not sure what bracketing means in this context. Is that the same as putting the text into a separate section?

Good ideas, Sietse.

I used "bracketing" in the sense that I learned in studying sociology, and which I've also read in treatments of comparative theology. It means something similar to the "NPOV treatment" sometimes used here on Wikipedia: writing so that rather than taking oppositional sides, one describes what the sides are -- but in a non-aggressive, non-defensive manner.

There's a way to describe disagreeing views in which one creates lists of "pro" and "con" points, which leads to editors who personally hold each view trying to strengthen their preferred side and undermine the other. This is not bracketing; it's setting up for a fight. It leads to people either attacking the other when they feel their position is strong, or becoming defensive and putting up shoddy arguments rather than "admit defeat". This is why "pro" and "con" lists are not a great thing for Wikipedia articles. They have caused problems before, for instance, in articles such as Creationism.

For instance, the position up on the "justifications" section right now, that "virii" is "computer science jargon", is simply put a false statement. First, computer science doesn't particularly deal with viruses, although information technology does. Second, "virii" is not jargon, since it does not fill the purpose that jargon words do. Jargon is specialist technical terminology used to express distinctions that mainstream language lacks. In ordinary, imprecise English it is fine to say that water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, meaning simply that it contains both. But in chemistry jargon this is false, since water is a compound, which means something different from a mixture. This distinction is utterly necessary to chemistry, which is the very reason there is a jargon word "compound" to denote it. "Virii" makes no such distinction, so it cannot be jargon.

Likewise, the "counters" section utterly fails to mention a couple of suppressed premises which make its position shakier: Words taken from Latin into English frequently have both English and Latinate plurals, as with "index" -> "indices", "indexes"; "penis" -> "penes", "penises". "Virus" is an awkward case, since it has no attested Latin plural. We do not know what a native Latin-speaker would think to use for a plural of "virus" if he needed one, and in any event "virus" did not even have its modern meaning when any native Latin-speakers existed! The prescriptive grammarian's further suppressed premise is that in the absence of a Latinate plural, one should use the English formation rather than trying to come up with an imitation Latinate plural. However, this suppressed premise is not proven or even stated; it is simply taken as given.

This, I think, expresses why I would be more comfortable with this article without the pro/con section; or with the points now found there (minus the ones that are simple falsehoods) recast into a non-combative format. --FOo 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting perspective, FOo. I hadn't thought about it that way, but a less oppositional style is a good idea, I think. I thought that the article was rather difficult to understand if it is read in the usual order (i.e. from beginning to end). Now I realize that this is mainly because those arguments are quite entangled and not all of them are relevant.


 * I have used your idea for a non-combative format and also tried to 'streamline' the text a bit by reducing the debate to its essence: prescription vs. description.


 * And thanks for the explanation, by the way.Sietse 14:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
To the author: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What is the purpose of this article? &mdash; Sverdrup (talk) 11:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought that this info on the plural of virus was too important to be on virus (disambiguation). --Ryan and/or Mero 09:26, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree--this article should be kept. --Grouse 19:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it should be kept. I've been seeing this debate since around 1995 on various BBS'es.  The minute I saw this article I figured "I have to read this...".  Keep it.arcade  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.228.138 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has merit because this is a famously recurring instance of grammatical misuse. --B. Phillips 14:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides, Wikipedia's never come up with a good argument on why it shouldn't be used as a dictionary, which is precisely why the wiktionary has never taken off (and for that matter, wikiquotes, wikinews, or anything else that purists like to pretend is a wholly unrelated subject to the Wikipedia.) The Wikipedia is fundamentally the Hitchhiker's Guide the Galaxy--we come here for a brief and palatable version of the summation of all knowledge. --Mrcolj 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the un-named editor that thought the use of the phrase "Neologistic folk etymology" was just showing off, I would point out that it was lifted whole from the Wiktionary definition. Perhaps I should reference it. Yes, good point. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I referenced it, then someone removed the reference, objecting about referencing another wiki, and now someone has removed the lot, complaining that there are no references. Removal of the mention of unusual alternates in the first para has rendered later arguments about these alternates lower down in the text somewhat puzzling. You fix it. I can't be bothered anymore.TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin forms of virus discussed
in Latin, viri is not the correct plural because the "i" plural ending is only used for masculine nouns, and in any case, "viri" is Latin for "men"


 * Is that true? Isn't it just that most "us" nouns happen to be masculine? If a neuter noun happens to end in -us, it would use the same plural ending, wouldn't it? I mean, "agricola" is still first declension, so it is "agricolae" even though it's masculine. If not, couldn't we easily solve the problem by using a normal neuter ending, so that the plural is "vira"? Adam Bishop 00:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, 'all' neuter plurals, of any declension, end in -a, no matter how the singular is. --Army1987 13:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope. Latin teacher here.  Neuter second declension words that end in -um pluralize by ending in -a, but that's it.  There are a ton of neuter words that don't end in -a in the plural.  Consider most every word that ends in -or in its nominative singular.  And there's no reason why viri can't be both, since a lot of words have more than one meaning.  --Mrcolj 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give a few examples of (declinable) Latin neuter nouns that don't have nominative and accusative plurals ending in "-a"? Or neuter words that end in "-or", for that matter?  I think Army1987 is right....  Silarius 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So octopusses is the plural of octopus, rather than octopii? (Visions of Larson's Farside cartoon!) Hippopotamusses too? (maybe stick to Hippos).
 * Zoney 00:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Neither are those are recognized plurals of octopus. The dictionary plurals are "octopuses" and "octopi." --Grouse 19:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Octopus is not latin, it is greek, and means 8 feet. The correct greek plural for octopus would actually be octopodes, if we actually pluralized words that way.  Of course nowadays we all just write octopuses; people that say octopi are (rather like people that say virii) trying desperately to sound smart, and failing.

Can someone provide evidence that virus could be a second declension neuter ending in us? I have never heard this before (the general view is that it is a 4th declension neuter). Anyway, there is no plural in the texts, because the word in its original usage didn't mean what it means today (indeed, the concept of a medical virus, much less a computer virus, was folded into our lexicon long after the decease of latin as a spoken language) and instead meant poison (virulent has the same root as virus). I believe it was used much like water, ie, a non-countable noun and thus always singular.

I'm not suggesting the 2nd declension neuter ending in -us is wrong, just that it would be nice to have some evidence. All in all, this article is rather lacking in evidence.


 * According to my dictionary it is virus, viri, which I assume would also mean the plural is viri. Lewis and Short seems to agree. Adam Bishop 08:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If your dictionary shows "virus, viri," then the "viri" would be the genitive singular, not a plural. Ian-Miller 10:10, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously, but are there are any words that decline like that where the plural is not the same as the genitive singular? Adam Bishop 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you mean a second-declension neuter noun that ends in "-us," has a genitive singular that ends in "-i," and has a plural form different from the "-i"? No, I don't know of a word that works that way.  It seems that nobody else does, either.  If we knew of such a word, and the word was a native Latin word rather than a word of Greek extraction, then it might give us a hint of how the Romans could have used as a plural for virus. Ian-Miller 18:18, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

User:Sverdrup is right. A distilled version of this material would be highly appropriate at the disambiguation page. "Viruses" is normal in English-language usage. Wetman 05:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some further observations: a fourth declension neuter noun would end in -u, not -us, as suggested above (cornu, genu...are there even any others?). If that was the case, the plural would be "virua," and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. (The second footnote in the article, which amazingly also seemed to claim that the 2nd declension neuter in general was rare, also still says the 4th declension neuter plural is -us, can that ever be true?) Adam Bishop 09:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"There is some controversy about the plural form of virus in the English language."
 * No there isn't. It's viruses; there's no controversy. If I go around saying the plural of "cheese" is "zarples", that doesn't mean that there's "controversy" over the plural, it means that I'm stupid. Same for people who say "virii". Acheron 14:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * True. This is ridiculously pedantic. Also, regarding the recent edit about Elvis, wouldn't the plural be Elves? (Or perhaps the root is Elvir-, making the plural Elvires?) See, this page is pretty useless in general :) Adam Bishop 05:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Footnote: the modern-day Latin of the Latin Wikipedia virus page uses the word as a masculine invariable noun: virus bacteriophagus, de generis virus (genitive plural expected here). As far as I know, neuter nouns ending in -us are 3rd declention like corpus (body) or latus (side), plural corpora, latera. Same with adjectives like melius (pl. meliora), neuter form of melior (better). Any chance our word belongs to that category? Philippe Magnabosco 15:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not impossible, but then what is the actual root of the word? Corpor- and later- are the roots of corpus and laterus. You'd expect something like "virera" for a plural if it was 3rd declension neuter. Adam Bishop 01:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute assertions based upon the French Wikipedia

 * 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 v&#299;rus has a genitive singular form v&#299;r&#363;s, 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 v&#299;r&#363;s. 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 v&#299;r&#363;s comput&#257;tr&#257;l&#275;s. 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)
 * The text that you are basing your argument upon is the very mis-understanding of Latin by a Greek writer that the first reference cited by this article addresses, as I mentioned above. This ground has already been trodden.  Please read the cited reference.  Uncle G 23:18:47, 2005-09-11 (UTC)


 * 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)

Unclear justification
The fourth justification for using the viri(i) forms doesn't seem to actually justify it. It reads:
 * The Latin form of virus never had a plural form: In antiquity the word virus had not yet acquired, of course, its current scientific meaning; rather it denoted something like toxicity, venom, a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle, or poison in the abstract or general sense. (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.) Nouns denoting entities that are countable pluralize (book, books); nouns denoting noncountable entities do not (except under special circumstances) pluralize (air, mood, valor). The term virus in antiquity appears to have belonged to the latter category, hence the nonexistence of plural forms. [June 1999 issue of ASM News by the American Society for Microbiology]

This seems to simply be explaining that there is no known Latin plural for virus. If this is felt to be a good reason for preferring the faux-Latin plural over the standard English one, that should probably be explained more clearly in the article. Factitious 03:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Quick note

 * "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)

Latin
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:

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; vir&#299; can be the gen sing. of either vir and v&#299;rus, 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)

I had an epiphany today. The real plural of "virus" should be "virori"!!! Ah, the new Latin! :-D TShilo12 04:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note 2 (slime)
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)

Weasel words
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)

Virii as a Virus
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)
 * I think the original poster meant that virii has spread into forms like octopii and alumnii. -Silence 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Linguists note" removed
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)


 * Right on. --FOo 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Summation
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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

It seems to me worth mentioning "cactus" (proper English plural "cactuses," with cacti (from botanical latin) as the more common and thus accepted usage) and "platypus" (plural apparently still up for debate) in this article. I think it's a little techno-centric to mention irregular pluralization via "leetspeak" when in fact (particularly in the American Southwest) English speakers often overgeneralize the -i as the plural form of words ending in -us. In fact Wikipedia's own article on English plurals notes the common use of irregular plurals from Latin and Greek. I don't think we need to have a huge treatise on linguistics, but it's worth mentioning why there is even a debate about the plural form (because while cactus and platypus are debated, words like radius or alumnus are not debated, due to common usage). Alaren 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
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)

4th Declension Plural
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)


 * 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)

Vira
I say vira, as it is a the word "virus", with a neuter second declension. Looking at this I find it rather obvious that the plural of virus is vira. A Neolatin word for virus is virum- and as I see it; virus declines just like virum, except it's "virus" in nominative singular. See also virus and Virus. What do you people think about this? --BiT 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not accepted that it is second declension.


 * It does seem to be true that in neo-Latin, “virum” is used. Here are the results from the public-domain “Words” Latin-English dictionary:

Copyright (c) 1993-2005 - Free for your use - Version 1.97Ed For updates and latest version check http://www.erols.com/whitaker/words.htm Comments? William Whitaker, Box 3036, McLean VA 22103 USA - whitaker@erols.com Input a word or line of Latin and ENTER to get the forms and meanings Or input @ and the name of a file containing words or lines Or input # to change parameters and mode of the program Or input ? to get help wherever available on individual parameters Two empty lines (just a RETURN/ENTER) from the keyboard exits the program English-to-Latin available ~E changes to English-to-Latin, ~L changes back    [tilda E]  =>virus vir.us              N      2 1 NOM S N                  vir.us               N      2 1 ACC S N                  virus, viri  N  N   [XXXAO] venom (sg.), poisonous secretion of snakes/creatures/plants; acrid element; =>~e Language changed to ENGLISH_TO_LATIN Input a single English word (+ part of speech - N, ADJ, V, PREP, ...) =>virus virum, viri N  N     2 2  N   [GBXDK] virus;

— Chameleon 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

virus meaning(ram prasad)
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)

Merge?
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)

Proposal to delete
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)

rescue template
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)
 * 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)

Voted to keep, destroyed anyway
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)

"non-existence of plural forms"
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)

removed material
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)

Incorrect citation of Oxford English Dictionary: "octopi"?
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)


 * 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)

Greek donor words
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)


 * 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)