plural of ad-hominem

[Jacek Pudlo]

"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

[B. T. Raven]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Argumenta ad hominem. What los, les, die, the hoi polloi might say in the
vernacular is neither here nor there. They shouldn't say "ad" anything
but, instead, "you be dissin me, homeboy."

[Jacek Pudlo]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem

argument"

Post by Jacek Pudlo

is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Argumenta ad hominem. What los, les, die, the hoi polloi might say in the
vernacular is neither here nor there. They shouldn't say "ad" anything
but, instead, "you be dissin me, homeboy."

Since "hoi polloi" already means "the many" (rabble), saying "the hoi
polloi" is equivalent to "the the many." But is it really a redundancy?
Would anyone seriously object to "the alchemist"?

[John Briggs]

Post by Jacek Pudlo

Post by B. T. Raven

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Argumenta ad hominem. What los, les, die, the hoi polloi might say
in the vernacular is neither here nor there. They shouldn't say "ad"
anything but, instead, "you be dissin me, homeboy."

Since "hoi polloi" already means "the many" (rabble), saying "the hoi
polloi" is equivalent to "the the many." But is it really a
redundancy? Would anyone seriously object to "the alchemist"?

He would have been OK if he had put a comma between "the" and "hoi" - the
irony would then have been apparent.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem

argument"

Post by Jacek Pudlo

is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Argumenta ad hominem. What los, les, die, the hoi polloi might say in the
vernacular is neither here nor there. They shouldn't say "ad" anything
but, instead, "you be dissin me, homeboy."

I'se a bin' sittin' an a rockin' here on the stoop, Liza, a smokin' of mi
ol' pipe an' a thinkin' of a tha ol' country. An' I'se a comin' to tha
conclusion that if tw'eren't but fer how many damned white homines there a'
bin a' hollerin' an' a' shootin' up aroun' da ol' Ivory Coast, we'se a
still a be a' sunnin' usselfs a' there instead o' a pickin' this here
cotton.

[John Dean]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Depends how you phrase it.
"This is an argument ad hominem"
"These are arguments ad hominem"
"This is an ad hominem argument"
"These are ad hominem arguments"

But if you want to use the phrase all alone as in "That was an ad hominem"
then I'd say you're on your own.

[Ron Hardin]

You want contra hominem.

Ad hominem appeals to the interests of the opponent, flatters him.

[Grant Hicks]

Post by Ron Hardin
You want contra hominem.
Ad hominem appeals to the interests of the opponent, flatters him.

That's the first time I've ever seen this definition of "ad hominem".
The standard definition looks like this:

http://tinyurl.com/z5fha
The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied
because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it. This
fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive
form, ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the
appearance, character, or personality of the individual.

http://tinyurl.com/qkg2y
Kahane [1995, 65], for example, describes ad hominem as a fallacy that
occurs when an arguer is guilty "of attacking his opponent rather than
his opponent's evidence and arguments." In this case, the debater in
question attacks the motivation and the character of the person
promoting a separate Danish church instead of showing what is wrong with
his evidence for the claim that this is a good idea. On these grounds,
the proposed reasoning is fallacious.

http://tinyurl.com/fytd7
An irrelevant or malicious appeal to personal circumstances; it consists
in diverting an argument from sound facts and reasons to the personality
of one's opponent, competitor or critic.

... and so on.

GH

[Ron Hardin]

Post by Grant Hicks

Post by Ron Hardin
You want contra hominem.
Ad hominem appeals to the interests of the opponent, flatters him.

That's the first time I've ever seen this definition of "ad hominem".
http://tinyurl.com/z5fha
The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied
because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it. This
fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive
form, ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the
appearance, character, or personality of the individual.
http://tinyurl.com/qkg2y
Kahane [1995, 65], for example, describes ad hominem as a fallacy that
occurs when an arguer is guilty "of attacking his opponent rather than
his opponent's evidence and arguments." In this case, the debater in
question attacks the motivation and the character of the person
promoting a separate Danish church instead of showing what is wrong with
his evidence for the claim that this is a good idea. On these grounds,
the proposed reasoning is fallacious.
http://tinyurl.com/fytd7
An irrelevant or malicious appeal to personal circumstances; it consists
in diverting an argument from sound facts and reasons to the personality
of one's opponent, competitor or critic.
... and so on.
GH

The classical definition is the opposite, and surely ``ad hominem'' in Latin
is a nod towards the posture of the classical.

Thus we find

I came back at this professor with an argumentum ad hominem, "Is it true," said
I, "that the more knowledge your wife has of you, the less faith she has in you?
And is it true that the more you know of her, the less faith you have in her? In
your home are faith and knowledge in inverse ratio? If so, I pity you both." It
is not true that knowledge excludes faith. The more you know of your family
physician, the more faith you have in him. The more soldiers know of their
general, the greater their faith in him; else the army is in a bad way. The more
we know of our friends the more faith we have in them. The greater a man's
knowledge of nature, the greater his faith in nature. Intelligent faith is not
weaker than ignorant faith.''

[Nigel Greenwood]

Ad populum?

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Nigel Greenwood
Ad populum?

No, that is the name of a different fallacy.

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

John W. Kennedy's original sentence was "I see you are still incapable
of anything but infantile (and factually inaccurate) ad-hominems." I
have no problem with the grammar, although I would probably write "ad
hominem arguments", as I don't usually use "ad hominem" as a noun. (I
do say "a non sequitur" and "non sequiturs", though.)

[de.etc.sprache.klassisch removed. The other groups look relevant to
English grammar and usage.]

[Father Ignatius]

Post by j***@yahoo.com

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

John W. Kennedy's original sentence was "I see you are still incapable
of anything but infantile (and factually inaccurate) ad-hominems." I
have no problem with the grammar, although I would probably write "ad
hominem arguments", as I don't usually use "ad hominem" as a noun. (I
do say "a non sequitur" and "non sequiturs", though.)
[de.etc.sprache.klassisch removed. The other groups look relevant to
English grammar and usage.]

Yabbut. Would not de.etc.sprache.klassisch have been the preferred
reference group for Kennedy's original sentence about "Ich bin ein jelly
doughnut"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner#.22Jelly_doughnut.22_urban_legend

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

[tinwhistler]

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
strong support for your statement (with which I agree):

http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

[Faust]

Post by tinwhistler

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

that might be OK for everyday English usage, but I'd go with the
Germans, who usually have better Latin than English-speakers and who,
heck, let's face it, are more philosophical. On google.de, "argumenta
ad hominem" seems to have a clear lead:

http://books.google.com/books?q=argumenta+ad+hominem&as_brr=0

[Faust]

oops my attempted german search (and pasted link) was just a redirected
english google search. but as you can see that changes nothing!
NOTHING! Hocherwartungsvoll, eure

Faust

[Faust]

"argumenta ad hominem" comes up with 150 hits, "ad hominems" only 70...

is that enough of a reason?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Faust
"argumenta ad hominem" comes up with 150 hits, "ad hominems" only 70...
is that enough of a reason?

The sample sizes are too small to apply the Richoux test.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by tinwhistler

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

that might be OK for everyday English usage, but I'd go with the
Germans, who usually have better Latin than English-speakers and who,
heck, let's face it, are more philosophical. On google.de, "argumenta
http://books.google.com/books?q=argumenta+ad+hominem&as_brr=0

If you don't use "argumentum" in the English singular, why would you add
"argumenta" for the plural? The point is that, when the question of
plural arises, it's because "ad hominem" has been taken into English
usage as a noun.

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust

Post by tinwhistler

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

that might be OK for everyday English usage, but I'd go with the
Germans, who usually have better Latin than English-speakers and who,
heck, let's face it, are more philosophical. On google.de, "argumenta
http://books.google.com/books?q=argumenta+ad+hominem&as_brr=0

If you don't use "argumentum" in the English singular, why would you add
"argumenta" for the plural? The point is that, when the question of
plural arises, it's because "ad hominem" has been taken into English
usage as a noun.

Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges". Some people say "the data
are/ the datum is", some say "the data are/ the data is". Some say
"spaghetto", some say "a piece of spaghetti". At this level of pedantry
it's personal preference and/or desire to use the foreign term _as_ a
foreign term, or as an English word. Since I assume most people reading
this are interested in appearing smarter than the average bearer of
language, I'm pick-a-nicking all of my eggs in the "argumenta ad
hominem" basket. But yours is good too, for everyday use.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust

Post by tinwhistler

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

that might be OK for everyday English usage, but I'd go with the
Germans, who usually have better Latin than English-speakers and who,
heck, let's face it, are more philosophical. On google.de, "argumenta
http://books.google.com/books?q=argumenta+ad+hominem&as_brr=0

If you don't use "argumentum" in the English singular, why would you add
"argumenta" for the plural? The point is that, when the question of
plural arises, it's because "ad hominem" has been taken into English
usage as a noun.

Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges". Some people say "the data
are/ the datum is", some say "the data are/ the data is". Some say
"spaghetto", some say "a piece of spaghetti".

Aw, I don't think anyone says "spaghetto" unless they're trying to be funny!

Post by Faust
At this level of pedantry
it's personal preference and/or desire to use the foreign term _as_ a
foreign term,

If someone is asking others how to do something, I assume they don't
mean, "Can anyone tell me how I would do this according to my personal
preference?" So I don't answer on that basis. If they don't know what
their personal preference is, how am I supposed to?


or as an English word. Since I assume most people reading

Post by Faust
this are interested in appearing smarter than the average bearer of
language, I'm pick-a-nicking all of my eggs in the "argumenta ad
hominem" basket. But yours is good too, for everyday use.

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger
If someone is asking others how to do something, I assume they don't
mean, "Can anyone tell me how I would do this according to my personal
preference?" So I don't answer on that basis. If they don't know what
their personal preference is, how am I supposed to?

the initial post was a consciously pseudo-intellectual,
tongue-partially-in-cheek mention of "ad homines" as a plural for "ad
hominem", so really the implied assignment wasn't to come up with the
lowest common denominator plural for "ad hominem" but to explain why
"ad homines" was a good try but not quite right, which I'm not sure
anyone has really done yet.

[John Atkinson]

Post by Faust
the initial post was a consciously pseudo-intellectual,
tongue-partially-in-cheek mention of "ad homines" as a plural for "ad
hominem", so really the implied assignment wasn't to come up with the
lowest common denominator plural for "ad hominem" but to explain why
"ad homines" was a good try but not quite right, which I'm not sure
anyone has really done yet.

"Ad homines" is fine for when you're attacking more than one person with a
single argument. If you're attacking a group of people collectively with
more than one argument, it's "ad homineses".that you're using.

John.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?

Remember, you said "say," not "write."

And you have chosen to go among linguists.

[Faust]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?
Remember, you said "say," not "write."
And you have chosen to go among linguists.
--

Surely you mean "Remember, you WROTE "say," not "write."

My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

So there's a _spectrum_ of at least two possible uses of what was
originally the same French term in English -- ranging from "more
Frenchified" to "less Frenchified". I was arguing that there's a
similar possible spectrum for "ad hominem". People who know more Latin,
or who want to appear as if they do, might want to re-insert the
"argumentum", while people who don't mind treating the term "ad
hominem" as if it fell fully formed from the sky as an English word can
ignore the "argumentum" and just say "ad homo," "ad homos". That was
all I was trying to say -- not completely clearly, I'm sure, but that
was it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?
Remember, you said "say," not "write."
And you have chosen to go among linguists.

Surely you mean "Remember, you WROTE "say," not "write."
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Post by Faust
So there's a _spectrum_ of at least two possible uses of what was
originally the same French term in English -- ranging from "more
Frenchified" to "less Frenchified". I was arguing that there's a
similar possible spectrum for "ad hominem". People who know more Latin,
or who want to appear as if they do, might want to re-insert the
"argumentum",

Obviously, they don't -- someone found something like 70 examples in the
entire googleverse, whereas such searches usually turn up millions of
hits?

Post by Faust
while people who don't mind treating the term "ad
hominem" as if it fell fully formed from the sky as an English word can
ignore the "argumentum" and just say "ad homo," "ad homos". That was
all I was trying to say -- not completely clearly, I'm sure, but that
was it.

And where would they have learned the form "homo"?

[Faust]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?
Remember, you said "say," not "write."
And you have chosen to go among linguists.

Surely you mean "Remember, you WROTE "say," not "write."
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Post by Faust
So there's a _spectrum_ of at least two possible uses of what was
originally the same French term in English -- ranging from "more
Frenchified" to "less Frenchified". I was arguing that there's a
similar possible spectrum for "ad hominem". People who know more Latin,
or who want to appear as if they do, might want to re-insert the
"argumentum",

Obviously, they don't -- someone found something like 70 examples in the
entire googleverse, whereas such searches usually turn up millions of
hits?

No, what happened is that I got twice as many hits for the 'fancy'
plural "argumenta ad hominem" as for the blue-collar plural "ad
hominems". Just a tip: "Obviously, blah blah blah" is a funny way to
start a sentence that shows that you have poor reading comprehension
skills.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
while people who don't mind treating the term "ad
hominem" as if it fell fully formed from the sky as an English word can
ignore the "argumentum" and just say "ad homo," "ad homos". That was
all I was trying to say -- not completely clearly, I'm sure, but that
was it.

And where would they have learned the form "homo"?

Sorry, that was a jocular abbreviation of "hominem" which I threw into
my sentence simply to make the typing more fun for me. I wrote the
correctly spelled version several times in my previous posts, so I
thought it was safe to abbreviate slightly. What are you asking me that
question for? Flungle? What is your point? Are you just trying to show
that you can identify a word you object to in each of my posts, and
then write a random question about it? Mission accomplished.


Faust

p.s. For your next random question, may I suggest asking about
"flungle"? It's practically begging for it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?
Remember, you said "say," not "write."
And you have chosen to go among linguists.

Surely you mean "Remember, you WROTE "say," not "write."
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Note: No response.

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
So there's a _spectrum_ of at least two possible uses of what was
originally the same French term in English -- ranging from "more
Frenchified" to "less Frenchified". I was arguing that there's a
similar possible spectrum for "ad hominem". People who know more Latin,
or who want to appear as if they do, might want to re-insert the
"argumentum",

Obviously, they don't -- someone found something like 70 examples in the
entire googleverse, whereas such searches usually turn up millions of
hits?

No, what happened is that I got twice as many hits for the 'fancy'
plural "argumenta ad hominem" as for the blue-collar plural "ad
hominems". Just a tip: "Obviously, blah blah blah" is a funny way to
start a sentence that shows that you have poor reading comprehension
skills.

No, what happened is that you got 150 hits for the "fancy" plural,
rather than millions of hits, which is what you'd have gotten if the
phrase were in common use. You demonstrated that it isn't.

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
while people who don't mind treating the term "ad
hominem" as if it fell fully formed from the sky as an English word can
ignore the "argumentum" and just say "ad homo," "ad homos". That was
all I was trying to say -- not completely clearly, I'm sure, but that
was it.

And where would they have learned the form "homo"?

Sorry, that was a jocular abbreviation of "hominem" which I threw into
my sentence simply to make the typing more fun for me. I wrote the
correctly spelled version several times in my previous posts, so I
thought it was safe to abbreviate slightly. What are you asking me that
question for? Flungle? What is your point? Are you just trying to show
that you can identify a word you object to in each of my posts, and
then write a random question about it? Mission accomplished.

Are you saying that you really don't know that homo is the nominative
singular for which hominem is the accusative singular?

Post by Faust
p.s. For your next random question, may I suggest asking about
"flungle"? It's practically begging for it.

If you think my questions were random, then your reading comprehension
is at a very sad level. You must be coming from "int-fiction" -- what is
that?

[rpresser]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you think my questions were random, then your reading comprehension
is at a very sad level. You must be coming from "int-fiction" -- what is
that?

rec.arts.int-fiction and rec.games.int-fiction are newsgroups devoted
to discussion of "interactive fiction", in the somewhat narrow sense of
games or other interactive programs which tell stories; specifically,
the most common items discussed are "text adventures" similar to
Colossal Cave (aka ADVENT aka ADVENTURE) or Zork, two of the most
well-known commercial examples. raif is for discussing the writing of
such works (which can be done with any of several free authoring
systems) and rgif is for discussing the, um, playing of such works
(which can be done with the corresponding free runtimes for each of the
aforementioned authoring systems).

This thread entered your newsgroup, whichever one that is, because it
was crossposted there by one Jacek Pudlo, a highly argumentative person
whom many raif/rgif readers consider to be a vituperous troll. Before
the crossposting, the thread was mainly about current events relevant
to raif/rgif, and more specifically about certain attacks being made on
one Dr. Graham Nelson, who is an Oxford math professor and the creator
of Inform, one of those authoring systems. These attacks were initiated
by another party but Mr. Pudlo joined in later.

I would like to apologize for spilling this thread into your newsgroup,
whichever one it may be, but apologizing for Mr. Pudlo is a full-time
job for a team of about thirty well-trained scientists.

[rpresser]

Post by rpresser
specifically,
the most common items discussed are "text adventures" similar to
Colossal Cave (aka ADVENT aka ADVENTURE) or Zork, two of the most
well-known commercial examples.

Aargh. I certainly should not have implied that Colossal Cave was a
commercial game. It was not; it was and is freely distributed.
Nevertheless, it is one of the most well-known and widely distributed
of the genre.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by rpresser

Post by rpresser
specifically,
the most common items discussed are "text adventures" similar to
Colossal Cave (aka ADVENT aka ADVENTURE) or Zork, two of the most
well-known commercial examples.

Aargh. I certainly should not have implied that Colossal Cave was a
commercial game. It was not; it was and is freely distributed.
Nevertheless, it is one of the most well-known and widely distributed
of the genre.

There are (or were) commercial versions, such as Microsoft Adventure,
the first game (if you don't count DONKEY.BAS) for the IBM PC, and one
of the very, very few games ever released as IBM-branded software.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by rpresser
Dr. Graham Nelson, who is an Oxford math professor

Arrggghhhh! Let's not get into that again. Graham is not a "professor",
which is a rare title at the ancient universities. I believe, however,
that he qualifies as a "don".

[rpresser]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by rpresser
Dr. Graham Nelson, who is an Oxford math professor

Arrggghhhh! Let's not get into that again. Graham is not a "professor",
which is a rare title at the ancient universities. I believe, however,
that he qualifies as a "don".

My bad! I should have reviewed the thread before hitting Post.

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:40:30 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"

Post by John W. Kennedy
Arrggghhhh! Let's not get into that again. Graham is not a "professor",
which is a rare

Oy!

daniel mcgrath

[Faust]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Note: No response.

Post by Faust
No, what happened is that I got twice as many hits for the 'fancy'
plural "argumenta ad hominem" as for the blue-collar plural "ad
hominems". Just a tip: "Obviously, blah blah blah" is a funny way to
start a sentence that shows that you have poor reading comprehension
skills.

No, what happened is that you got 150 hits for the "fancy" plural,
rather than millions of hits, which is what you'd have gotten if the
phrase were in common use. You demonstrated that it isn't.

right. but neither is the other plural which has been more often
suggested. so we're back to square one. so thanks for your
condescending yet stunningly irrelevant post.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you saying that you really don't know that homo is the nominative
singular for which hominem is the accusative singular?

are you saying that you don't have an extremely irritating way of
asking pointless questions which could only be designed to show off
your knowledge without contributing anything to the thread?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you think my questions were random, then your reading comprehension
is at a very sad level. You must be coming from "int-fiction" -- what is
that?
--

it's a field of interest where you need to do more than ask a series of
condescending, humorless questions off the topic at hand. so, quite
different from linguistics, apparently.



about your bete noire, chaises longues.... why are you trying to turn
this into some sort of painfully drawn-out socratic discussion about
how people pronounce "chaises longues"? to somehow show everyone that
you know the difference among phonemes, phonetics and orthography?
whoop de frickin doo. and if i bit at that bait, how many exchanges of
condescending cookie fortune questions would it take before we actually
got anywhere? forget it... it's irrelevant. how do you pronounce the
plural of "deer"? what on earth does that have to do with "ad hominem"?

[Jacek Pudlo]

Post by Faust
it's a field of interest where you need to do more than ask a series of
condescending, humorless questions off the topic at hand. so, quite
different from linguistics, apparently.

peeteedee is really more of a linguistician than a bona fide linguist.
Here's a hilarious thread where he managed to confuse the capital of
Slovenia with a notorious prison in Moscow. His "defense" is that only a 'k'
differentiates Ljubljana from Lubyanka. Read the thread and watch his idiocy
in action:

http://groups.google.se/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/62163eba8d5b7e3a/00c5a78f234ccef1?lnk=st&q=%22ljubljana%22+author%3Apeter+author%3At+author%3Adaniels&rnum=1&hl=sv#00c5a78f234ccef1

[John Atkinson]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Note: No response.

OK, I'll respond. In this part of the world at any rate. "Chaise longue"
and "lounge" are both in use, for completely different items of furniture.
A lounge is a sofa, or what I believe is called a chesterfield in Canada, a
wide seat for two or three people with a back along one side and arms at
both ends. A chaise longue is a chair that you lie back on, like on a bed.
One end is raised somewhat for the head and the other end forms a footrest,
and there are usually arms on both sides. I believe the usual pronunciation
of the plural here is [SeyzlA.Nz].

John.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by John Atkinson

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
My point with "chaises longues" versus "lounges" wasn't about plural
versus singular, it was more about how one term with an adjective at
the end ("chaise longue") has been "englished" into a term which only
uses a bastardized form of the adjective as if it were a noun
("lounge"), and has formed its own English plural. But there are still
those few who still say "chaises longues".

How, I repeat, do they pronounce it?

Note: No response.

OK, I'll respond. In this part of the world at any rate. "Chaise longue"
and "lounge" are both in use, for completely different items of furniture.
A lounge is a sofa, or what I believe is called a chesterfield in Canada, a
wide seat for two or three people with a back along one side and arms at
both ends. A chaise longue is a chair that you lie back on, like on a bed.
One end is raised somewhat for the head and the other end forms a footrest,
and there are usually arms on both sides. I believe the usual pronunciation
of the plural here is [SeyzlA.Nz].

Yep, that's how it is here in America, too. Two different words with
different referents.

So we're still left wondering what the person calling itself Faust was
going on about, and why it feels necessary to be disagreeable in a
random assortment of five newsgroups at once.

[Faust]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yep, that's how it is here in America, too. Two different words with
different referents.
So we're still left wondering what the person calling itself Faust was
going on about, and why it feels necessary to be disagreeable in a
random assortment of five newsgroups at once.
--

A) Wow. I really didn't expect this... I had no idea that someone who
writes as if they know something about linguistics could be so ignorant
of a well-known etymology. When you're talking about pieces of
furniture, historically "chaise longue" became "chaise lounge" became
"lounge".

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cha2.htm

That's why I used it as an example of a single concept that started as
a single foreign loan phrase but has now both a "foreign" and an
"English" option.

B) I actually wasn't quite clear that the thread was being seen on so
many newsgroups when I started my sallies. If I had known what was
going on I probably would have taken a less casual and less pugnacious
tone overall. However, Mr. Daniels, I don't regret taking the tone I
did with you -- you seem as if you know quite a deal less than you'd
like to think you do.

Faust

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Obviously, they don't -- someone found something like 70 examples in the
entire googleverse, whereas such searches usually turn up millions of
hits?

No, what happened is that I got twice as many hits for the 'fancy'
plural "argumenta ad hominem" as for the blue-collar plural "ad
hominems".

I get 20% more hits for "ex post facto" than I do for "factos". Does
that mean "ex post facto" is the correct plural for "facto"?

"Argumenta ad hominem" is the Latin plural of the Latin phrase
"argumentum ad hominem" (which get 90,400 Google hits, by the way).
That's not the same concept as the English plural of the anglicized noun
phrase "ad hominem".

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger
"Argumenta ad hominem" is the Latin plural of the Latin phrase
"argumentum ad hominem" (which get 90,400 Google hits, by the way).

Search engine hits wasn't my main reason for chiming in with "argumenta
ad hominem" as a possible plural, it just sort of came up as a side
issue.

Post by Harlan Messinger
That's not the same concept as the English plural of the anglicized noun
phrase "ad hominem".

I agree completely. But given that, there are still times when it can
be edifying or useful to take an anglicised loan word or phrase and go
a step or two backwards toward its original, foreign form and meaning,
and I felt as if this were one of those times.

To use another example which has already been brought up in this
thread, the English phrase "hoi polloi" as it has been anglicised could
conceivably take the definite article, "the hoi polloi". Fine, most
English speakers would have no problem with that. But it still might be
educational in a discussion about the phrase and its origins to point
out that in Greek, "hoi" is the article, and that people who were
interested in being respectful of its meaning in Greek might want to
watch how they employ the term. Same thing here, was my thinking.

One of my other attempted examples was "chaise longue" / "chaise
lounge" / "lounge" (in the sense of a long bed-like chair) -- the idea
being that some people say one term, and some another, even though they
were once originally the same term. One term is French, one is a
distorted and shortened English derivative, and we get to choose which
one to use. I think a similar choice might be facing people who use "ad
hominem", is all.

Faust

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
"Argumenta ad hominem" is the Latin plural of the Latin phrase
"argumentum ad hominem" (which get 90,400 Google hits, by the way).

Search engine hits wasn't my main reason for chiming in with "argumenta
ad hominem" as a possible plural, it just sort of came up as a side
issue.

Post by Harlan Messinger
That's not the same concept as the English plural of the anglicized noun
phrase "ad hominem".

I agree completely. But given that, there are still times when it can
be edifying or useful to take an anglicised loan word or phrase and go
a step or two backwards toward its original, foreign form and meaning,
and I felt as if this were one of those times.

I don't think that's true. The reason we use foreign plurals for some
borrowings is that the plurals were borrowed at the same time as the
singulars". It isn't because the words were borrowed as singular forms
only, with someone deciding years later, "gee, these words didn't
originate in a language that uses 's' to mark the plural, so we should
find out what the plural was in the language of origin.

Post by Faust
To use another example which has already been brought up in this
thread, the English phrase "hoi polloi" as it has been anglicised could
conceivably take the definite article, "the hoi polloi". Fine, most
English speakers would have no problem with that. But it still might be
educational in a discussion about the phrase and its origins to point
out that in Greek, "hoi" is the article, and that people who were
interested in being respectful of its meaning in Greek might want to
watch how they employ the term. Same thing here, was my thinking.

Instead of "telephone", such people should say "telephonos" and
pluralize it as "telephonoi" (or some such thing--I'm not a Greek
expert). As for me, I'll continue to speak English rather than
"respecting" other languages by pretending to be speaking them when I'm
really not.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
"Argumenta ad hominem" is the Latin plural of the Latin phrase
"argumentum ad hominem" (which get 90,400 Google hits, by the way).

Search engine hits wasn't my main reason for chiming in with "argumenta
ad hominem" as a possible plural, it just sort of came up as a side
issue.

Post by Harlan Messinger
That's not the same concept as the English plural of the anglicized noun
phrase "ad hominem".

I agree completely. But given that, there are still times when it can
be edifying or useful to take an anglicised loan word or phrase and go
a step or two backwards toward its original, foreign form and meaning,
and I felt as if this were one of those times.

I don't think that's true. The reason we use foreign plurals for some
borrowings is that the plurals were borrowed at the same time as the
singulars". It isn't because the words were borrowed as singular forms
only, with someone deciding years later, "gee, these words didn't
originate in a language that uses 's' to mark the plural, so we should
find out what the plural was in the language of origin.

Post by Faust
To use another example which has already been brought up in this
thread, the English phrase "hoi polloi" as it has been anglicised could
conceivably take the definite article, "the hoi polloi". Fine, most
English speakers would have no problem with that. But it still might be
educational in a discussion about the phrase and its origins to point
out that in Greek, "hoi" is the article, and that people who were
interested in being respectful of its meaning in Greek might want to
watch how they employ the term. Same thing here, was my thinking.

Instead of "telephone", such people should say "telephonos" and pluralize
it as "telephonoi" (or some such thing--I'm not a Greek expert). As for
me, I'll continue to speak English rather than "respecting" other
languages by pretending to be speaking them when I'm really not.

I'm English and I find this discussion on etymology and orthography
absolutely fascinating, in that most participants seem to be American; and
they use, therefore, "simplified spelling".

We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word. You
transatlantic colonials do what the hell you want with it.
But when we meet via the Net and discuss "English", well, the best you can
do is give a wry smile!

Ed

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Ed Cryer
I'm English and I find this discussion on etymology and orthography
absolutely fascinating, in that most participants seem to be American;
and they use, therefore, "simplified spelling".
We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word.

This is an invalid generalization.

French, US "filet" = UK "fillet".
French "courbe" > US "curb", UK "kerb".
Old French, ME "defens" > French, US "defense", UK "defence"

English "attire" > early variants "tire" and "tyre", "tyre" becoming
obsolete by 1700, and then *revived* in the UK in the 19th century.

[unwarranted jocular snootiness snipped]

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Ed Cryer
I'm English and I find this discussion on etymology and orthography
absolutely fascinating, in that most participants seem to be American;
and they use, therefore, "simplified spelling".
We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word.

This is an invalid generalization.
French, US "filet" = UK "fillet".
French "courbe" > US "curb", UK "kerb".
Old French, ME "defens" > French, US "defense", UK "defence"
English "attire" > early variants "tire" and "tyre", "tyre" becoming
obsolete by 1700, and then *revived* in the UK in the 19th century.
[unwarranted jocular snootiness snipped]

and in the realm of pronunciation, there's American "'erb" versus
British "HHHerb"

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Ed Cryer
I'm English and I find this discussion on etymology and orthography
absolutely fascinating, in that most participants seem to be American;
and they use, therefore, "simplified spelling".

"Simplified spelling" is not the same thing as American spelling, being
rather the name of a wave of journalistic barbarisms introduced in the
early part of the last century. "Nite", "lite", and "thru" are the best
remembered instances.

Post by Ed Cryer
We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word.

Yes, but why you want to retain French manglings of perfectly good
classical roots is beyond us. "-or" and "-ize" respect the original
Latin and Greek, whereas "-our" and "-ise" bear the scars of the pox
that they caught on the wrong side of the Channel.

[Eric Eve]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Ed Cryer
We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word.

Yes, but why you want to retain French manglings of perfectly good
classical roots is beyond us. "-or" and "-ize" respect the
original Latin and Greek, whereas "-our" and "-ise" bear the scars
of the pox that they caught on the wrong side of the Channel.

I often wonder when these -ise spellings got foisted on us Brits.
When I was at school we used to spell these words with -ize too, and
I still think, e.g., that "realize" looks right and "realise" looks
wrong. Moreover, there are still some U.K. publishers that insist on
"-ize". If it wasn't for the spelling checker in MS-Word that keeps
trying to force "-ise" endings on me since it considers them to be
British, I'd use more "-ize" spellings.

Indeed, the OED (I've just checked the on-line version) recognizes
"realize" but not "realise", so I'm not the only person in the UK
that regards "-ise" with suspicion, and "-ize" as just being just as
proper in British as in American English.

-- Eric

[Faust]

Post by Eric Eve

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Ed Cryer
We English stick to the spelling of the language whence we got the word.

Yes, but why you want to retain French manglings of perfectly good
classical roots is beyond us. "-or" and "-ize" respect the
original Latin and Greek, whereas "-our" and "-ise" bear the scars
of the pox that they caught on the wrong side of the Channel.

I often wonder when these -ise spellings got foisted on us Brits.
When I was at school we used to spell these words with -ize too, and
I still think, e.g., that "realize" looks right and "realise" looks
wrong. Moreover, there are still some U.K. publishers that insist on
"-ize". If it wasn't for the spelling checker in MS-Word that keeps
trying to force "-ise" endings on me since it considers them to be
British, I'd use more "-ize" spellings.
Indeed, the OED (I've just checked the on-line version) recognizes
"realize" but not "realise", so I'm not the only person in the UK
that regards "-ise" with suspicion, and "-ize" as just being just as
proper in British as in American English.
-- Eric

You're absolutely right in wondering about this point... I haven't got
(or, for my fellow Americans, I don't have) the time right now to
research this, but I know I've recently read several Victorian-era
British novels that were published in Britain but nevertheless had what
I would think of as "American" spellings of "realize", "advertize",
etc. Thinking back on what I've read lately it must have included some
high-profile authors such as Dickens, Hardy and Conrad... I think the
"ize" versus "ise" dichotomy really only arose in the 20th century from
some misguided attempt at crystallizing the difference between US and
UK.

/I just spent five years writing for a publishing house that used
"British" style such as "centre" and "realise", but in my readings I
kept finding British sources that used different spellings....

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger
Instead of "telephone", such people should say "telephonos" and
pluralize it as "telephonoi" (or some such thing--I'm not a Greek
expert). As for me, I'll continue to speak English rather than
"respecting" other languages by pretending to be speaking them when I'm
really not.

Fair enough, but this is why I said before that this all depends on how
educated you are interested in trying to appear. Whether or not you
approve, in many language environments, relevant and correct citation
of phrases from other languages is a sign of culture. If you're
interested in making sure every word you say fits the rules of English
grammar and are not curious about anything beyond that, fine; I am
coming at it from a different perspective.


Let me try to show a situation where someone with that little bit of
extra knowledge of the original foreign form of an English term would
have an advantage:

Let's say we were rivals both writing love letters to a female with
light hair. "Blond" is the only adjective listed in my English
dictionary. Well, it mentions "blonde" as a variant, but doesn't
specify any reason why you'd use one or the other. You would naturally
describe her in your all-English love letter as a blond. I, with the
extra knowledge that the adjective was originally borrowed from French,
that it can have a feminine adjective ending "-e", and knowing that
educated people used to care about these niceties, would call her a
blonde. There's a slight chance that she'd be more impressed by my
subtle nod to her femininity.

So, while you don't have to say "telephonoi", knowing when to employ
some foreign grammar can be immensely useful.

Agreed?

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
Instead of "telephone", such people should say "telephonos" and
pluralize it as "telephonoi" (or some such thing--I'm not a Greek
expert). As for me, I'll continue to speak English rather than
"respecting" other languages by pretending to be speaking them when I'm
really not.

Fair enough, but this is why I said before that this all depends on how
educated you are interested in trying to appear. Whether or not you
approve, in many language environments, relevant and correct citation
of phrases from other languages is a sign of culture. If you're
interested in making sure every word you say fits the rules of English
grammar and are not curious about anything beyond that, fine; I am
coming at it from a different perspective.
Let me try to show a situation where someone with that little bit of
extra knowledge of the original foreign form of an English term would
Let's say we were rivals both writing love letters to a female with
light hair. "Blond" is the only adjective listed in my English
dictionary. Well, it mentions "blonde" as a variant, but doesn't
specify any reason why you'd use one or the other. You would naturally
describe her in your all-English love letter as a blond. I, with the
extra knowledge that the adjective was originally borrowed from French,
that it can have a feminine adjective ending "-e", and knowing that
educated people used to care about these niceties, would call her a
blonde. There's a slight chance that she'd be more impressed by my
subtle nod to her femininity.
So, while you don't have to say "telephonoi", knowing when to employ
some foreign grammar can be immensely useful.
Agreed?

Not really, because the idea of resorting to the source language
*sometimes* is inherently arbitrary. It's a little silly to talk in any
sense about the rules for being arbitrary. What rule would tell you to
write "blonde" and not "telephonos"?

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust
So, while you don't have to say "telephonoi", knowing when to employ
some foreign grammar can be immensely useful.
Agreed?

Not really, because the idea of resorting to the source language
*sometimes* is inherently arbitrary. It's a little silly to talk in any
sense about the rules for being arbitrary. What rule would tell you to
write "blonde" and not "telephonos"?

Are you being serious?

Come on.

You can't be that naive.

OK here goes...

Language is used by human beings to COMMUNICATE with each other. Human
beings are inherently arbitrary, or at least are unpredictable, in
their value judgements. Sometimes this communication can be so
arbitrary or subtle that it DOES NOT FOLLOW RULES.

Sometimes... and stay with me now... human beings try to impress each
other with words which do not come from their own language. This being
the case, any human being who has the slightest desire to someday be
able to impress another human being in this way must learn a handful of
words which do not (GASP) come from his or her native language.
Capisce? Comprenez-vous? Alles klar?

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust
So, while you don't have to say "telephonoi", knowing when to employ
some foreign grammar can be immensely useful.
Agreed?

Not really, because the idea of resorting to the source language
*sometimes* is inherently arbitrary. It's a little silly to talk in any
sense about the rules for being arbitrary. What rule would tell you to
write "blonde" and not "telephonos"?

Are you being serious?
Come on.
You can't be that naive.
OK here goes...
Language is used by human beings to COMMUNICATE with each other. Human
beings are inherently arbitrary, or at least are unpredictable, in
their value judgements. Sometimes this communication can be so
arbitrary or subtle that it DOES NOT FOLLOW RULES.

And yet here you are deducing rules for not following rules! Don't you
see the fallacy?

Post by Faust
Sometimes... and stay with me now... human beings try to impress each
other with words which do not come from their own language.

What rule would make it clear that "blonde" or "argumenta ad hominem"
would impress while "telephonos" or "quae pro quibus" (as plural for
"quid pro quo") would be misunderstood or scoffed at?

I'm certain that not all of these would be impressive. If some of them
would be, which I doubt, then there must be some rule for determining
which would impress and which wouldn't. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and as
I said it's tough to discuss what the rules are for correctly being
arbitrary.

Post by Faust
This being
the case, any human being who has the slightest desire to someday be
able to impress another human being in this way must learn a handful of
words which do not (GASP) come from his or her native language.
Capisce? Comprenez-vous? Alles klar?

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger
I'm certain that not all of these would be impressive. If some of them
would be, which I doubt, then there must be some rule for determining
which would impress and which wouldn't. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and as
I said it's tough to discuss what the rules are for correctly being
arbitrary.

You don't really get it, do you? Human culture is a complex web which
involves several "prestige" languages interacting at any one time to
shape what is seen as "educated". A couple hundred years ago, the
inability to correctly parse Latin or Greek phrases would have been
deadly. That's why Shakespeare was ignored by many of his
contemporaries, because although he had a fatal weakness for puns, he
had "little Latin and less Greek" (or whatever the epitaph was).
Although things have changed since then, in our society, TODAY, AT THIS
VERY MOMENT, I am superior in terms of English proficiency to you
because I am able to understand and use vestigal French adjectival
endings and you are not. Deal with it. Make up rules if you have to,
but you won't be able to explain it. That's human civilization for you.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
I'm certain that not all of these would be impressive. If some of them
would be, which I doubt, then there must be some rule for determining
which would impress and which wouldn't. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and as
I said it's tough to discuss what the rules are for correctly being
arbitrary.

You don't really get it, do you? Human culture is a complex web which
involves several "prestige" languages interacting at any one time to
shape what is seen as "educated". A couple hundred years ago, the
inability to correctly parse Latin or Greek phrases would have been
deadly.

OK, now I know you're not being rational!

Post by Faust
That's why Shakespeare was ignored by many of his
contemporaries, because although he had a fatal weakness for puns, he
had "little Latin and less Greek" (or whatever the epitaph was).

1. That was more than "a couple hundred years ago". 2. How deadly was it
in his case?

Post by Faust
Although things have changed since then, in our society, TODAY, AT THIS
VERY MOMENT, I am superior in terms of English proficiency to you
because I am able to understand and use vestigal French adjectival
endings and you are not. Deal with it. Make up rules if you have to,
but you won't be able to explain it. That's human civilization for you.

I thought you were going to try to make your case, and figure out an
answer to my challenge regarding what is (allegedly) impressive versus
what brings derision, but you seem to have no interest in doing that.
Boring. Oh, besides which: what do YOU know about what I do and don't
know? In particular, regarding my knowledge of things French.

[Faust]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
I'm certain that not all of these would be impressive. If some of them
would be, which I doubt, then there must be some rule for determining
which would impress and which wouldn't. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and as
I said it's tough to discuss what the rules are for correctly being
arbitrary.

You don't really get it, do you? Human culture is a complex web which
involves several "prestige" languages interacting at any one time to
shape what is seen as "educated". A couple hundred years ago, the
inability to correctly parse Latin or Greek phrases would have been
deadly.

OK, now I know you're not being rational!

Post by Faust
That's why Shakespeare was ignored by many of his
contemporaries, because although he had a fatal weakness for puns, he
had "little Latin and less Greek" (or whatever the epitaph was).

1. That was more than "a couple hundred years ago". 2. How deadly was it
in his case?

Post by Faust
Although things have changed since then, in our society, TODAY, AT THIS
VERY MOMENT, I am superior in terms of English proficiency to you
because I am able to understand and use vestigal French adjectival
endings and you are not. Deal with it. Make up rules if you have to,
but you won't be able to explain it. That's human civilization for you.

I thought you were going to try to make your case, and figure out an
answer to my challenge regarding what is (allegedly) impressive versus
what brings derision, but you seem to have no interest in doing that.
Boring. Oh, besides which: what do YOU know about what I do and don't
know? In particular, regarding my knowledge of things French.

Your blockheaded inability to see that I was using the words "fatal"
and "deadly" hyperbolically in their common sense "of decisive
importance" doesn't do credit to anyone.

I have no idea how much French you know, but you just claimed that you
"doubt" that "blond" versus "blonde" might have an impact on how one
describes a woman, so I'm forced to assume that you place little value
on such distinctions.

To respond to your numbered statements/questions:

1) So you know precisely when knowledge of Latin ceased to impress the
last native English speaker, rounded to the nearest hundred years?
Funny, that seems rather subjective for such a rule-oriented person.

2) It was deadly enough for Samuel Johnson to write that "A quibble is
to Shakespeare what luminous vapours are to the traveller: he follows
it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way and sure to
engulf him in the mire."

The question of what foreign-language usages are impressive versus what
might bring derision is at the heart of this thread. I'd say the
original suggestion of "ad homines" is both impressive and silly. But
the topic seems a bit too nebulous for such a rule-maker as yourself.
But maybe I'm being unfair. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do
you concede that the pseudo-Latinate jargon used in this thread is both
risible and erudite?

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Faust

Post by Harlan Messinger
I'm certain that not all of these would be impressive. If some of them
would be, which I doubt, then there must be some rule for determining
which would impress and which wouldn't. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and as
I said it's tough to discuss what the rules are for correctly being
arbitrary.

You don't really get it, do you? Human culture is a complex web which
involves several "prestige" languages interacting at any one time to
shape what is seen as "educated". A couple hundred years ago, the
inability to correctly parse Latin or Greek phrases would have been
deadly.

OK, now I know you're not being rational!

Post by Faust
That's why Shakespeare was ignored by many of his
contemporaries, because although he had a fatal weakness for puns, he
had "little Latin and less Greek" (or whatever the epitaph was).

1. That was more than "a couple hundred years ago". 2. How deadly was it
in his case?

Post by Faust
Although things have changed since then, in our society, TODAY, AT THIS
VERY MOMENT, I am superior in terms of English proficiency to you
because I am able to understand and use vestigal French adjectival
endings and you are not. Deal with it. Make up rules if you have to,
but you won't be able to explain it. That's human civilization for you.

I thought you were going to try to make your case, and figure out an
answer to my challenge regarding what is (allegedly) impressive versus
what brings derision, but you seem to have no interest in doing that.
Boring. Oh, besides which: what do YOU know about what I do and don't
know? In particular, regarding my knowledge of things French.

Your blockheaded inability to see that I was using the words "fatal"
and "deadly" hyperbolically in their common sense "of decisive
importance" doesn't do credit to anyone.

Where did I indicate a belief you were using the words literally? I
thought your figurative use of them was way overblown.

Post by Faust
I have no idea how much French you know, but you just claimed that you
"doubt" that "blond" versus "blonde" might have an impact on how one
describes a woman,

I strenuously doubt that someone will be impressed with you for
arbitrarily sticking an "e" on the end of that one particular word when
writing in English. Please explain how that implies anything about my
knowledge of French. Also please explain whether you think people would
be equally impressed if you stuck feminine or plural endings on all
other English adjectives that come from French ("How do you like these
antiques chairs I bought yesterday?" "Let me give some generale
information about this exhibit.") or, if not, why you nevertheless think
"blonde" would leave its victim awestruck.

Post by Faust
so I'm forced to assume that you place little value
on such distinctions.
1) So you know precisely when knowledge of Latin ceased to impress the
last native English speaker, rounded to the nearest hundred years?

*You* purported to, and I demonstrated that your number was wrong.

Post by Faust
Funny, that seems rather subjective for such a rule-oriented person.
2) It was deadly enough for Samuel Johnson to write that "A quibble is
to Shakespeare what luminous vapours are to the traveller: he follows
it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way and sure to
engulf him in the mire."
The question of what foreign-language usages are impressive versus what
might bring derision is at the heart of this thread. I'd say the
original suggestion of "ad homines" is both impressive and silly.

It's ridiculous and wrong any which way you look at it, so it isn't
impressive except possibly to the ignorant.

Post by Faust
But
the topic seems a bit too nebulous for such a rule-maker as yourself.
But maybe I'm being unfair. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do
you concede that the pseudo-Latinate jargon used in this thread is both
risible and erudite?

No. I don't consider making stuff up based on misconceptions erudite.

[Jacek Pudlo]

"Faust"

Post by Faust
You can't be that naive.

Surely you mean "naïf," of which "naive" is merely an anglicised
bastardisation.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"Faust"

Post by Faust
You can't be that naive.

Surely you mean "naïf," of which "naive" is merely an anglicised
bastardisation.

Oh, thank you so much for that! :-)

[Faust]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"Faust"

Post by Faust
You can't be that naive.

Surely you mean "naïf," of which "naive" is merely an anglicised
bastardisation.

Nice to see that for all the weird trolling, you're pretty on the
ball... I thought of that 10 seconds after I hit "post message". Is
there a way to edit these things?

[John Briggs]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Faust
Depends on how educated you want to try to appear. Some people say
"chaises longues", others just say "lounges".

How do you pronounce the second s in "chaises"?
Remember, you said "say," not "write."
And you have chosen to go among linguists.

But surely it is what you say that matters, not how you pronounce it.
Especially in writing...

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by tinwhistler

Post by Harlan Messinger
If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

This webpage, with search results from many Google-books, provides
http://books.google.com/books?q=ad+hominems&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

Besides which, there isn't any reason why it would be anything else.

[Skitt]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

What's with the hyphens?

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Skitt

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

What's with the hyphens?

It's what I usually do when I take a phrase and treat it as a single
word. "He was really in-your-face about it." "The for-rent items are
over there." "The guy I hired is a real suck-up."

[Skitt]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Skitt

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

What's with the hyphens?

It's what I usually do when I take a phrase and treat it as a single
word. "He was really in-your-face about it." "The for-rent items are
over there." "The guy I hired is a real suck-up."

I see. The "one rule fits all" approach. Interesting.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Skitt

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Skitt

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

If you're using this Latin phrase as an English noun, it's
"ad-hominems". "I'm tired of your unceasing ad-hominems."

What's with the hyphens?

It's what I usually do when I take a phrase and treat it as a single
word. "He was really in-your-face about it." "The for-rent items are
over there." "The guy I hired is a real suck-up."

I see. The "one rule fits all" approach. Interesting.

It isn't a rule if you make up on a case-by-case basis [irony intended]
whether to follow it.

[UC]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

[dontbother]

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

Eloquent indeed.

[Andrew Plotkin]

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

What Jacek means is "I am going to crosspost this message and try to
start a multi-newsgroup flamewar."

Buy in if you want.

--Z

[Skitt]

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

FYI:

From the Usage Note in AHD4:
"Ad hominem" has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal
attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he
and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some
eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.

[Harlan Messinger]

Post by Skitt

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

"Ad hominem" has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This
usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in
journalistic style.

In that form, which I haven't seen, the word is being used as an
abstract noun, which means that as with the word "invective" it can be
used both ways. Each individual attack can also be termed an ad-hominem,
and a plurality of them is a series of ad-hominems.

[Skitt]

Post by Harlan Messinger

Post by Skitt

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

"Ad hominem" has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post).
This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining
ground in journalistic style.

In that form, which I haven't seen, the word is being used as an
abstract noun, which means that as with the word "invective" it can be
used both ways. Each individual attack can also be termed an
ad-hominem, and a plurality of them is a series of ad-hominems.

Right (except for the extraneous hyphens), and that is the information I was
offering UC.

[me]

Post by Harlan Messinger
In that form, which I haven't seen, the word is being used as an
abstract noun, which means that as with the word "invective" it can be
used both ways. Each individual attack can also be termed an ad-hominem,
and a plurality of them is a series of ad-hominems.

In which compact (not OED sized) dictionary can a reader of English look up
just about any latin phrase used in English? Is there a small dictionary
with all of (say) "viva voce", "modus vivendi", "nolle prosequi" and "sine
qua non"?

[B. T. Raven]

Post by me

Post by Harlan Messinger
In that form, which I haven't seen, the word is being used as an
abstract noun, which means that as with the word "invective" it can be
used both ways. Each individual attack can also be termed an

ad-hominem,

Post by me

Post by Harlan Messinger
and a plurality of them is a series of ad-hominems.

In which compact (not OED sized) dictionary can a reader of English look up
just about any latin phrase used in English? Is there a small dictionary
with all of (say) "viva voce", "modus vivendi", "nolle prosequi" and "sine
qua non"?

You won't see this because it's posted to alt.language.latin only, which
is as it should be (viz. posted to), which is as is should be (you won't
see this:

_Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases_, Jennifer Speake, OUP,
1997. 482 p. + appendices (nothing here about ad-hoc (pl. ads-hocs).


Eduardus, osor eorum qui multifariam in fora retialia nuntios proponere
solent. (of course this doesn't apply to "me," who very sensibly posted to
many but specified a follow-up to only one.

[John Briggs]

Post by UC

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

Plural? What the fuck are you talking about?

Plural ad hominem arguments.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem argument"
is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

No doubt il serenissimo dottorissimo Pudlo will next be calling us all a
load of "ignorami" and wishing a plague of "virii" upon us. Sic, sic,
sic....

(But I am sorry he didn't rise to my "sacra fames" bait.)

[Jacek Pudlo]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

No doubt il serenissimo dottorissimo Pudlo will next be calling us all a
load of "ignorami" and wishing a plague of "virii" upon us. Sic, sic,
sic....

There is much to be said for pedantry. Pedantry draws people together,
provides a conversational wedge. There are loan-expressions to appraise,
grammar schemes to discuss and critisise, potpourri Latinate quotations to
exchange. The manliness of pedantry -- its virility, one might say -- suits
the kind of laconic dialogue that men can undertake without awkwardness or
embarrassment. Men seek fellowship through pedantry.

[Faust]

whoa let's all slow down here folks...

"ad hominem" is an abbreviation for "argumentum ad hominem", right?



so the plural would be "argumenta ad hominem"?


right?



and jacek - why is your withering jeremiad against pedantry so
pedantic? wherefore the use of the completely irrelevant word "laconic"
for no reason? could it be that you were striving for a pedantic tone
yourself?

[Nick Spalding]

Post by Faust
whoa let's all slow down here folks...
"ad hominem" is an abbreviation for "argumentum ad hominem", right?
so the plural would be "argumenta ad hominem"?
right?

If we were speaking Latin.

Post by Faust
and jacek - why is your withering jeremiad against pedantry so
pedantic? wherefore the use of the completely irrelevant word "laconic"
for no reason? could it be that you were striving for a pedantic tone
yourself?

[Faust]

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Faust
whoa let's all slow down here folks...
"ad hominem" is an abbreviation for "argumentum ad hominem", right?
so the plural would be "argumenta ad hominem"?
right?

If we were speaking Latin.
Nick Spalding

Why don't we all just agree to say "personal attacks" and leave Latin
out entirely then ?

And while we're at it, since foreign plurals are weird, all "fungi"
should be "funguses", "chateaux" should be, er, "more than one
chateau", "graffiti" should become "graffitoes", "confetti" should
become "confettoes", and the German city of "Muenchen" should become
"The Little Monks".

I am overstating things here but truth is, I don't think we've
degenerated yet to the point where every single foreign loan-word has
to be automatically englished.

[John Atkinson]

Post by Faust
And while we're at it, since foreign plurals are weird, all "fungi"
should be "funguses", "chateaux" should be, er, "more than one
chateau",

Isn't it "chateaus" according to the latest spelling reform (which no one in
France actually took any notice of)?

J.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Faust
whoa let's all slow down here folks...
"ad hominem" is an abbreviation for "argumentum ad hominem", right?
so the plural would be "argumenta ad hominem"?
right?

One spaghetti western; two spaghetti westerns.
One disaster movie; two disaster movies
One jam tart; two jam tarts.
One ex cathedra harangue; two ex cathedra harangues.
Two ex libris comments; one ex libris comment.

*
*
*
*
One ad hominem argument; two ad hominem arguments.

Ed

[Gene E. Bloch]

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"

The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

Gino

[Ben C]

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"

Actually, it's "vira".

[Dannii]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Ben C

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"

Actually, it's "vira".

<SIGH/> No. "Virus" has no Latin plural at all.

[Nick Spalding]

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

[B. T. Raven]

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.
--
Nick Spalding

But it's neuter

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.

The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

[Grant Hicks]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.

I'm not aware of any Latin neuter noun that does not have a plural in -a
(if it has one at all). Are there any such?

GH

Post by John W. Kennedy
The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Grant Hicks

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem
vowel in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.

I'm not aware of any Latin neuter noun that does not have a plural in -a
(if it has one at all). Are there any such?

As I say, the less than a handful of 2nd-declension neuter nouns in
"-us" are all freaks, and simply cannot be generalized about.

Post by Grant Hicks

Post by John W. Kennedy
The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

[Nick Spalding]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.
The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

/My/ Kennedy mentions only one other, "pelagus", "sea". What are the
others.

I suppose it would be too much of a coincidence if you were a relative of
Benjamin Hall Kennedy DD who compiled the Latin Primer.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:02:38 +0100, Nick Spalding

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.
The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

/My/ Kennedy mentions only one other, "pelagus", "sea". What are the
others.

<http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html>
mentions <vulgus> and <cetus>. The nom. pl. of <cetus> is
<cete>, and <vulgus> has none.

I also found this in a Google cached copy of a Mediev-L
archive that no longer exists at the URL from which it was
taken:

There are four neuter nouns in Latin that end in -us:
cetus, pelagus, virus, and vulgus.

The first two are Greek 3rd-declension neuter nouns
borrowed by Latin; when they are used in the nominative
or accusative plural (the only cases attested in the
plural), they use the Greek 3rd-declension neuter
ending eta: cete, pelage.

The last two are native Latin nouns, and the genitive
form (attested only once in the case of virus) shows
that they belong to the second declension, despite the
ending -us, which in neuters turns up only in the 3rd
declension (litus, etc.). As to the correct Latin plural
of these nouns, there is no such thing -- they were
used only in the singular, and to the best of my
knowledge they are not even discussed by the likes
of Priscian. Nor is it only a coincidence that they
are attested only in the singular: if plural forms
existed, we would surely run across them in poetry,
at least, where plural-for-singular and
singular-for-plural are extremely common tropes.

So there is no correct Latin plural of virus because
the Romans simply did not use the word in the plural,
and there is nothing analogous to help us decide;. In
English, on the other hand, viruses seems perfectly
alright to me.

James L. P. Butrica
Department of Classics
The Memorial University of Newfoundland

(I do wince a bit at 'alright', especially in that context!)

[...]

Brian

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Gene E. Bloch

Post by John W. Kennedy
"virii"

"viri"
The difference between this and "viri" for men is the long stem vowel
in the former.

According to Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, 1922 edition, "virus" is a
second declension noun, meaning "venom", which would make its plural "viri"
except that it also states that is used in the singular only.

It is a neuter second-declension noun ending in "-us". There are only
three or four such words, and they're all grammatical oddities, so it
cannot even be determined what the plural of "virus" would be if it had one.
The only acceptable plural in English, therefore, is "viruses".

/My/ Kennedy mentions only one other, "pelagus", "sea". What are the
others.

Off the top of my head, "vulgus", "crowd, mob". And Google reveals one
more: "cetus", "sea monster". "Cetus" and "pelagus" are Greek
borrowings, and have /rare/ plurals "cete" and "pelage". "Virus" and
"vulgus" simply don't have plurals at all. Being mass nouns, and not
count nouns, they do not ordinarily have a use for plurals.

"Virus" is further confused by being treated by some writers as being of
the 4th declension, but these are not writers regarded as masters of
Latin style.

In the end, "viri" is like saying "sheeps", "virii" is like saying
"sheepses", and "vira" is like saying "sheepen". They just ain't none o'
them right, nohow.

Post by Nick Spalding
I suppose it would be too much of a coincidence if you were a relative of
Benjamin Hall Kennedy DD who compiled the Latin Primer.

Probably, since I see he was descended from the Ayrshire family, but I
imagine the last common ancestor would have been 18th-century or so, at
the latest.

[Nigel Greenwood]

Those of you not using Google Groups will have missed some of the
sponsored ads generated by this thread. These are at the top of the
bill at present:


Latin Male Strippers
for your bachelorette bridal shower
Serving Southern California
latindancers.com

Male Exotic Dancers
Strippers for Bachelorette Parties
Weekly Male Exotic Revue Show in CA
www.latinmen.com


Doesn't "bachelorette" have a Latin derivation?

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk

[Nigel Greenwood]

PS I should have added that these ads are ad feminam.

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk

[B. T. Raven]

Post by Nigel Greenwood
PS I should have added that these ads are ad feminam.
Nigel

Could also be ad hominem virosum. The dictionary says that the
baccalaureus (baccalaurea = Lorbeere) is bachelor and under "bachelor" it
says "origin unknown."

[Adam Thornton]

Post by Nigel Greenwood
PS I should have added that these ads are ad feminam.

"ads feminarum," surely?

Adam

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

One spaghetti western; two spaghetti westerns.
One disaster movie; two disaster movies
One jam tart; two jam tarts.
One ex cathedra harangue; two ex cathedra harangues.
Two ex libris comments; one ex libris comment.

*
*
*
*
One ad hominem argument; two ad hominem arguments.

[John Briggs]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Jacek Pudlo
"John W. Kennedy"

ad-hominems.

"ad-homines," surely?

No, because "ad-hominem" used as a shortcut noun for "ad-hominem
argument" is not Latin.

This is clearly a too important a question to be decided on raif alone.

One spaghetti western; two spaghetti westerns.
One disaster movie; two disaster movies
One jam tart; two jam tarts.
One ex cathedra harangue; two ex cathedra harangues.
Two ex libris comments; one ex libris comment.
*
*
*
*
One ad hominem argument; two ad hominem arguments.

Ex libris?