Fora vs Forums
February 24th, 2006 by Christina
According to the Oxford English Dictionary…
forum n. (pl. forums)
1) a meeting or medium for an exchange of views.
2) (pl. fora) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business. Origin ME: from Latin, lit. what is out of doors.
But everywhere else I've looked, it seems that forums and fora are interchangable. I personally prefer to use the word forums, when referring to a group of workshops and meetings.
I want to argue for this at my work because the term fora is being used and I want to know if there's more evidence that I'm actually correct, besides what the Oxford English Dictionary tells me.
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 24th, 2006 at 9:21 am and is filed under Etymology / History.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
We (i.e. the creators of Pain in The English) developed a series of iPhone apps to teach preschool kids how to recognize letters and words. (My wife developed the characters and I did the coding.) Our own 4-year old daughter has been enjoying them. They are now available on Apple's App Store. You can search for "bitskis" on your iPhone, or visit the official website at bitskis.com.
If you have kids and own an iPhone, please check it out. It's $2.
“Oh, yes, and if you insist on using English, then shouldn’t you be using “plurel” from Middle English? No, wait, you should be using the Latin “plūrālis.” No, that’s wrong too, you should be using whatever form the word took in the language that Latin mutated from.”
First off, I already had a go at someone for posting for the sake of ‘taking the piss’ at me, this is a discussion board. Post constructively or get the f**k out.
If you’d read my last post, you would understand why what you just said had already been answered.
““Etymological fallacy” is an important concept, but it has little relevence to the issue of the correct pluralization of imported nouns.”
As far as I am aware, the etymological fallacy describes, basically, the necessity for words to hold their original meanings. Having said that, I would also associate this fallacy with words holding their original contextual acceptability. By this I mean that words holding their original meanings, would (within reason) require their original contextual uses to be held as well (the misuse of a word can essentially change the literal meaning of that word. E.g. using a plural word as a singular form.).
“I cannot control the environment in which I was brought up; this doesn’t stop me from believing that the way that languages alter (incorrectly imo) is wrong. If I could, I would ensure that everyone speaks the language correctly and at least attempt to prevent further deterioration of modern linguistics (part of the reason why I am on this discussion board).”
So, let me get this straight, you think that by complaining about the way language mutates, and has always mutated, you are going to fix it?
If your point is that it’s an ineffective method, then I agree. If your point is that, because it’s an ineffective method, we should stop doing it, then I have to ask by what means you intend to enforce this change.
My second post was in addition to the first. I did not refresh the site in between making the two, so I had no idea you had posted, thus your post between them had no bearing on the second post.
I tried to forestall that on my last post by refreshing before I posted; but, somehow the comment to which I’m currently responding was not visible before I posted my last comment despite the time stamps showing yours having been up for eight minutes before mine.
“My second post was in addition to the first. I did not refresh the site in between making the two, so I had no idea you had posted, thus your post between them had no bearing on the second post.”
I see, that’s fine.
“So, let me get this straight, you think that by complaining about the way language mutates, and has always mutated, you are going to fix it?
If your point is that it’s an ineffective method, then I agree. If your point is that, because it’s an ineffective method, we should stop doing it, then I have to ask by what means you intend to enforce this change.”
At no point did I (nor do I) expect that my ranting would produce any change whatsoever, I am simply voicing my opinion. I said “If I could, I would… “.
I do believe that it’s an ineffective method, and consequently believe that there is no need to continue to alter the already mutilated language that is English. I see no point in changing things for the worse, and, as I eluded to earlier, I am certain that my opinion will not enforce any change whatsoever. I am, however, an atheist and believe strongly in free speech, which is why I hold no regrets in voicing my opinion.
Oh, it’s fine is it? Well, I’m glad it’s fine that you told me to “get the fuck out” over a misunderstanding that you could have prevented by noting the time stamps of the posts.
In that case, I think it’s just fine if whatever I say happens to be insulting to you. That’s part of free speech too, after all.
I’m also glad that your atheism is somehow relevant to your belief in free speech and/or your lack of regret in voicing your opinion.
Back on topic… exactly how is it changed for the worse? Seems to me that using “forums” as the plural of “forum,” and doing the same for similar words, is the best way to avoid mutilation of English, since that is the most common method of pluralizing in English.
Douglas wrote:
“The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.”
I would interpret it a little more broadly: the original or historical usage or a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. Not just the meaning, but how the word is used, including pluralization.
“Oh, it’s fine is it? Well, I’m glad it’s fine that you told me to “get the fuck out” over a misunderstanding that you could have prevented by noting the time stamps of the posts.
In that case, I think it’s just fine if whatever I say happens to be insulting to you. That’s part of free speech too, after all.”
Your post that I had a problem with was made prior to any reply I had made. I had no problem with the fact that you repeated a question that I had already asked. I had a problem with the fact that you set out to simply take the piss at me with your sarcasm and smart-arsed attitude.
I am a fan of free speech, but I am not a fan of taking unprovoked shots at people. I respect that you said it (at least indirectly) to me, but I would like to see you insult me face-to-face. I think you may have second thoughts then.
“Back on topic… exactly how is it changed for the worse? Seems to me that using “forums” as the plural of “forum,” and doing the same for similar words, is the best way to avoid mutilation of English, since that is the most common method of pluralizing in English.”
I’ve (and you have) provided several examples of how modifying English can be useless, or even changing it for the worse. I don’t see how the use of ‘forums’ instead of ‘fora’ could possibly benefit the English language, other than making it easier for people who are ill-educated or ignorant enough not to know the correct plural of words like ‘forum’.
“I would interpret it a little more broadly: the original or historical usage or a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. Not just the meaning, but how the word is used, including pluralization.”
I agree with you 100%, as shown in my previous posts.
Sorry for triple posting.
When I said ” repeated a question that I had already asked”, I obviously meant to say “that I had already answered”. Just to avoid any confusion.
“I agree with you 100%, as shown in my previous posts.”
Except that you presumably don’t agree that the etymological fallacy is a fallacy, while I do. Language change is an observed fact of all languages. It is natural and inevitable. We can all complain about it, but we can’t stop it. We’ve been using language for thousands and thousands of years, and it has been changing all that time. If language change was bad, then how can we still communicate.
“I’ve (and you have) provided several examples of how modifying English can be useless, or even changing it for the worse. I don’t see how the use of ‘forums’ instead of ‘fora’ could possibly benefit the English language, other than making it easier for people who are ill-educated or ignorant enough not to know the correct plural of words like ‘forum’.”
Because, if we’re going to push for unobtainable ideals, the simplest system is best? Because people should not be marked as lacking in education simply because they don’t find the subject of English endlessly fascinating, and thus do not know every single rule in our hopelessly entangled language? Or, because the correct plural form in English IS “forums”? It’s also “fora,” but that’s irrelevant to my point.
What prompted the sarcasm to which you so strenuously object is simple; you proposed to protect a language from the very process by which it became the language that you wish to protect. It’s hard to point out the obvious without being sarcastic about it. It’s even harder when you claim to want to preserve English in it’s current state when the current state includes “forums” as a proper plural.
“I had a problem with the fact that you set out to simply take the piss at me with your sarcasm and smart-arsed attitude.”
What, so my point is irrelevant just because I used sarcasm to make it? Also, I use sarcasm quite regularly in person, and frequently to make points, so I doubt that I would hesitate just because you happen to be easily offended.
Regarding: “As far as I am aware, the etymological fallacy describes, basically, the necessity for words to hold their original meanings.”
I’m sorry, hot4teacher, but the exact opposite is true. The “etymological fallacy” describes the fact that words do NOT hold their original meanings. You’re certainly free to believe that they SHOULD hold onto their original meanings, but labelling that belief “etymological fallacy” would be incorrect. That’s why it’s called a fallacy. It is an agreement in etymological academic circles that such a belief is wrong.
“What prompted the sarcasm to which you so strenuously object is simple; you proposed to protect a language from the very process by which it became the language that you wish to protect. It’s hard to point out the obvious without being sarcastic about it. It’s even harder when you claim to want to preserve English in it’s current state when the current state includes “forums” as a proper plural.”
I’ve implied through earlier posts that I believe that the way the English language was used SHOULD be maintained. The fact that most people nowadays can barely speak our current language gives me little or no hope at all. I am not stupid. I know that we won’t go back to speaking the original forms of the English language, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot feel the need to maintain the language that many hold to be correct.
“What, so my point is irrelevant just because I used sarcasm to make it? Also, I use sarcasm quite regularly in person, and frequently to make points, so I doubt that I would hesitate just because you happen to be easily offended.”
The necessity to use sarcasm to prove a point is a very popularly disliked trait in the modern world. I am almost certain that, should you see me in person, you wouldn’t think to piss me off. This isn’t a threat. I am merely identifying the fact that the internet holds a specious barrier for protecting you. If you talk this way in real life (as you admitted that you do) I am certain that (if at least being widely disliked) you will push someone to far, and it would be very unfortunate if that person was 200cm tall and 115kg.
Your point could have easily been made without sarcasm. There is nothing wrong with being honest. I promote honesty, and if you disagree with me then that’s fine. You could have easily said “I disagree with you” rather than take the piss at me.
“I’m sorry, hot4teacher, but the exact opposite is true. The “etymological fallacy” describes the fact that words do NOT hold their original meanings. You’re certainly free to believe that they SHOULD hold onto their original meanings, but labelling that belief “etymological fallacy” would be incorrect. That’s why it’s called a fallacy. It is an agreement in etymological academic circles that such a belief is wrong.”
It seems that my post had been set out poorly. What I meant was that the etymological fallacy is a fallacy regarding “the necessity for words to hold their original meanings.”. I didn’t mean to say that the etymological fallacy implied that words should actually keep their original meanings. At no point did I agree or disagree with it, I simply described how/why it could also apply to punctuation/pluralization.
In ‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics,’ P. H. Matthews defines the etymological fallacy as “The notion that the ‘true’ meaning of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology.” I don’t see how this can be used as an argument on either side of this pluralization debate. No convincing case has been made here.
As for “preserving” English, people wiser than we have objected to the evolution of English usage. In 1789 Benjamin Franklin wrote to Noah Webster complaining about the then-recent formation of verbs from the substantive words ‘notice,’ advocate’ and ‘progress.’ He urged Webster: “If you should happen to be of my opinion with respect to these innovations you will use your authority in reprobating them.” (Imagine: Ben Franklin opposing innovation!) I don’t know what Webster’s response was, but all three verbs are still with us, and the language is better for it.
“In ‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics,’ P. H. Matthews defines the etymological fallacy as “The notion that the ‘true’ meaning of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology.” I don’t see how this can be used as an argument on either side of this pluralization debate. No convincing case has been made here.”
The true meaning of ’stamina’ is ‘a collective of more than one stamen’, i.e. the ‘true’ meaning of ’stamina’ is a plural, and so the etymological fallacy would describe that “the ‘true’ meaning of” stamina “is the one to be expected from its etymology”, and, as I have just pointed out, this meaning describes a plural.
“As for “preserving” English, people wiser than we have objected to the evolution of English usage. In 1789 Benjamin Franklin wrote to Noah Webster complaining about the then-recent formation of verbs from the substantive words ‘notice,’ advocate’ and ‘progress.’ He urged Webster: “If you should happen to be of my opinion with respect to these innovations you will use your authority in reprobating them.” (Imagine: Ben Franklin opposing innovation!) I don’t know what Webster’s response was, but all three verbs are still with us, and the language is better for it.”
It’s good to see that someone is on my side. Benjamin Franklin. Enough said.
Douglas wrote
“In ‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics,’ P. H. Matthews defines the etymological fallacy as “The notion that the ‘true’ meaning of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology.” I don’t see how this can be used as an argument on either side of this pluralization debate. No convincing case has been made here.”
OK, then don’t call it the etymological fallacy. Call it the, I don’t know, argument from Latin or something. The point is that it doesn’t make sense to argue that words we’ve borrowed should be used, spelled, pluralized, declined, conjugated in the same way they were used, spelled, pluralized, declined, conjugated in the language they were borrowed from. For instance, it’s a mistake to say that the “real” plural of “forum” is “fora” because that’s how it was pluralized in Latin. Such a claim ignores the facts of English.
hot4teacher:
I sense from your remarks that you misunderstand the concept of the “etymological fallacy.”
In any event, simply citing an example–stamina–does not an argument make. Moreover, to advocate for ‘stamina’ as a plural for ‘stamen’ undermines the case for keeping to Latin plurals, since it can be easily confused with the same word in the sense of ‘endurance.’ I notice that Merriam-Webster lists ‘stamens’ as the preferred plural as early as 1947, and labels the plural form ‘stamina’ as “now rare.”
You have also missed the point of my second comment, which is that Franklin lost this particular battle with progress.
goofy:
I think we are in agreement: I favor anglicized plurals of borrowed nouns with the exception of long-established usages or specialized domains of discourse.
Douglas, the word stamina (for endurance) is the same word as stamina (for the plural of stamen). Somewhere along the way, the English language decided that stamina would be a measure of endurance (possibly related to the function of a stamen).
As for the use of “stamens as early as 1947″, I have already stated my stance as to whether the etymology of a word or common use of a word is more correct.
“You have also missed the point of my second comment, which is that Franklin lost this particular battle with progress.”
I am aware that Franklin lost that battle, I commonly use the words you mentioned. It is also interesting to see that such a genius as Benjamin Franklin could be so grossly ignored. It may just be that scientifically minded people think alike, and are always being ignored by society, despite the fact that our entire mission is to find the ‘truth’. Enough of venting my frustration with society, though.
Oh and for “I sense from your remarks that you misunderstand the concept of the “etymological fallacy.” “, it wouldn’t be surprising if I misunderstand the concept of the etymological fallacy, as my only knowledge of it is a vague memory of hearing it in particular contexts. My English education finished in high school, and my education in grammar/punctuation/comprehension finished in year 10, and had since included such useless education as how to decompose and analyse Brave New World, Othello, etc.
Pffff…
Herein lies the evolution of “stamina” from it’s Latin origin “stāmen”:
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003141.php
It’s not entirely clear from the above, but I believe that this usage mutated separately from the “stamen” of a plant.
Actually, I wonder if “stamen” mutated at all. I can imagine the person studying flowers looking at the small strand within a flower and thinking, “that looks like a thread, I think I’ll name it using the Latin word for ‘thread.’”
Again, following a simplistic system would be the ideal. According to the rules of English (ha, like English has rules, better to call them “guidelines”), the plural of “stamen” should be “stamens” and not “stamina.” Otherwise, when we speak of the “stamina of flowers,” how do others know if we speak of their ability to thrive, or the protrusions within them? (See, the points are so boring without the spice of sarcasm.)
“I know that we won’t go back to speaking the original forms of the English language, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot feel the need to maintain the language that many hold to be correct.”
This is what I find ridiculous, and therefore, deserving of ridicule:
Imagine that the entire history and the entire future of language is a long, constantly morphing line. You’ve decided that this line should stop at a particular point, simply because you exist there. That’s rather arbitrary, and supremely arrogant, isn’t it?
Douglas, I object to your supposition that simply because people are dead, famous, and considered intelligent, they are somehow wiser than living people to whom you have little cause to know the wisdom of.
hot4teacher, I need to inform you that you’ve given me all of the ammunition I need to quite effectively ream you, and a strong desire to do so, but I’d like to keep such invective off of a forum dedicated to intellectual topics.
Correction:
Douglas, I object to your supposition that simply because people are dead, famous, and considered intelligent, they are somehow wiser than people whose wisdom you have little basis to gauge.
Name (supplied),
For one so admittedly fond of the sarcastic you are surprisingly blind to the sardonic.
Why don’t you two just go & get a room?
Name (supplied), that is a very informative link. Here is another with the etymologies of each meaning of ’stamina’ together:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=stamen&searchmode=none
I think ’stamina’ could be the poster-child for the etymological fallacy.
(As for you, Kevin E, I refer you to hot4teacher’s recent foray into Old English.)
Just for kicks, whose side are you on Kevin?
That’s an amusing question. Does the side that he takes automatically become less valid?
In all seriousness, why even acknowledge his existence? He’s already deemed himself irrelevant by interjecting pointless drivel into a serious discussion. Who are we to grant him any more credence than he gives himself?
Hi
I’ve looked a trailer for the “2012″. I was interested in this theme.
Please advise me a good site on this topic.
And what do you think about the end of the world 2012.
Thanks.
Stumbled upon this discussion after mentioning ‘fora’ on a football fans website Forum. Bearing in mind that the British Isles have been conquered many times over the millenia(or should it be milleniums?) our language has evolved using various elements from each of the conquerors ; eg ‘a la carte’. We often use the adage ‘ when in Rome do as the Romans would do’ . Therefore should the ‘Roman’ plural of forum not be used ; ie fora?
I figured it would be FORA which is how I would say it. So I looked n my dictionary and it gives both ways.
Meanwhile, imported words normally use the plural form from the original language such as (cactus and cacti). So I have to agree that a forum X 2 = two fora.
I landed on this page in the hope of finding out whether to write Fora or Forums, turns out both ways may be right. In addition I found some BS argument between a bunch of buggers with too much time on their hands.
Please use that energy to better the world instead.
Oh, and thanks Steve.
I believe Forums is better if you are writing in English.
English borrows words from many languages, but that doesn’t mean we have to use the associated grammar too.
As for the quality of some of the postings here from the inappropriately monikered “Hot4Teacher”; It’s poor.
There is no set rule for plurals of Latin words borrowed for use in English.
Just be careful you are not just showing off some vain opinion of superiority you may be holding on to.
When You say “Fora” What you may be using is the compound word ForaOfCourseYouKnowTheLatinPluralDon’tYou?No?OhSorryToProveI’mOfASuperiorEducationalKLevelToYouThankYouI’llTakeYourSilenceAsASubmission.
Forums will do, thank you.
Before you have another go at me, Dave, I’ll point out that my internet nickname “hot4teacher” was chosen due to my liking of the song “Hot for teacher” by Van Halen, not to imply that I have sexual interests in teachers.
At no point did I state that I was correct nor that anyone else was incorrect. I simply offered my opinion – which I am now somewhat reluctant to do, considering the amount of trolls who responded only to take shots at me.
I already modestly stated my level of education in English, which leaves me confused at attempting to understand why you think I’m being condescending or righteous – which is ironic.
“Just be careful you are not just showing off some vain opinion of superiority you may be holding on to.”
“As for the quality of some of the postings here from the inappropriately monikered “Hot4Teacher”; It’s poor.”
“ForaOfCourseYouKnowTheLatinPluralDon’tYou?No?OhSorryToProveI’mOfASuperiorEducationalKLevelToYouThankYouI’llTakeYourSilenceAsASubmission.”
For interest’s sake, what was poor about my posts? Was it that you, William “Dave” Shakespeare, are the world’s most educated English scholar and know for a fact that I am incorrect? Or were you so shaken up by the fact that my moniker is “hot4teacher”, which you erroneously deciphered as meaning that I found teachers attractive (with which there is nothing wrong – teachers are just people too).
For someone who portrays himself as being a seemingly level and righteous person, you take a lot of offense to opinions that happen to differ from your own.
hot4teacher, after your last post, I thought I might be able to clarify a few things for you. Let me address a few of your comments:
When you said:
“At no point did I state that I was correct nor that anyone else was incorrect. I simply offered my opinion – which I am now somewhat reluctant to do, considering the amount of trolls who responded only to take shots at me.
I already modestly stated my level of education in English, which leaves me confused at attempting to understand why you think I’m being condescending or righteous – which is ironic.”
Surely you haven’t forgotton your very first post, have you? Here:
“For those whom [sic] are against the correct use of the English language, you are all idiots. Why would you use an incorrect spelling/form of a word if you know that it is incorrect and you know what the correct spelling/form is. It pisses me off when I hear someone say forums instead of fora (and to make my point even stronger, this word processor has found fora to be spelled incorrectly!). If you are going to speak English speak it properly.”
So, the fact is, you did not just offer your opinion. Furthermore, you absolutely did say that you were “correct” and that, no, not “anyone” but everyone other than you was incorrect. What’s more, you referred to the collective group of other posters on this forum as “idiots”. Then you have the nerve to complain when others have pointed this out to you. Sorry, but if you feel that you are being characterized as condescending, it’s because you have been. You are the one who has made this personal. Others are simply pointing it out to you, frankly, with a surprising amount of restraint. Even now, during your failed attempt at backpedalling, you’ve called your detractors “trolls”. How about this? If you’re going to participate in an intellectual debate, learn to present your arguments clearly. Recognize that they will come under scrutiny and accept criticism graciously. If you think the opposition is wrong, reposte with facts and research, not personal attacks. Just suck it up and stop being such a crybaby. What’s truly ironic is not how you think you have been treated, but that your original premise is actually incorrect. From a descriptive point of view, fora is not in common usage. From a prescriptive point of view, there is no prescriptive rule that fora, or latinized plurals in general, should be preferred. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case as has been stated many times and backed up with authoritative sources.
Next, you have pointed out that your choice of name, hot4teacher has nothing to do with your sexual interest in teachers, but, instead, is because of your appreciation of a Van Halen song. Surely you realize that the Van Halen song is entirely about someone who has a sexual interest in his teacher? If the name is inappropriate, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s your personal interest or Van Halen’s. The song is still glorifying teacher-lust. Personally, I’m not offended in the least by your choice of handle; I just wanted to point out the logic to you.
Last, please don’t take anything I’m saying as a personal attack. I’m just letting you know what I have observed with the hopes of offering you some insight into what you seem to be experiencing. Perhaps if you tried a more collegial approach, you might have a more pleasant experience, here and elsewhere.
I appreciate your directness, Porsche, and I admit that I acted like a d-bag to say the least.
“Surely you haven’t forgotton your very first post, have you?”
Unfortunately, with the number of irrelevant responses I have made to (and I stand by the use of the term) trolls, I had forgotten my original posts. Thinking back, however, I agree with my original ‘views’, but I apologize if anyone was offended by their nature (tbph, I couldn’t care less if you were offended. What difference should it make if I think you’re an idiot?).
My arguably ‘un/called-for’ backlashes came due to a habit of mine brought upon by being constantly, unnecessarily, and unreasonably scrutinized and ridiculed by people throughout my life.
Having said all of that, aside from my original frustration-influenced post, I feel that all of my posts were of a reasonable nature, until people (namely Name (supplied)) began to just take shots at me. If anyone has a problem with the way I’ve acted, don’t act like it was uncalled for.
I have no beef with anyone on this discussion board, aside from Name (supplied), and possibly the appropriately monikered Dave. I expect that you two would have no problems having someone you have a problem with, having a problem with you.
Let this be the end of the sarcastic maelstrom, and return to the original topic.
P.S. In regards to my name, I thank you Porsche for clarifying Dave’s issue for me, but I would like to remind Dave that (as I mentioned) there is nothing wrong with lusting after a teacher. Physical attraction is as natural as methane gas. It is somewhat to blame for our existence.
[...] about the correct plural of forum itself — is it forums or fora? — as have some language blogs and other sites. Latin plurals are evidently a popular topic. Some of the commentary is sensible [...]
What a horrible and aggressive forum this is! So unnecessary – I only came across this by googling forums vs fora and was confronted by this vile diatribe. Sort yourselves out. Go to “inadequate_bully_forums/fora” to continue this sort of nonsense.