Fora vs Forums

Touche porsche. It is very ironic that I made such a mistake. In my defence, though, it is just that - and I do know the correct use (for those who do not, you would simply use "who" where you might use "he/she", and use "whom" where you might use "him/her")

As for my argument over the use of forums instead of fora...
"Are you really claiming that “forums” isn’t a standard or “correct” English word? Fora is a Latin plural, correct English, yes, but obscure at best."

Yes I am claiming that. Since the word "forum" is a Latin word used in the English language, I do not see how using the English-based plural system would apply. Using "forums" is much like using "octopuses", "radiuses" or, to a lesser extent, "fishes".

I can understand why people disagree with me on this - and, after all, my argument isn't necessarily directed at anyone in particular; and I assume that most people understand where I stand and why.

As for our Rugby team; assuming that you are a Pom, I could have said the same to you.
I have just about given up on Union in Australia (except for the mighty Waratahs). League is where it's at, but cricket is good too (each to his own).

Oh and PS... We use the term free-kick as well as indirect (simply to differentiate between direct and 'not direct').

in the english language, foreign words may or may not be anglicized. Thus "forums", but "radii".

I can understand that as time goes by, we will forget where some words originated and so their respective plural system will be forgotten, but until then why would only some words be anglicized? Either all words or only words of English origin should use the plural system.

Again, to what extent does this rule apply? Are we to just guess when a word does or doesn't use this rule?

hot4teacher: I ruffled your feathers, which was not my intent. Clearly, we share a passion for English, but we disagree on (at least) one point.

The question we are discussing here is whether–and when–nouns imported from other languages should be made plural in the manner of in the language of origin or in the manner of English nouns. In my earlier comment I said: “When a word borrowed from another language has been part of English for a long time it is proper to use the ‘English-based plural system.’” I stand by that. In common usage most imported nouns are best made plural in the English manner, unless used in a specific context, such as a treatise on Botany (or ancient Rome).

Bryan A. Garner, in ‘A Dictionary of Modern American Usage,’ makes this point clearly:

“Words imported into the English language from other languages–especially Greek, Latin, French, and Italian–present some of the most troublesome aspects of English plurals. Many imported words become thoroughly naturalized; if so, they take an English plural. But if a word of Latin or Greek origin is relatively rare in English–or if the foreign plural became established long ago–then it typically takes its foreign plural.”

Many plural nouns that are argued about today have long been anglicized. To cite but one example, “memorandum,” which comes to us from Latin via Middle English, has been around since the fifteenth century, according to Merriam-Webster. Yet it is sometimes written as “memoranda” in its plural use. But Thomas Jefferson–no mere scribbler–used “memorandums” as early as 1818 (The Anas). Other imports, like “octopus,” are erroneously latinized into “octopi,” though the root word is Greek. And seriously, does anyone use the word “platypodes?” That would be truly flat-footed.

hot4teacher,

Thanks for the kind words. I have enjoyed our discussion; you also make a strong case. Go on using those latinate plurals. As you say, someone has to preserve them. They may often be more appropriate in engineering anyhow. Even I prefer 'radii,' at least in writing, and would probably say 'abaci,' though I can't imagine needing two of them.

Incidentally, I didn't mean that the English plural of 'platypus' is actually 'platypode,' the accepted plurals are 'platypuses' and 'platypi." The latter illogically applies a Latin plural form to a Greek root. (I should have said "have been erroneously latinized"–it is a fait accompli.) This is not uncommon in English; we also have 'octopi' and 'cacti,' both of Greek origin. Still, perhaps it is fitting that such an apparent collection of leftover parts as a platypus should have a pastiche of a plural.

"Cactus" is of Greek origin, but it was borrowed into English from Latin, just like "octopus" and "platypus" were. But "cactus" is different in that it would be pluralized "cacti" in Latin.

In any case, the idea that we must look to another language to find out how to use words is the etymological fallacy. To determine how English words are pluralized, it makes sense to look at how English writers actually pluralize them. In the case of "forum", the most common plural by far is "forums". As I said earlier, the OED doesn't even have any quotes with "fora".

Apparatus and status are borrowed from Latin fourth declension masculine nouns, so the Latin plurals are appar?t?s and stat?s. Agenda, erotica, opera, data, media, bacteria, candelabra, paraphernalia, trivia, graffiti are all borrowed from Latin plurals (Italian in the case of graffiti), so treating these words as singular would be wrong by hot4teacher's standards.

"Agenda, erotica, opera, data, media, bacteria, candelabra, paraphernalia, trivia, graffiti are all borrowed from Latin plurals (Italian in the case of graffiti), so treating these words as singular would be wrong by hot4teacher’s standards."

I would say that treating those words as singular would be wrong, especially considering that most of their singular forms are still used in modern English. We use the word "datum" when referring to datum edges in product measuring and manufacturing; medium is used everywhere, especially in visual arts contexts; bacterium is still used in biology studies and articles.

The fact that a lot of those words are used instead of their original singular form is wrong, and I believe that it is simply ignorance that has written off their original singular forms.

It is interesting to think, though, about the fact that we have been discussing the incorrect use of plurals from their singular forms, and hadn't mentioned the fact that many people also use the incorrect singular forms of plurals, or simply use the same word for both singular and plural cases. Data and media are the ones that annoy me the most.

"I would say that treating those words as singular would be wrong, especially considering that most of their singular forms are still used in modern English."

So you'd say that usage is irrelevant, that what matters is the words' etymology?

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "data" followed by a singular verb is completely standard.

Another one is stamina... this is a plural noun in Latin, but it's singular in English.

"Hot4teacher took Goofy’s bait on this one: “…most of their singular forms are still used in modern English.” What, exactly, is the singular of paraphernalia? Paraphernalium? "

My post may have been misinterpreted in regards to this. When I said "most" I was generally referring to the examples I used. I concede that the singular forms of words like paraphernalia are not commonly used in English (as far as I know, only the plural form was adopted into English - so it may somewhat be the reverse of what we are talking about). This appears, though, to have been bypassed by the common use of "a piece of paraphernalia" instead of "a paraphernalis" (?).

" “I would say that treating those words as singular would be wrong, especially considering that most of their singular forms are still used in modern English.”

So you’d say that usage is irrelevant, that what matters is the words’ etymology? "

I'm not sure what it is that you are getting at with this statement. I assert that there is no reason/need to incorrectly use a plural form of a word as its singular form when the singular form is still used. This may sound contradictory to one of my previous statements (that if everyone uses it, doesn't make it right), but it is in actual fact supporting it. The fact that people still use "datum" or "bacterium" (granted in specific industries) means that the use of "a data" or "a bacteria", although common, is (I believe) wrong. As I said before, these terms are often modified to a correct form of "a piece of ___".

I have studied biology before, and understand that the use of "a type of bacteria" may seem incorrect, but is actually fine. Bacteria almost always occur as colonies, and so you may often be describing a colony of bacteria, rather than a single bacterium, however describing single bacteria is still important and is still used.

As for stamina, I have never personally seen or heard anyone use stamina as a singular form. As far as I am aware, the singular form, stamen, refers to something other than a singular form of stamina as used to describe endurance or strength (the word may have some etymological connotation to an ability to endure, I am not sure). I've only really heard it used in the context "someone's stamina", which tends to push me towards believing that a stamen may be something that allows for endurance/strength. Someone may care to enlighten me.

Douglas wrote:
"I’m not sure why these are even mentioned. What is the controversy?"

I mentioned all these words to show that their etymology as plurals in Latin or Italian or whatever is irrelevant to their use in English. hot4teacher seems to be arguing that a word should have a certain plural form that matches the plural form in the language the word was borrowed from. But the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that all these other words, like opera, erotica, candelabra, paraphenalia, trivia, should therefore only be plural in English.

hot4teacher wrote:
"As for stamina, I have never personally seen or heard anyone use stamina as a singular form."

Really? It was first used as a plural in English, but began to be used as a singular in the 1800s.

"The stamina of the people was tested by a persecution that lasted for thirty years." - W.B. Thomson, 1895

I've only seen it used as a plural nowadays when referring to the stamens of plants.

" Really? It was first used as a plural in English, but began to be used as a singular in the 1800s.

“The stamina of the people was tested by a persecution that lasted for thirty years.” – W.B. Thomson, 1895

I’ve only seen it used as a plural nowadays when referring to the stamens of plants. "

Like I said, the word stamina is used in English as something other than its original meaning (or at least somewhat different to), and does not literally refer to, for example, a person's amount of "stamens", but rather a statistic or measurement (like mass) which may be used as both a quantitative statistic (E.g. ability to run 2km at 15km/h) or a qualitative statistic (E.g. "They show great stamina"), neither of which particularly pertain to a singular or plural form, so much as a quantitative/qualitative adjective.

I understand where you are coming from with "The stamina of the people was tested", but I believe that this is a case of what I've just mentioned. The stamina is simply a stat, and the "stamina of the people" may be referred to as a group of stamina(s).

I am forgetting why we are arguing about "stamina". It seems as though we both agree that using stamina as a singular form is incorrect.

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 "pl?r?lis." No, that's wrong too, you should be using whatever form the word took in the language that Latin mutated from.

"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 “pl?r?lis.” 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.).

"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.

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.

"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.

Herein lies the evolution of "stamina" from it's Latin origin "st?men":
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.

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.

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.

This was quite entertaining, and has given me a great laugh on this otherwise bland afternoon. I personally agree that Latin plurals probably aren't widely accepted today, but why stop there. Why not use other Latin forms of the words. It would cut many uses of the word "of." :)

This whole "none" thing is really much simpler than it seems. Consider:

1 - No [singular noun] is...
2 - No [plural noun] are...
3 - Not any [singular noun] is...
4 - Not any [plural noun] are...
5 - Not one [singular noun] is...

Every one of the above can be replaced by "None is/are..." as appropriate.

The context will tell you what the intent is and which is correct.

Examples:

No dogs are allowed in the house
None are allowed in the house.

No contestant is the victor until all have played.
None is the victor until all have played.

As the quoted usage note suggests, it's usually plural and not singular unless unless clearly, uneguivocably, and unambiguously so. I guess this makes sense, since if someone were to use it in the singular, I would think he or she would be more likely to just use "no one". Example: "No one is home" would sound pretty awkward as "none is home" wouldn't it?

Dave Johnson: It's the "the true scholars of English, the writers and the poets" who are using the words you're complaining about. Well, maybe not the poets, but good writers of all kinds use "forums" and "data" as a mass noun in carefully edited text.

goofy, each person is only a product of their environment - the language in which they speak is the language of which they were taught. In the modern world, the English teachers at primary and secondary schools are hardly the greatest speakers of the language. Hell, in primary school I often corrected my own teacher's grammar!

It has taken a long time for the English language to evolve (or, more appropriately, de-evolve) into it's current state. It's not as though we can just stop where we are and return to speaking in 5th Century English, or Classical Latin, or whatever.

To go back to September 2009, I'll tell Hot4Teacher an answer to the English soccer question.

The word Penalty is a reserved word in the rules of the game, I'll capitalise it for clarification. It specifically means a free shot at the goal from a marked spot on the pitch – any foul in the marked box around the goal results in a Penalty.
Anyone who’s ever seen a game probably knows what a Penalty is.

Because the word Penalty is reserved and means a very specific thing in the rules of the game it's generally not used to describe or discuss any other part of the game.
Sure, a free kick is a type of penalty to the opposing team, but because of the confusion it's not called a penalty.

It's much the same that in cricket people won't use the word Test except when discussing a test match or in Rugby you won’t hear people talking about have a good try at scoring because it can be confused with the Try which means to score.

Of course someone could use the word penalty to describe a free kick or yellow card or anything else, but it would normally display an ignorance of the game which is easily remedied with a quick chat, or a contrary nature and a desire to start a pedantic argument which is also easily but in a much less friendly way.

Anyhow.
If you’re talking about internet message boards then they are forums, if you're talking about where Caecilius meets to his drinking buddies then it's fora.

I am getting angrier the more I read. there is not a single post completely devoid of any grammatical error or some mistake in punctuation. We might as well all start using text speak and using modernisms such as "or whatever" when we have difficulty correctly terminating our sentences.

I despair!

Better change "there" to "There" to begin the second sentence.

So many different points made by so many individuals who each feel strongly enough about the English language to post on here. Some angry enough to present 'typos' themselves, some with totally opposite points of view. It just goes to show that however passionate we are about what is right or wrong with our language, there will always be change and there will always be someone who disagrees with us. In ten years' time every one of us will be even more horrified by the new entries in the dictionary but do not despair - you now know that you will not be the only one dismayed!

I love you all, since at least you care.

I skipped from 2007 forward, so this may have been covered. Those people arguing that we shouldn't be bound by 'foreign' rules should presumable bear in mind that pretty well all our language is from some invader or other. Hence the plural of child should be childs not children (Saxon), ox -> oxs, and I can't remember the other example.

In response to DamonTarlaei's comment the plural of Octopus is not Octopi. The word Octopus derives from a Greek root not a Latin root, Okta meaning eight and pous meaning foot . The correct plural is in fact Octopodes however most find this pedantic. When not using Octopodes the only acceptable alternative is Octopuses.

@searchguru
Re: it's and it's: The reason that spell check isn't doing what you expect is that it's is an abbrviation of it is wheras the possessive term is actually "its" not "it's", as in "its mine".
@AO, "Doesn't all this brujaja boil down to horrendously lasting influence of the medieval English grammarians who, convinced that Latin was the purest language, decided that English could be analyzed according to Latin grammatical paradigms? "
I don't think that the current greek/latin root confusion dates back to medieval grammarians but to Dr. Johnson, the author of the first English dictionary, who decided which words he thought had Latin roots and which had Greek (often very badly). It's (not its!) all been downhill since then.
For some excellent writing on the origins of the English language and its correct use see Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" and "Troublesome Words" and also "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss regarding the reils of punctuation.
Bill points out that the assumption that it's (not its) correct to use an "S", not a "Z", is a common misconception in the UK and that many spellings with z in can be traced back some considerable time; i.e. before the Americans decided to standardise all the spellings in bizare ways. (E.g. Color, not colour, armor not armour, etc.) From this you can tell I'm English not American. (I'd have gone for culler, armer or armur, etc.!)

Sorry - I'm going to have to come down squarely on the side of "Forums" here. When we use the word while speaking English, it is no longer a Latin word. It is an English word, so English convention should preside. Useage is the determining factor here. How do folks use it? Overwhelmingly, they use "Forums". It's "Forums"

All of the arguments I've seen here referencing Latin useage and historical useage pale. I'm not saying they're invalid, just inconsequetial.

So I'll know what folks mean if they bring up "Fora", but their tweed will be showing.

@nigel.pindar: Your example of the difference between its and it's is erroneous. It sounds possesive writing 'its mine', but it's obviously incorrect as, in this case, it means 'it is mine' - it's being the correct usage as a contraction of 'it is'. 'Its' is the plural possessive pronoun of it (obviously). It's plain to see that the dog does not like sharing its bone. Not a great sentence, but one which hopefully makes it clearer.
An interesting forum, with many well informed contributers. I am in no way of the same calibre, and do not pretend to be, but perhaps the discussions on some subjects here have gone on for far too long. They are, in the end, fairly trivial. The English language is a wonderful thing, full of surprises and quirks and is made all the richer by subtle changes. Sticking solely to the past is retrogressive by its very nature, and does not allow for fresh life to be breathed into it. Latin and Greek are dead languages, but they are still very much alive, in part, within our wonderful language. Academics,it seems to me, spend way too much time considering the minutia to be able to see the bigger picture. I cannot see that using 'forums' instead of 'fora' is, in some way, a great insult to the English language. I see it, rather, as growth. If there are any grammatical errors in my posting, so be it, but I won't lose too much sleep over it. I will, however, as a layman, try to improve my understanding of my mother tongue. Now, who was it who said in an earlier post that WTF is an acronym rather than an initialism? Just joking!

Are you good English speakers ordering two capuccini from the café and several pizze for dinner? I wonder if there exists fora to discuss the extent of this argument.

When I first came across this issue of Latin plurals within the English language I asked some linguists and they were very clear: an adopted foreign word takes the plurals of the language which has borrowed it.

So the plural of curriculum should be curriculums. Later found that similarly qualified linguists disagreed insisting it should it should be curricula. The newest dictionary I had at the time said it's an either/or. Use whichever one you want. I use curriculums but curricula sounds fine. Fora for forums sounds awful to me though but I know both are used. We don't water our gerania though do we? Nor do we wait for a bus only to find several bi turn up at once.

As an occasional field botanist though we do use taxa and taxon correctly but even the experts with advice from Latin scholars will occasionally name a plant incorrectly according to Latin grammar rules. It then has to be altered causing chaos in records which too easily can seem to have two species recorded when it is really one with two spellings.

I did study Latin at school but I'm on the whole against the use of the Latin plural for commonly used words in English. I do think they make the user sound pretentious and add nothing to clarity and understanding because most people these days I find didn't study Latin at school.

English adopts new words through common usage though so "hassle" is now and accepted dictionary word. The horror of "your" instead of "you're" will very likely happen as will "I would of" instead "I would have". Too many people use these abominations for them not to be adopted sooner or later. Omigod!

It will take time though and I'll probably be dead.

@Cirsium - I'm surprised at your two groups of linguists. Linguists usually observe language use rather than lay down the law about it. And in any case I would say that anyone saying words with foreign roots must take the original plural are wrong, bot equally so are those who say that the opposite is true.

No doubt the vast majority of words that have come into English from other languages (which means about three-quarters of the words in the English language) take a regular English plural. But in any language, but especially in English (ask any foreign learner) there are always exceptions.

As some have already mentioned there are all those Greek-based words with a -sis ending - analysis, basis,crisis, ellipsis, hypothesis, oasis, psychosis - where the -es plural ending is standard natural English, perhaps because it's easier to say than -ises. Personally I prefer curricula (probably because that's the way I've always heard it), but obviously I'd never say musea. I think we need to take each word on its own merits rather than make hard and fast rules either way.

Damn! Sonate.

Since when is it considered "pretentious" to speak and write the English language correctly?

I know it's not relevant to this thread, but I like the adjective derived from forum - 'forensic', meaning 'of or pertaining to, or trained to give evidence in, a court of law'.
We tend to use it only of forensic scientists nowadays: they are scientists trained to give evidence in court. But formerly one would speak of a lawyer's 'forensic skills', meaning his skill at cross-examining witnesses. (A forum being a place of debate.)
Skeet

I'm sorry to hear criteria being used in the singular instead of criterion.
Similarly, 'phenomenon',
Skeet

In general, clearly, foreign singulars and plurals are retained when a word is newly introduced but in time the word is naturalized. Remember, vast swathes of English are foreign words that have been gradually absorbed into the mother tongue.

"I am forgetting why we are arguing about “stamina”. It seems as though we both agree that using stamina as a singular form is incorrect."

No we don't. "Stamina" is commonly singular, as in “The stamina of the people was tested”. "Was" is singular. If "stamina" was plural, then it would be "the stamina of the people were tested."

My point is that all these words are plural in their original languages, but that they're singular in English. You can tell they're singular because they're followed by a singular verb: "stamina is", "erotica is", "data is", "candelabra is", "trivia is", "opera is", etc etc.

You wrote:
"Since the word “forum” is a Latin word used in the English language, I do not see how using the English-based plural system would apply."

This is the etymological fallacy. If we must apply the Latin plural system to all words borrowed from Latin, then stamina, erotica, opera, data, trivia, etc. should always and only be plural in English.

"This is the etymological fallacy. If we must apply the Latin plural system to all words borrowed from Latin, then stamina, erotica, opera, data, trivia, etc. should always and only be plural in English. "

If you are saying that the use of the word "stamina" in English should only be as a plural, then I agree with you.

If you are saying that this 'would be' true but isn't due to historical use, then I go back to one of my previous arguments - that just because people say things one way, doesn't mean that this way is correct. I could say "Plural is correctly spelled 'ploorul'" but this obviously is not the case.

I know that many people believe that the etymological fallacy is erroneous, in that words may be borrowed from other languages and obtain a (somewhat) different meaning to its original meaning. I once again assert that common misuse doesn't account for correctness. The whole idea that the English language is 'advancing' or changing is simply evidence that the current language is incorrect. The idea of a correct language is either what the general majority believes to be correct, or what the original language holds to be acceptable.

I believe that the whole 'majority' concept is erroneous, in the same way that I described before. If the majority of the English-speaking population decided to spell 'plural' as 'ploorul', then this concept would identify the latter to be correct. If you can accept this, then good for you, but I think that it is blatantly obvious that this whole idea fallacious and misleading.

"If you CAN’T accept this, then why are you typing in English and not (one of) the original language(s)?"

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).

"WIND would be blowing outside while you WIND your clock? Be a cruel joke to play, indeed."

I think you'll find that these to homonyms are alterations of different words from previous versions of the English language (or borrowed from other languages). This statement is in fact supporting my argument. It shows how the modification of languages can result in a more difficult or confusing language.

"Etymological fallacy" is an important concept, but it has little relevence to the issue of the correct pluralization of imported nouns.

Wikipedia describes the term “etymological fallacy” thus:

“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.”

A more detailed definition from ‘Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies’ by Robert J. Gula may be found here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 [...]

I took the time to enjoy this thread and it's myriad views. Great sport and entertainment, a genuine thank you to one and all.

My personal slant is that 'foreign' words should be correctly singulariSed or pluraliSed (guess which side of the pond I'm from?) regardless of the era of origin, as with graffitti and scampi which have more recently entered common English usage.

My personal bug-bears are the musical terms sonata, solo and concerto, often mis-pluralised with the additon of an 's'.

P.S. I agree it should be maths as in the UK, it being a contraction of mathematics.

P.P.S. Don't get me started on stressed syllables in pronunciation. I can never understand in the US why the herb is pronounced oREGano but the state is OregON. Why not oregAno or oREGon? Then why not aVOCado, TOMato and POTato? Any road up, if it wasn't for a quirk of fate this whole thread would be in Spanish!

Re: NONE

Tristan and John,

Interesting exchange on the usage of the word "none". I always thought that it meant, specifically and solely, "not one", and should therefore always be used with a singular verb. I'll pay attention now to whether it is being used in the sense of:

1. “not any persons or things”
versus
2. “not one” or “not any”.

QUESTION:
However, this explanation confuses me. How does this second "not any" (in #2) differ from “not any persons or things”?

"None" is certainly followed by a plural verb often enough in print and other media, and that has always driven me a bit mad.

Here's an example from the New York Times (see the last three words):

"Dr. Kleiman’s work also included the highly public, always stressful and generally thankless task of trying to coax healthy offspring from the Washington zoo’s first, reluctant giant pandas, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, and having to explain year after year to a disappointed public why none were forthcoming."

Would this be a case in which the plural usage is correct?

Here is another example from the New York Times, which seems grammatically incorrect to me:

"All the leading candidates warned voters that 'cuts are coming,' but none were even close to honest about how deep."

Does anyone have an opinion?

Here is another case in which I now have doubt (last sentence, after the comma):

"In one of Dr. Griffiths’s first studies, involving 36 people with no serious physical or emotional problems, he and colleagues found that psilocybin could induce what the experimental subjects described as a profound spiritual experience with lasting positive effects for most of them. None had had any previous experience with hallucinogens, and none were even sure what drug was being administered."

The following example confounds me when I try to use the explanation above to determine whether "none" should be plural or singular here. To my mind, it should clearly be singular in this case. Yet it seems to me that "none" could refer to “not any things” here, as in, "not any regrets".

"Lorena Ochoa walked away from competitive golf with grace and humility, the same way she walked in. For sure, as she might say, there were few regrets. None were important enough to mention to reporters on Friday, when she preferred to accentuate the positive, again, one of her endearing traits."

QUESTION:
So, by according to the explanation above, what would be an example in which "none" *must* be followed by a singular verb?

Dave Johnson, I couldn't have expressed it better myself. You make an excellent point by associating the degeneration of 'English' with the simplicity of a child's grammar and vocabulary - in a similar vein to previous posters' arguments.

It is unfortunate that the quality of language education (at least from where I grew up), is too poorly structured so as to put more emphases on literary analysis than to actually teach the language we are analyzing (social networking sites are not doing people any favors in this regard - not the only reason I steer well clear of them).

For the record, I am very much opposed to unnecessary modifications of the English language. Comedian Adam Hills made a good point when pointing out that "... 'bouncebackability' had been accepted into a highly regarded dictionary, despite the fact that there is already a word for that - resilience!". Also, on a MadTV skit it was pointed out that the word 'literally' now essentially means the opposite of it's literal meaning - as defined in Merriam-Webster:
"1 : in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY
2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY "

The repercussions of this unnecessary mutilation of our language can already be seen by simply traveling to another English speaking country. Dialects of English are starting to arise (not just accents) - most notably the arbitrary spelling modifications in American-English from British-English (this spell-check is making my point).

I suppose it would've made a good point to have posted this in Old English, but not only do I lack the knowledge, it would make it difficult for people to understand (a good point?).

Re: MEDIA

It seems to me that the word "media" is a prime candidate for this discussion thread. I encounter a great deal of confusion about how to use it properly.

Here is an excerpt from a NYT article:

"No one doubts that social media – all the stuff on Facebook, Twitter and other online forums – provides a rich lode of user sentiment that companies ought to be able to exploit."

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/sas-seeks-to-improve-data-mining-of-social-media/

"...social media... provides"?

~ ~ ~

NOTE: I haven't yet had a chance to read through all of the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if I am raising an issue that has already been thoroughly dissected. I look forward to returning to read the full discussion here.

Maybe it's just because I like being different, but I tend to use fora over forums. While I think that, in Modern Internet English, forums is pretty much standard, I prefer fora.

Interestingly, I wonder of the people posting on here claiming that 'forums' is just an example of assimilation and that the word correctly follows the rules of English, how many would enter datums into a computer?

DamonTarlaei, Latin scholar my p?dex, Octopus is latinised Greek, therefore the correct plural is octopodes. The internet is not for the likes of you to spout regurgitated nonsense and ill-informed, putrid falsehoods. Switch it off and go away!

Kev - you too have no place in this. Every key stroke of data entered into a computer is equal to at least 8 bits, or a byte. It is therefore not possible to enter a datum into a computer, only data.

I suppose if you were entering a single co-ordinate, for example, this could be described as a datum but data will always be correct because of the way computers handle data, there will always have to be more than a single bit!

With regard to my missing capital letter, for which I apologise if necessary, there is a difference between a typing error and wilful destruction of our language.

I never said the data has no place in the language, just that the the above point about use of the mythical word, datums, is flawed in a literal sense because the example used mkes no sence. One cannot, in any sense, input a datum to a computer. One can, of course, input data which may later, be viewed or represented as a datum.

Is it acceptable to talk about "this data", or should we always say "these data"?

My overall point is that this is a place for individuals, who are supposed to care about our language, to discuss it. Yet all the evidence points to the fact that those individuals are the very people who are destroying it. There is even a paragraph above this which has been ended with with the modern term "or whatever". That is actually painful to me.

Stand up to and act to preserve your language.

Operor non permissum nothus homo frendo vos solum.

So, Charlie, do you think that if a statistician is entering a series of measurements into an excel spreadsheet, we should not refer to each measurement as a datum? I would think that the measurement, itself, would be a datum - regardless of how we distribute it.

Please note, Charlie, that whilst I agree with your efforts to preserve this great language, I disagree with your attitude and your 'high horse'. I am not trying to portray myself as some PhD in literacy. I am simply an engineering student who happens to take pride in (what I know to be) the correct usage of my language. I made the point earlier (May 11th) that the reason I don't have flawless grammar, is that my teachers throughout school didn't (far from it). Your point would be better made in Old English, would it not? But I guess that your teachers didn't teach you Old English as a child (if you are not still one).

For the record, I know that it is incorrect grammar to begin a sentence with 'But'. I simply used poetic license to make a point.

Hello

I really love forum here. See you later!

I got interested party - I'll check back often, I wanted to say hello

Wish I had found this thread earlier!
Would have loved to argue a few points with hot4teacher or any other antipodean, especially those around sporting terms.
For example they have in Oz sports something called a "preliminary final".
Is that not an oxymoron?
However I feel it ironic that someone from a nation where theynnot correctly prounouce "debut" feels qualified to hold forth on the english language.

Last sentence of previous post should read:-

However I feel it ironic that someone from a nation where they cannot correctly prounouce “debut” feels qualified to hold forth on the english language.

HairyScot, I take offense to your comments about Australians (being one myself). It is unnecessary to directly insult anyone (or group) on this forum regardless of what they might have said about you or anyone else.

'Preliminary finals' are the games in a finals series that directly lead up to the 'grand final' - more directly, the final round before the grand final. "Preliminary" using it's dictionary meaning of "something that precedes or is introductory or preparatory" (from Merriam-Webster). The term is not limited to Australian sports as I believe it is also used in boxing (correct me if I am wrong). You could, I guess, refer to any finals game (other than the grand final) as a "preliminary final", as they all inevitably precede the grand final.

I'm not sure about your comment on our pronunciation of "debut". I haven't noticed any particular trends occurring throughout Australia of poor pronunciation of it... at least no more than any other country.

Since you are attacking my entire nation, what makes you think you know how I pronounce "debut"? From where do you hail?

@CA-Rooster.

Sorry if you found my post insulting, it certainly was not intended to be.

I stand by my comment on "preliminary final", surely quarter-final or semi-final would be a more descriptive term.

As for "debut", listen to your sports commentators who almost without exception persist in pronouncing the word as "day boo".

As to my origins, I am an ex-pat Scot who now lives in NZ after a number of years in RSA.

That's okay, dude. I understand.

It's funny that you should mention that, because I think we actually misuse the "semi-final" and "quarter-final". With the NRL and AFL (the biggest leagues in Australia - you'd probably be somewhat familiar with the NRL, being in NZ) they both have 8 teams in their finals series - which comprises of quarter-finals -> semi-finals -> preliminary finals -> grand final. This, to me, makes the preliminary finals actually semi-finals, the semi-finals quarter-finals, and the quarter-finals eighth-finals.

As for the whole "debut" thing: Needless to say, a great majority of commentators are former players (not necessarily scholars) so take their pronunciation and vocabulary with a pinch of salt. I haven't noticed such pronunciation to be unique to Australia, although I haven't really paid attention to it (I guess with your pedigree, you'd pick up on stuff like that).

This brings up another discussion for me... shouldn't "commentators" really just be called "commentors", and should the word "commentate" not be considered redundant?

By the way, with your background, who would you support in the rugby world cup?

* I just noticed a bunch of grammatical errors in my last post... readers beware! lol

@CA-Rooster

Regarding "debut" I must admit that the kiwi commentators (or commentors) are just as guilty. In fact perhaps "tormentors" would be more apt. :)

As for RWC, I now suffer from multiple personalities. Heart is with Scotland but don't see any real chance.
Will be rooting for them until they exit, then the 'Boks, followed by ABs, and of course any side playing the Wallabies! :)

IIRC, 'referendum' is a Latin gerund, so has no plural.

'Referenda' - meaning things to be referred, and necessarily connoting a plurality of issues - is the Latin plural gerundive.

As to octopi, they have six arms and two legs.

The 2008 OED lists 'octopuses', 'octopi' and 'octopodes' in that order; with use of the last indicated as "rare".

If you want to use the correct Latin name for the creature, then it's polypus (singular) polypodes (plural).

Off-topic: regarding AFL/NRL finals, they could get around all those terminology issues by just awarding the championship to whichever team gets the most points during the season like they do in football (I'm talking round ball here). The finals system to me is like a marathon where the first eight runners to reach 25 miles start the last mile at the same time.
Talking of octopuses (which is the only acceptable plural to me), how about octo-finals for the round before the quarter-finals?

Nigel_P: yes, pick up any old-ish book published in the UK and it'll be full of recognize, realize, etc. This whole anti-Z thing seems quite recent.

@Chris B:
Hahaha. I also watch soccer, and I know what you're talking about. I wouldn't, however, sacrifice the finals series' for the sake of grammatical correctness. It also makes it more interesting, later in the season, for supporters whose teams might be out of the running for the minor premiership (table leader at the end of the regular season) - knowing that any team in or around the top 8 have a chance at winning.

When bringing in foreign words some languages change the spelling and plural to their own system. So for example in hungarian "buffet" is spelt "bufe" (with an umlaut) and a regular plural. Things might have been easier if we had adopted this approach in English from the start, but there seems to be some snob value in using foreign plurals when English ones would be simpler ie totally anglicize the imported word. As for the spelling.... many clean ups have been suggested, and failed basically because there are too many vowels and dipththongs compared to the letters available in the Roman alphabet, and also for want of government action,

I know this was brought up a long time ago, but I only just found this discussion. "Internet fora" is correct, as it can be translated (defined?) as "places for meeting and discussion on the internet" and thus maintains the original meaning of fora. However, internet forums is the more common usage. Also, English is Germanic in origin, but many, many words are from Romance languages. It may be a line fusion into the new Romano-Germanic family.

My apologies for suggesting 'its' is a plural possessive pronoun rather than a possessive form of 'it'. What can I say - it's very late. It's lucky I mentioned that I'm a layman, not a scholar.

Are people still posting in this thread? Just like the words "referendum", "compendium" and "emporium", the word "forum' has two plurals: one ending in -a and one ending in -ums. This is because those words are commonly used, but not commonly enough to make the Latin plural formation obsolete (such is the case with words like "aquarium"). It's a simple matter.

Hmm, I don't mind people using 'forums', but for me it just sounds unnatural (believe it or not). I mean, let's be consistent. Because if we allow both forums and fora to be correct, then for example the plural of crisis could be crisises instead of the latin crises.

Re: Medium

Everyone here seems reasonably convinced that the correct plural of medium is media. If you're talking about the medium in which something exists (a technical term), then I would agree. But what if you're talking about t-shirts? If I asked for "two media, in black" no-one would understand what I was asking for and I would be looked at like a crazy person. If I asked for "two mediums, in black" they would know exactly what I wanted.

Now, you could argue that one should never use medium as a noun in that way, but in common parlance, short-cuts are common and "two medium t-shirts, in black" is unnecessary when you're either holding or pointing at the object in question. Certainly, I would argue that in informal parlance, there are circumstances when "mediums" is acceptable. And that doesn't even get into the whole question of how to refer to a street with multiple psychics on it...

If we use neologism, we must use them properly, it's always another or more words in english to say the same. English is so rich in words, that you may use a lot of synonims. But if we want to use the latin or greek neologisms, we must use them with the correct gramatical rules. The spanish name "foro" is not a neologism, is the evolution of the ancient latin word, so, is not the same. Then, everywhere that you use curriculum, forum, index, or any other neologism, you must put them in plural as curricula, fora and indices, if you don't want to have problems, there are a lot of other real english words to do the same work.

@rauxa ... Forum is not neologism (a newly coined word). It is a loanword (a word adopted from a foreign language with little or no modification).

As for forum, put me down for forums. When I first saw fora, I thought someone had misspelled flora. I know enuff Latin to be wrong about 3/4 of the time. lol ... Yes, I used enuff ... the "ough" cluster needs to go the way of the dodo bird.

You are correct that there are anglo-root words that could do the same thing and then we wouldn't need to have this moot over forums / fora. We could use moot itself or "mootstow" or "mootsted".

@nigel.pindar ... Americans (Webster mainly) chose the Latin "color" over the French "colour" ... and the Latin "honor". The frain is, why do the Brits want to use a French spelling? But then, you can avoid that by using the anglo-word, hue instead of color.

@ctiney ... child and ox both come from Old English ... nominative plurals in OE were not formed by adding an "s" (BTW, if ox did, it would be oxes not oxs). They kept their strong plurals with slight changes in ME whereas ax (OE æx) didn't. Why? Can't tell you, but I'm ok with the strong plurals.

@SteveWParker ... I can't speak for Chinese. I kno just enuff Japanese to be truly benighted in the tung and it has very few plurals but it does hav a rather complicated way of showing plurals that I'd rather not go to.

There are times (

do anybody know about this word?It is the longest word in english ???????Pl clarify.........

zurapassionateorevertingjinglekejunglejirkurthmaniacjilsetilusehaian

It is only in the abnormal cases where English words taken directly from the Latin are inflexive when representing number (id est singular or plural). Such words are generally taken from science, such as bacterium(sin.)/bacteria(pl.). I find it to be quite pedantic to decline all latin derived nouns which retain the same form. As far as grammatically correct English goes the Latin inflexive changes and the standard English pluralization are generally both accepted, exempli gratia, octopus can be either octopi or octopuses. It really comes down to the fact that English is not Latin and therefore should follow standard English rules first, unless for words that have special exception such as bacterium.

As someone said way back in this thread, usage is the key,and you just have to take each word separately. No one would say musea, but on the other hand, not many would say crisises either. Some go only one way, some go only the other, with others we have a choice, including, I thought, referendum - ums / -a. For some strange reason I prefer referenda, but I've just discovered that referendum has no plural in Latin, so even that is a false assumption:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=referendum&searchmode=none

Apparently something similar has happened with octupi, which is not in fact the Latin plural, but an assumed Latin plural on the basis of other Latin plurals; the 'true' Latin plural is in fact the rarely used 'octopodes'.

Wikipedia has a useful list of plurals from foreign words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Irregular_plurals_from_Latin_and_Greek

Interestingly, the same word can also have two different plurals depending on context. Wikipedia quotes this example: "a radio or radar engineer works with antennas, but an entomologist deals with antennae".

@Warswaw Will My dislike of the plural curricula is twofold - to me it sounds wrong (but that's a personal thing) but also when spoken it gets confused with the adjective curricular as they both sound the same. And before you say that context should clarify any difference that would rather assume that everyone speaks grammatically and in sentences.

I'm actually quite happy with our current way of assimilating new forms of words into the English language through usage. Rules don't seem to help much as the forum has demonstrated.

I think I will start to use Octopodes as the plural of Octopus even though it's wrong.

I think that if the speaker knows the correct plural form of a word borrowed from a foreign language (including Latin), then the speaker should use the correct plural form of the word, disregarding the rules of English grammar. If the singular form of a foreign word can become part of the English language, then why can't the correct plural of the same foreign word become part of the English language also? Why do we have to continue attaching an "s" to every foreign word when the plural of that word already exists?

I give you two examples of Italian words that are now commonly used in English. "Innuendi" is the correct plural of the word "innuendo." Please don't say "innuendos." "Cannoli" is the correct plural of the word "cannolo." Saying "cannolis" is redundant.