Fora vs Forums

The plural in Latin of forum is not fori. Fori is the singular genitive. The nominative (and accusative) plural of forum is indeed fora.

For nouns, Latin dictionaries usually give the nominative and genitive singulars, so that students will know what declension the noun is in.

Fori identifies forum as being a noun of the second declension. This affects the way the other cases are formed. But nearly all neuter nouns, of all declensions, take the "a" as the ending in the nominative/accusative plural.

conclusion: "Latin scholars" need to just calm down and accept that they are "scholars" of a language that has been out of use for centuries and in fact, never really was alive to begin with. Classical Latin is like a Brittney Spears routine: a bunch of "ideal" grammar rules that no one ever actually used. It was the Vulgar Latin that was the true living language of the Romans and that language is in fact different in a lot of ways from this Classical Latin that "Latin scholars" derive so much snootiness from.

Actually the plural of "Schnaps" would be "Schnäpse"

Regards
a native german speaker :-)

Hot4teacher asserts: "Either all words or only words of English origin should use the plural system." That's a sweeping statement, and at odds with H4T's previous declaration: "There is something very wrong about modifying the English language."

First, just what is this “plural system?”

Pluralization of nouns in English is a messy business, and always has been. The Middle English “en” plural form has been largely abandoned, but we still have “oxen” and “children.” The plural noun “eyen” became “eyes,” while “namen” became “names.”

Most nouns simply receive an "s" at the end. Those that end in sibilant sounds–or near-sibilant sounds–generally add "es." But a word like “quiz” also acquires another “z,” for no obvious reason.

Nouns ending in an "o" preceded by consonant are made plural with “es,” like “potatoes” and “volcanoes,” unless they don’t, like “pianos” and “porticos.”

A noun ending in a “y” after a consonant drops the “y” and adds “ies,” as in “ferries.” Unless, of course, it’s a proper name, as in “the Ferrys.”

Some nouns ending in “f” drop the “f” and add “ves,” as in “knives” and “wolves.” Others, like "cliff" and "serf" merely acquire an “s.”

Nouns ending in in “is” keep the final “s” but swap the preceding i” for an “e,” as in “crises” and “oases.”

And then there are words like “deer” where the plural and singular forms are the same.

Some system! Shall we modify it to something sensible? Or would that be “very wrong?”

I thought I'd point out that "Cherubim" is used as a plural in English already--I've never heard of an instance where "cherubims" was (incorrectly) used. The singular is cherub, however, and I have heard "cherubs" used incorrectly many times (it should be cherubim).

Quirin, I truly enjoyed your insightful post, but I hope yo won't mind if I nitpick about something as well. Using your logic, if the word were native to latin, not only should the plural of octopus be octopedes, but the (anglicized?) SINGULAR should be octopede, NOT octope. After all, expanding your own analogy, the singular of centipedes is centipede, not centope. Remember, it is the number of feet that is pluralized, not the actual number of animals (centipede means one aniimal having a hundred feet, not a hundred foot)

"none" has been both singular and plural since at least 888 AD. So much for the "language's origins" argument.

It's amazing to see that there are still so many people who take pride in a language. English is not my native language, so I cringe when "native" speakers use words so lightly.

Anyway, back to the current topic. MS Word doesn't recognize "fora" as a valid word, even auto-corrects it while I'm typing. So there you have it, Bill Gates has decreed that fora is not the correct plural. End of story.

It seems ridiculous to me that we should have to conform to the grammatical rules of a long dead language - and that never really existed in such a state anyway- when using words long assimilated into our own language. should we correct Russians who use Ñ?портÑ?менa to mean a female athlete? In Spanish forum has evolved into foro, pl foros. the Spanish no longer use Latin case endings, even for words that remain unchanged from the Latin. it sounds wankerish. Imagine what a tosser one would sound if he or she were to say "the decsion fori" to mean "the forum's decision". Bad enough when the prescriptivists pontificate on English, never mind that we should have to suffer the crowing of two thousand year old grammarians by proxy as well!

Two points, in retrospect.

1. It is not as simple as describing a common trajectory of assimilation to the prevailing, base rules, and then placing a word at the start, middle or end of that trajectory. (In this context, start = "fora", middle = "fora" or "forums", and end = "forums". In fact, the way in which a loan word is embedded in the borrowing language varies, and then tends to stabilize: I doubt that we will ever say "bacteriums". One possible reason is the context or timing of the loan: when it occurred and who started the borrowing. So, we should not try to invent rules, but rather we should take part in the process of forming the language by following our preferences and tastes. I like fora because I studied Latin, and I like the sound of it. Until the receiving language has definitively swallowed and digested the loan word, there seems little wrong with looking to the lending language for guidance.

A final thought on this point: fora has a more abstract feel: places or locations of discussion, rather than the plural of internet discussion lists. An analogy might be the use of "program" in British English exclusively for a computer program, and the use of "programme" for other meanings, like a theatre programme or a programme of events, or a political programme.

2. The American singular and the British plural for collective bodies. The original location of this distinction I believe is the way in which a government and its/their actions are described.

"The British government were not inclined to go to war: they felt that the French were seeking to draw the country into a unwarranted and unprofitable adventure, from which little could be gained, and through which much might be lost."

This may be something to do with the principle of Cabinet government, of decisions being made semi-collectively and in debate by a body of people. In this view, the government is a collection of ministers, a plural entity.

The U.S. administration (a term that only recently has been applied to British govenments, incidentally) is perhaps more closely identified with the singular person of the President.

In contemporary British English, I would say that this usage, e.g. "the British government were divided", sometimes has a faintly archaic whiff. Interestingly, "the British Cabinet were divided" is fully in line with current usage. And, yes, it would be normal to speak or write in a London or Edinburgh publication of Microsoft or IBM as "they" not "it".

The OED has a citation for "forums" from 1647, and no citations at all for "fora". I'm guessing that "fora" is a much later innovation based on someone's love of Latin.

"Forum" has 2 meanings. Firstly it is a meeting or discussion group, secondly it is a meeting place. The plural of the first (i.e. more than one meeting) is "forums"; the plural of the second (i.e. more than one meeting place) is "fora". Therefore you could have the following description of a typical working day: "I participated in 2 forums at 2 seperate fora". Having said that, it would be clearer to say: "I participated in 2 discussions at 2 different venues".

Merriam-Webster dates the use of "forum" in English to the 15th century. 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." Thus we say "forums," not "fora," and "stadiums," not "stadia." If you are referring to ancient Roman places, you might be justified in using the Latin plural form. But to refer to places where football is played as "stadia" or to on-line discussion groups–even this one–as "fora" can sound affected. It's not wrong to do so, but it's pedantic to insist on it.

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.

Folk who claim that languages have 'evolved' when an invalid plural or verb tense becomes commonplace, or a plural starts to be taken as a singular in the manner of many people's usage of 'data' are just making excuses.

How credible would it be if an 8 year old child started complaining that they were still due full marks and that English was 'evolving' if their teacher marked their creative writing story down because it mentioned that a character had 'writed' their name onto a guest book, or for the same character having previously 'seed' a friend doing the same?

What about the same five year old demanding full marks despite saying 'earlier that day my daddy buyed me a new pair of shoes' and what should the parent think when that kid says that her teacher had 'teached' her some new words that day? That English is 'evolving' ?

It's not progress when simplistic verb forms become commonplace, or when spellings are 'simplified', what it is is degeneration. It's a sign that education has been poor so that many many people think incorrect spellings of certain words to be correct and that society has decided to change the dictionary to match the commonest mistakes.

The end result of that is for the homogeneity of the English language, the commonality of the core spellings of related words, to disappear, for it to no longer be possible for people to look at the way a word they haven't seen before is built and to guess its meaning from other similar words in combination with context. Schoolchild errors make it into the dictionary, English becomes simplistic, the common roots of words are forgotten because they no longer look the same and the subtlety that's possible with our wonderful mongrel of a language is lost for good.

Bottom line. English is known, internationally, for it's ability to convey subtle meanings; there are half a dozen ways to say virtually anything more complex than 'the cat sat on the mat' - and in fact there are probably ways to say that, like 'the cat sprawled on the mat'.

The different ways of saying things have very very slightly different meanings, and the right choice of words makes a complex or subtle concept easily and very precisely communicable in only a few words.

The differences in the meanings that the true scholars of English, the writers and the poets, fully grasp and use to get their subtle meanings across in the most beautiful way possible, come from the origins of the words. The true meanings are to be found in the true meanings of the foreign or ancient language words that were 'borrowed' to form English.

Although each of the different words mean *roughly* the same things there are slight differences and you can only really grasp those if you've studied the language and know the roots of the words.

Those roots are no longer visible when someone has decided that it's better to forget that the five year old was never taught how to spell and that it's easier to change the dictionary so everyone spells like a five year old and the original spellings, which came from the original sources of the words and which reveal the true deeper meanings, are forever lost in the brain-dead, uneducated, mush.

Dave J.

I hate to sound critical, Charlie, but since you seem so adamant, I have to point out that you don't seem to actually understand what the words datum and data actually mean, conceptually. A datum doesn't have to be the smallest indivisible element, a bit, per se. A datum is literally a single piece of information, fact, statistic, etc. It doesn't have to be a single bit or even a single byte. If I enter someone's name, address, credit card number, item purchased, etc. into a computer to generate, say, a purchase order or something, the entire entry, hundreds of bytes is one single datum when viewed in the larger context of all the customers in my database. Sure, if I'm talking about the individual bytes I could call them data if I want to, or I could, just as validly, refer to the single record as a datum. It's purely a matter of what my point of view is. Even an entire three inch thick telephone book containing millions of names can be one single datum if it's sitting on a bookshelf in the library next to a hundred other telephone books for different cities.

Perhaps we reserve "fora" for more than one enclosed, unroofed meeting place and "forums" for more than one purposive small group. I have lately tended to pefer "fomulas" instead of "formulae" - the world moves on.
Greater problem, people who use "one bacteria, two bacteria" or "one criteria, two criteria" - illiterate usage that is a growing infestation.

I think the octopus discussion above is a bit off beam.
For one think, octopus isn't exactly the greek, which is oktápous, so to use octopodes as a plural for octopus can't be right.

I do not believe that "octopus" is properly Latin either, rather it is a latinised word which biologists have come up with. I can't find the original Latin in a Latin dictionary to hand: but given that octopus is polpo (or piovra) in italian, polpe in french and pulpo in spanish, I would tend to think the Latin word must be related to those.

We were talking about statistics in a maths lesson and my maths teacher referred to strata as a singular noun. He then proceeded to talk about the different 'stratas' of a sample of the population. Is this correct, because I thought it was meant to be one stratum, many strata?

Please, people can' even gt the distinction between 'fruit' and 'fruits' right. Let's not get too pedantic or emotional here!

this is an old, old thread, just discovered it. But as a former Latin scholar I wanted to address Steven's discrepancy between the pronunciation of the "i" ending.

I was taught that in the scholarly latin "i" is pronounced "ee" and in the Church latin it is pronounced "aye". Foots with what I've heard in most latin masses as well. . . and what I experienced in my Jesuit HS classes.

Incidentally, pretentious or not, I use "fora," it's simpler to explain to someone who doesn't know latin than using "forums," and having to answer to fellow latin scholars.

Just found this old thread at the top of a Google search for "plural of forum."

Amusingly, another of the results was this page:
http://www.njcl.org/forums/faq.asp

Shouldn't that URL be www.njcl.org/fora/faq.asp? I mean, it *is* the NJCL after all. :-)

Jack

Forums or Fora? Does not mater an iotume which you use!

If they're both in use, then they're both correct - and you interchange them for stylistic purposes.

A passage by David Crystal from 'Words Words Words'; "The choice between alternative noun plurals is a fairly easy one. Is it formulas or formulae? Cactuses or cacti? Referendums or referenda? The regular -s ending is usually the more informal and colloquial. The classical ending is the more technical, learned, or formal. If I am a plant amateur, I will probably say cactuses when I see more than one of them. But if I am a cactus aficionado, I will almost certainly say cacti."

hot4teacher ..... Please allow me to clarify the issue of Penalty v Free Kick in the game of soccer. The referee does not "penalise" when awarding a free kick as a penalty is something which is imposed, thus implying a loss for the team that is penalised. A free kick, as with a throw-in, ensures that possession of the ball remains with the team who were victims of a technical offence by the other side. A penalty, on the other hand, is a scoring opportunity awarded for a serious or deliberate breach of the rules within a set area of play.

In rugby, a penalty may be awarded anywhere on the field of play and the beneficiaries may score points as a direct result. A team cannot score points as a direct result of a free kick .

In soccer, a penalty kick may only be awarded for an offence committed within the penalty box . The only person who can prevent the penalty-taker from scoring is the defending goalkeeper. A free kick may be awarded anywhere on the field of play. An indirect free kick may be awarded for a technical offence and the kicker may not score directly from that kick. A direct free kick is similar to a penalty but anyone may prevent the ball from reaching the goal.

Basically, a penalty in football is a free shot at goal, within certain parameters, whereas a free kick is exactly that.

The terms are neither the same nor interchangeable within the rules.

Hmmm! For someone who sets such store by the english language I'm surprised that the bastardisation of the laws of football should get by you so easily. The rules of soccer (as opposed to the game of kicking a bladder about) were invented at Eton College, England, in 1815 and at no time is the term "indirect penalty" used.

However, I'm not a pedant and you are entitled to refer to the term in any way you choose. That's what living languages are about, are they not ? :-)

PS I bow to your superior rugby national team. I specifically haven't mentioned cricket as I think it's like watching paint dry!

First off, Douglas, this is a discussion board - and we can do without the individually aimed smart-arse sarcasm. I'm here to put forward my opinion, not to be ridiculed.

I understand that the plural system has changed in the advancement of the English language, and had I been around at the time of these changes I probably would have disagreed.

"Some system! Shall we modify it to something sensible? Or would that be “very wrong?”"
It is a reasonably complex system, but students are taught English all of the way through school, up until Uni, in which time the we become able to use the system almost subconsciously. Modifying the system would be wrong, because it would give us reason to modify the entire language so as to make every word easy to spell, probably followed by simplifying the grammatical rules and punctuation, until we end up with a language system not unlike binary code.

If we are do not use the 'original' English language correctly, then why should we use it at all? Why should we have to spell things correctly? Why can't we just spell everything the way it sounds?

My simplest answer would be for the sake of everyone else. The language itself is used as a means of communication. A communication that may only be made if all parties understand the language - which I believe would, most generally, require us all to use the 'same' language 'correctly'.

Douglas, you appear to be very well educated in English linguistics, for which I respect you. Your quotes create a very formidable argument. Due to my upbringing, I understand and somewhat agree with B. Garner in that a words origin may be ignored if it is used and naturalized in another language (and that more obscure or rare words may not be). But I assert that if you know the original plural, you might as well use it. I don't think it is necessarily wrong if you anglicize the plural, just that for common words like radii and fora, the original plural form is pretty widely recognized and so one would have no real excuse not to use it.

I do concede, though, that it would be acceptable to use an anglicized plural for a word with a plural form that is rather obscure and not widely known (I didn't know that platypodes was the plural for platypus, and I'm Australian!).

Having said that, I think that the education system might be in a better place should the English faculties concentrate more on correct linguistics, grammar and punctuation; and less on how to decompose and analyze texts. I may see it differently to others, considering I haven't studied English since high school (I am an Engineering student).

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.

"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.

Pffff...

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.

"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."

"...example used mkes no sence."

sence?

Just to be different & waste a little more time:
When a colleague produced 'fora' as the plural of 'forum' I took exception to it and looked it up in the little dictionary that I saved from my long ago school days - Cassell's Latin-English English-Latin School Dictiionary, first published in 1927 and abridged from Cassell's Latin Dictionary- which gives 'forum -i'(pl), a neuter noun - similarly, 'castellum -i(pl)', neuter.
Do I have to defer to all the higher authorities quoted above, forget the Latin I once trusted and just settle for 'forums' or 'fora'?
Yours in a dither

>
>...and I have heard "cherubs" used incorrectly many
>times (it should be cherubim).
>

What do you mean, Jennchick? "Cherubs" is also an accepted pluralization of "cherub", at least according to all my dictionaries.

Unlike a few of the earlier commentors who are Latin scholars, I'm a lay person when it come to that particular language. The feeling gushing through my immortal(!) soul is that language is a tool to help us make ourselves understood to the widest audience possible. Therefore, let's apply democracy to the choice of fora vs. forums - whatever works.

Also, taliban is plural of talib, but...

A long, but most enjoyable, read.

Many years ago I was a simulator instructor for a major international airline, whose training center was located in a midwestern U.S. city. Many of the other instructors came from the surrounding area, had grown up on farms, and had no familiarity with Latin.

Where I'm going with this is that some of our aircraft had several movable pointers on the perimeter of the airspeed indicator that could be set to indicate the varying speeds required for takeoff and landing. We generally referred to them as "bugs", although the proper term was "index markers" or "indices". I was always amused by the fact that, in the lexicon of the hometown instructors, "indices" was singularized to "indice" (in' duh see), as in "Set the 'indice' to 120 knots".

On an entirely different note, something else I find amusing is that, while Americans refer to corporations in the singular (Microsoft was an 800 pound gorilla), our British cousins refer to them in the plural (Microsoft were an 800 pound gorilla). Does anyone happen to know how that came about?

Brill! Wot a great thread. B4 I red this i wuz ignorant of the originz of many of my words. Ive learnt a lot. Ta.

Dave Rattigan says:

Since hardly anyone actually uses "fora" as the plural of "forum", I tend to regard it as a bit pretentious when it gets thrown into a conversation.

"Forums" is fine - we're modern English folk, not ancient Romans. :¬)

If you're modern fold, then don't use an ancient Roman word.

The singular of data is datum. I never hear anyone say "datas."

For those whom 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.

I don't mind the use of acronyms such as LOL or WTF, considering the fact that their sole purpose is to quicken typing speeds.

Other incorrect spellings or usages that give me the sh!ts are: ATM "machines", the incorrect use of "who" and "whom", the incorrect use of pronouns, the incorrect use of punctuation, the use of "pronounciation" instead of "pronunciation", and the list goes on.

If you know the correct spelling/use of a word, then use it! If you don't, then go back to school and learn how to!

It also pisses me off when people tell me I'm wrong for calling a "free kick" in soccer a "penalty"! They tell me "It's not a penalty, it's just a free kick." to which I reply "It is a penalty! The opposition is being 'penalised' by giving the attacking team a free kick!"

That's my 2c.

Jim, my argument over penalties and free kicks was solely that a free-kick is a way of penalising one team, by offering their opponents a free-kick.

You implied that the term penalty refers to a direct inhibition of one teams chances, but this doesn't really differentiate between penalties and free-kicks. A penalty (or direct as we call them in Aus) is essentially a free kick that gives more of an advantage to the attack, rather than 'taking anything away' from the opposition. The defense is penalised in both cases.

I can't really speak for other countries, but here in Australia, we refer to (what you call) free-kicks as indirect penalties, and (what you call) penalties as direct penalties.

Either way the team is penalised by giving an advantage to their opposition.

P.S. I am familiar with the rules - I played plenty of soccer and rugby.

Hot4teacher, I think I have to agree, at least in th abstract. If the only thing a free kick accomplishes is to set the possession of the ball without a direct opportunity to score, then clearlly, the mere possession does increase the probability of future scoring even if only slightly, so calling it a penalty seems reasonable. I suppose the only other consideration is the reason the possession is handed over. If possession is handed over, say, simply out of fairness because the other team just scored, then it wouldn't be a penalty (please don't criticize if this doesn't actually happen. I know squat about sports rules. I know this happens in informal basketball games).

Also, regarding: "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."

Hot4teacher, using the English-based plural system ALWAYS applies. forum is NOT a Latin word used in the English language. It is an ENGLISH word whose origin is Latin. While we're at it, “octopuses”, “radiuses”, and “fishes” are all correct. If you want to be prescriptive about it, using the Latin plural is considererd irregular (not incorrect), and generally only preferred for words of technical origin. Of the words you listed, only "radiuses" is unusual (but still not incorrect). Oh, and I can hardly wait. Just what do you think the plural of "octopus" should be?

Thank you for understanding, Porsche.

"Hot4teacher, using the English-based plural system ALWAYS applies. forum is NOT a Latin word used in the English language. It is an ENGLISH word whose origin is Latin."

If radius is now an English word, does that mean that entrepreneur, feng shui, and umami are now all English words/phrases as well. Where does this rule end?

Oh, and FYI the Cambridge dictionary claims the plural of radius to be radii. If anything, the Cambridge dictionary is essentially a solid copy of the English language, so whatever it claims to be correct should be correct, in spite of what anyone else says. If not then the English language has become somewhat of a tribal series of languages, each based on the one ancestor, but with subtle differences.

There is something very wrong about modifying the English language. We cannot trust what people claim to be correct, other than what is solidly stated and globally confirmed. This free alteration has led to some disgraceful modifications to common language - including the use and apparent conception of the word bouncebackability! There is a word for bouncebackability, it's resilience! If we continue to neglect correct use of our language, we will wind up with a dictionary full of abbreviations and disgracefully simple words.

Anyway, I am getting tired of acting like an old cynic. Speak with whatever language you wish, but be wary of the increasingly poor state and occurrence of the English language.

Goofy’s list of words borrowed from plural Latin nouns is an interesting one. Set aside ‘graffiti.’ which is not, indeed, from Latin but Italian; its singular, ‘graffito,’ remains an Italian word, even if it does appear in English dictionaries (as does hors d'oeuvre, to cite another non-naturalized immigrant).

The ramaining words fall into three groups:

The first group consists of words that are singular and have accepted English-style plurals: agenda, opera, candelabra. (The last, ‘candelabra,’ should probably not be included, since it enters modern English via Middle and Old English, from Latin.) I’m not sure why these are even mentioned. What is the controversy?

The second group are mass nouns: erotica, paraphernalia, and trivia. These cannot be directly assigned a numeric quantity, and are treated grammatically as singular: “The teenager’s erotica was [not were] found under his mattress.” 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? Merriam-Webster says it is a “noun plural but singular or plural in construction.” As if that helps. The word originally referred to a bride’s excess stuff, beyond her dowry. How could that be singular?

The third group–bacteria, data, and media–are plural in standard English, but are increasingly being used both as singular and as mass nouns. The phrase “a type of bacteria” is technically incorrect, but commonly heard and read, especially in the media. ‘Media’ has itself become a mass noun when applied to television, radio, and printed journalism. The transition is not complete; the phrase “the media are” is still used. But ‘media’ as a mass noun is probably unstoppable, like the thing itself.

‘Data’ is similar to ‘media.’ Garner calls it a “skunked term,” and advises against using it. I wonder how that is working out for him. He begins, “...whether you write ‘data are’ or ‘data is,’ you’re going to make some readers raise their eyebrows.”He concludes: “Perhaps 50 years from now–maybe sooner, maybe later–the term will no longer be skunked: everybody will accept it as a collective. But not yet.” How time flies.

hot4teacher: "... just because people say things one way, doesn’t mean that this way is correct."
Actually, that's exactly what it means. What we call the "definition" of a word is, in reality, simply the most commonly agreed upon usage.
If the majority did accept "ploorul" as the proper spelling, then so it would be. If this were not the case, the entire world would still be speaking a single language or perhaps somewhere between three to five languages in total. If you CAN'T accept this, then why are you typing in English and not (one of) the original language(s)?
As an aside, if languages were only decided by some elite subset, do you really think the WIND would be blowing outside while you WIND your clock? Be a cruel joke to play, indeed.

"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.

"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.

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.

Why don't you two just go & get a room?

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've just read on a forum post "foras" and I have to admit it was cringe-making.

We all have off days. Grammatical errors, once in a while, should be disregarded.

Charlie, are you implying that only 'data' should have a place in our language because we can only enter at least 8 bits into our computer with every keystroke? We can (just about) boil down every piece of information into smaller units, but that doesn't disregard the importance of each 'datum'. Merriam-Webster defines data as being "something given or admitted especially as a basis for reasoning or inference". Each datum is simply a piece of information, regardless of the memory it takes up in a computer (which, for the record, consists of a series of 1's and 0's - each being a single datum). A datum could just be one's measurement of a specific length.

Please note that if this is not what you were implying, then I apologize. Tone is often very difficult to gather when reading plain text. I wasn't sure if you were being a smart-arse or were being serious.

For the record, Charlie, what is your take on 'forums'/'fora'? Your posts seem rather ambiguous and off-topic (to say the least).

Ha ha! What a brilliant thread! I still prefer the latin plurals. One of the comments about prepositions brought this to mind:

I lately lost a preposition;
It hid, I thought, beneath my chair
And angrily I cried, "Perdition!
Up from out of under there."

Correctness is my vade mecum,
And straggling phrases I abhor,
And yet I wondered, "What should he come
Up from out of under for?"
-- Morris Bishop

@My Two Cents - so presumably:

Beethoven wrote five piano concerti and several piano sonati
The BBC has two symphony orchestre
The TV show should have been called 'The Soprani'
Shall I order two pizze?
Our village has several holiday ville
These paintings are repliche of the originals
Our school has two motti
The film company has studi in Hollywood
The police found two headless torsi
We went to the cathedral to look at the freschi
I saw an opera on Monday and another today so that's two opere this week already
She's having spaghetti and I'm having spaghetti, so that's two spaghetti, please.

And the words "chum", "hum", "sum" and "um" should henceforth be pluralized "cha", "ha", "sa" and "a". And since "apparatus" is a Latin fourth declension noun, it should be pluralized accordingly: "apparatūs".

Gerunds and participles are quite distinguishable- gerunds are used as nouns, while participles are adjectives. (I assume you're talking about verbals here?) I apologize, I think I may have just mentioned this in another thread as well.

Wiggy, you are correct. Stratum is the singular, strata is the plural. Sometimes technical subjects have their own vocabulary, but not in this case. Do note, however, that it's "math lesson" and "math teacher", not "maths lesson" and "maths teacher". You don't want to make the very same mistake as your teacher!

From Dictionary.com:

"Usage note Since none has the meanings “not one” and “not any,” some insist that it always be treated as a singular and be followed by a singular verb: The rescue party searched for survivors, but none was found. However, none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. When the sense is “not any persons or things” (as in the example above), the plural is more common: … none were found. Only when none is clearly intended to mean “not one” or “not any” is it followed by a singular verb: Of all my articles, none has received more acclaim than my latest one."

A very common usage of 'none' is as a contraction of 'not one', a singular term, yet it is in this usage that we so often hear the plural verb used. Common usage doesn't alter its singularity.

If enough people use ' your right ' to mean ' you're right ' will that convert 'your' into 'you're' ?

Tristan: "A very common usage of 'none' is as a contraction of 'not one', a singular term, yet it is in this usage that we so often hear the plural verb used. Common usage doesn't alter its singularity."

Tristan, how do you know that "none" is used with a plural verb when it should be singular? Doesn't it make much more sense to assume that it is plural when it is used with a plural verb? You are pretty much ignoring the usage note that you quoted.

"Schnappsen" is cringeworthy as it actually is not the correct German plural. The actual German word is 'Schnaps' (just one 'p'), and the plural would be 'Schnäpse'.

Just realized someone already made my point - previously, the page apparently hadn't loaded fully. :doh:

As for 'fora', it seems to me that the word has been assimilated into the English language sufficiently that using the English plural should, at the very least, be acceptable.

Similarly, in English mathematical writing 'lemmas' is now not only accepted but the norm, and I conform to this usage, even though in German I would always use 'Lemmata'.

Hey, if I just start collecting old movie posters, but I only have one so far, does that mean that I have memorabilium? No, that can't be right. It should be memorabilis.

Wow - to think people are employed to belabour all of this - puts me head in a veritable spin

And, that should be "folk" not "fold."

Andy, I'm not sure what your point is when you said:

"The singular of data is datum. I never hear anyone say 'datas'."

You don't hear "datas" because data is already plural (although it is often used as a mass noun with some controversy). Did you mean to say:

"The singular of data is datum. I never hear anyone say 'datums'"?

Sorry, don't understand the comment by David Fickett-Wilbar at all. "Agenda" IS a plural. Sadly, I never have meetings with only one item to discuss so have never had to face the problem of not having many agenda.

"agenda" is plural in Latin, but it is singular in English.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agenda