"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’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,

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.

Rhen's question was whether to capitalize after a colon when, as in the example given, the colon is being used to link two separate clauses. The short answer, as Scott Connery has recently noted, is no. There are exceptions, of course–this is English, after all.

However, many postings betray confusion over the proper usage of colons and semicolons. Each has multiple uses, but the misunderstanding here is which one to use between independent clauses. There is a simple way to understand the distinction. (I am resisting the urge to use a colon after that sentence.) A colon joins two clauses; a semicolon separates them.

There is more to it than that, of course. A colon indicates that the second clause follows from the first in a definite manner. It may be from premise to conclusion, from general to specific, or from cause to effect. A semicolon separates clauses that are too distinct for a mere comma yet too closely related to live separately, each in its own sentence.

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.

I agree with a lot of what has been written here. The problem lies, in part, with the basic inconsistency between spelling and pronunciation in English. In general, an "e" at the end of a word after a consonant indicates that the vowel before the consonant is to be pronounced "long." Thus we have "nose" and "rose," "hope" and "scope." And then we have "lose," which violates the general rule.

In addition, there are many words that rhyme with "lose" that are spelled nothing like it:

adieus
chews
cues
coups
cruise
gnus
twos
shoes
zoos

None of these follow the rule cited above. To complicate matters, we have "choose" which rhymes with "lose," and "moose" which rhymes with "loose." It is no wonder some confuse the spelling of "lose" and "loose." (Spell-check is little help, since both are, in fact, words.)

However, I doubt that primarily non-native speakers of English confuse the two. In my experience those who have had to learn English as a second language often are more proficient in it than "native speakers." I once had to explain to an Argentinian that if she used the word "penultimate" in its correct sense of "next to the last" she would be misunderstood, as most Americans think it means "beyond ultimate."

The solution is education. Without it we looze.

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?”

This has been most interesting.

I think the problem stems from in the fact that "most" may be used in either a singular or a plural sense:

Jane has the most friends.
Most people like Jane.

The phrase "one of the most" may be justified as referring to the plural sense of "most:"

Jane is one of the most liked (people).

That statement has a different meaning than "Jane is one of the more liked people."

John cites many instances of "one of the most" from "some of the best" writers. That's right: "some of the best." Not "some of the better," which could be taken to mean "above average," but the cream of the crop. The meaning is clear, even if the grammar is obscure (but justified, none the less).

There is nothing inherently canine in the word "fetch." Jack and Jill certainly had no problem with it (the word itself wasn't the cause of their clumsiness). Yes, you can tell a dog to fetch, and also to sit. Shall we therefore leave all our human guests standing?

The word "fetch" is used in some regions more than in others. In northern areas of the US it is rarely heard in the sense of to "go or come after and bring or take back" (Merriam-Webster), while in the south it is not uncommon. A careful speaker will keep this in mind. And "fetch" can have a demanding tone–it is, after all, a command–unless joined to the word "please." Not a bad idea in a business or office setting, and not just for "fetch." Even so, if you are in a non-fetching region, an alternative word like "get" might be more pleasing.

As for "someone" being cited before "something" in your definition, might that not just be alphabetization?

What is being missed in this discussion is that "don't mind if I do" is idiomatic speech, and therefore beyond the strictures of standard grammar. The phrase is generally used in response to an offer or invitation, such as "have another drink." It would be illogical, even impolite, to accept such an offer with "you don't mind if I do." A more sensible reading of the idiom centers on the word "mind," in the sense of "attention." A broadened form of the idiom might be "pay me no mind [attention] if I do so." Yes, technically that is a command. But idiomatically it only makes sense as a form of "thank you, I will." To modern ears the phrase may seem archaic, but its intent was to be deferential.