1 THE ENABLE2K "PLURAL REFORM"
\r
2 ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ
\r
5 All dictionaries, it would seem, have a "How to Use This Dictionary"
\r
6 section which assures the reader that, whenever a noun has an irregular or
\r
7 possibly confusing plural, all plurals will be explicitly stated in the
\r
8 corresponding entry. In practice, all dictionaries routinely ignore this
\r
9 promise. The result is that there are many nouns for which a correct
\r
10 plural or plurals cannot easily be determined, and one who wishes to do so
\r
11 is reduced to guesswork and pattern-matching.
\r
13 This fact of life has been a constant irritation during the compilation
\r
14 of ENABLE. Midway into the compilation of ENABLE2K, I decided I'd really
\r
15 had enough of dealing with this in a piecemeal way. I decided instead to
\r
16 undertake a thorough study of the entire "plural situation", by gathering
\r
17 information in one place about every listed noun lacking complete plural
\r
18 information. Ultimately, a data base of around 800 words requiring careful
\r
19 consideration was compiled; many other words were given a more superficial
\r
20 examination. A side effect of this crusade was the discovery of a number
\r
21 of plurals unnoted in previous versions of ENABLE whose correctness was
\r
22 very well documented.
\r
24 Kinds of words for which the correct plural might be in doubt include:
\r
26 1. Scientific and technical words (e.g., paralysis).
\r
27 2. Words of foreign origin (e.g., tableau).
\r
28 3. Words ending in "f", "s" or "z" (e.g., asparagus).
\r
29 4. Words ending in "o" (e.g., tomato).
\r
30 5. Words with a collective meaning or unusual usage patterns (e.g.,
\r
32 6. Words similar to other words with irregular plurals (e.g., mongoose,
\r
35 To complicate matters, it is clear that dictionary writers omit plurals
\r
36 for a number of different reasons, including:
\r
38 1. The word has a regular English plural, and the compilers do not
\r
39 anticipate any difficulties (e.g., circus).
\r
40 2. The word's plural(s) can be predicted from the plural of a suffix
\r
41 or ending word from which the word is formed (e.g., airman,
\r
43 3. The word is of a sort for which the plural form is not often used
\r
45 4. The plural was carelessly omitted. (Few examples can be proven,
\r
46 but, after all, lexicographers are human too. One clear example is
\r
47 the omission of any plural for the word "flanken" by OSPD (r),
\r
48 which is the *only* case I've found where OSPD fails to keep its
\r
49 vow to explicitly state all inflections, or the lack thereof.)
\r
51 Whenever words of the classes listed above are shown in some of the
\r
52 source dictionaries without an explicit plural, a decision was needed as
\r
53 to which plurals to include in ENABLE2K and its supplemental lists.
\r
54 Attempting to codify binding rules for these decisions, though a useful
\r
55 exercise in recognizing English word patterns, was not adequate to solve
\r
56 the problem. After failing to establish ironclad rules for plural
\r
57 determination, I have gradually developed a number of rules of thumb,
\r
60 1. Any plural given in OSPD is taken on face value. OSPD was based
\r
61 on several out-of-print dictionaries, and the fact that I can find no
\r
62 current source for a particular plural is not particularly germane.
\r
64 2. In the absence of any other information, technical words of Latin or
\r
65 Greek origin are assumed to have only a Latin/Greek plural. (Exceptions
\r
66 are chemical elements, for which OSPD clearly establishes that plurals are
\r
67 English-standard, and the names of species, where Latinate plurals are
\r
68 uncommon, though not unheard-of.) This rule is based in part on the
\r
69 observed fact that such plurals are regularly omitted from dictionaries,
\r
70 but can generally be readily intuited by the scientifically literate
\r
71 reader. Note that this rule carries somewhat more force for scientific and
\r
72 medical terms than for the vocabulary of fields like grammar, architecture
\r
73 and theology. Also, it carries more weight for a word that "looks Greek"
\r
74 than for one whose foreignness is not obvious to the eye.
\r
76 3. A corollary of the above rule is that words with certain suffixes can
\r
77 safely be assumed to have regular Greek or Latin plurals, which most
\r
78 dictionaries are likely to omit. Words ending in -genesis, -iasis,
\r
79 -lysis, -osis, -stasis and -taxis, in particular, can be assumed to have
\r
80 plurals in which the "is" is changed to "es", unless another plural is
\r
83 4. In the absence of other information (such as formation from a suffix
\r
84 like -man, with its own pluralization patterns), non-technical words
\r
85 are assumed to have regular English plurals, even if another plural, such
\r
86 as a foreign plural, is plausible. This is based in part on the idea that
\r
87 the dictionary cannot expect its readers to know a variety of non-English
\r
88 languages, and so is failing them if it neglects to give explicit foreign
\r
89 plurals. Thus, when AHD3 gives no explicit plural for the word "sastruga",
\r
90 this must be a claim that "sastrugas" is a legitimate plural, since the
\r
91 alternative is to suppose that its compilers assumed all readers would be
\r
92 familiar enough with Russian (and its transliteration into the Roman
\r
93 alphabet) to guess the plural "sastrugi" instead. As another example,
\r
94 someone who looks up the word "arras" and finds no plural listed has no
\r
95 reason to suppose the plural is anything but "arrases", which we list in
\r
96 the ENABLE2K supplement despite the fact that one dictionary (MW10) shows
\r
97 only an explicit plural of "arras". An exception to this rule is that any
\r
98 really appalling regular English plural will be rejected ("appalling" as
\r
99 measured by the ENABLE compilers, of course). An example is the plural
\r
100 of "manyplies". The failure of any source dictionary to show an explicit
\r
101 plural for this word would otherwise imply a plural of "manyplieses", but
\r
102 this construct so clashes with English word patterns as to be rejected on
\r
105 (It should be noted for the record that, unlike AHD3, AHD4 gives an
\r
106 explicit plural of "sastrugi" for "sastruga". The word "hafiz", for
\r
107 which MW10 gives only the plural "hafis", but about which the other major
\r
108 dictionaries are silent, is perhaps now a better example.)
\r
110 5. Suffix-based plurals are given more weight if they are confirmed by
\r
111 explicit plurals. The fact that -man words pluralize in -men is well-
\r
112 confirmed. The MW10 entry for -osis says it pluralizes in either -oses
\r
113 or -osises, but in fact an explicit plural of -osises is seldom seen.
\r
114 For this reason, we allow an -osises plural only if explicitly shown in
\r
115 one of the source dictionaries. Finally, consider the suffix -enchyma.
\r
116 This is shown as having two plurals, -enchymas and -enchymata. We
\r
117 reluctantly accept both plurals, the reluctance stemming from the fact
\r
118 that not a single word so suffixed is listed anywhere with an explicit
\r
119 plural. This lack lends more credibility to the natural plural form.
\r
120 But since the suffix plural is the only piece of explicit information we
\r
121 have, we have no better option than to believe it, and list both plurals.
\r
123 6. For help in resolving difficult cases, the ENABLE2K compilers have
\r
124 used a few secondary sources of additional information. These are the
\r
125 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary,
\r
126 the list of accepted words in British Scrabble(r) (OSW), and the list of
\r
127 words accepted by the Hasbro computer Scrabble game. The Merriam-Webster
\r
128 Medical Dictionary was especially valuable for finding plurals of
\r
129 biological and medical words, not least because this dictionary is far
\r
130 more explicit about pluralization than any of the general-purpose
\r
131 dictionaries. When MWMD shows no explicit plural for "bronchitis", one
\r
132 feels safe in assuming that it regards "bronchitises" as the only plural.
\r
133 If "bronchites" or "bronchitides" were considered acceptable, I feel
\r
134 certain MWMD would have made explicit mention of them.
\r
137 ENABLE2K is comprised of a main word list (short words from OSPD and
\r
138 long words from MW10), plus a number of additional lists. When, as a
\r
139 result of this research, new plurals were found or previously recorded
\r
140 plurals were invalidated, there remained the issue of how to record the
\r
141 changes. When plurals were invalidated, there was no choice but to remove
\r
142 them from the main list. Invalid plurals were almost exclusively plurals
\r
143 of diseases. In a few cases, on the authority of MWMD, a new disease
\r
144 plural was added directly to the main list. This was especially necessary
\r
145 when all the previously recorded plurals for a disease had been removed.
\r
146 Beyond this, if a new plural was implied by an entry in MW10, the plural
\r
147 was added to the MW10ADD list. For long words, if a plural was listed or
\r
148 implied by two other dictionaries (of the five used by ENABLE), it was
\r
149 added to the 2DICTS list. Similarly, for short words, any plural listed
\r
150 or implied by a single source dictionary was added to the OSPDADD list.
\r
151 Finally, all new plurals which were not placed directly into the main list
\r
152 were added to the file PLURALS.LST. This includes plurals of long words
\r
153 only noted by a single source as well as irregular plurals which are
\r
154 documented by no dictionary (other than OSW), but about which we are
\r
155 highly confident, such as "mimeses".
\r
157 Note that the discussion above applies only to plurals which were added
\r
158 for words already recognized as nouns. It does not apply to any plural
\r
159 added for a word which was previously recognized only as an adjective or
\r
160 interjection. For instance, the word "mutuals", the plural of a word
\r
161 which is described by OSPD as an adjective, is not present in PLURALS.LST.
\r
163 As stated above, detailed information was collected on 800 words, giving
\r
164 all possible reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) plurals, together
\r
165 with the reasons for accepting them. It is very unlikely that many
\r
166 readers would find this data anything other than an exercise in boredom.
\r
167 But I do think it worthwhile to list the final results, in terms of words
\r
168 removed from the list and words added. In most cases, decisions about
\r
169 whether or not to include a possible plural were clear-cut. In some
\r
170 cases, such decisions were very much subject to debate, and I have chosen
\r
171 to risk boring my audience by describing these situations. Readers with
\r
172 less than obsessive interest in the subject may well wish to stop reading
\r
175 (I have chosen only to give data on plurals for words whose singular form
\r
176 is present in the main ENABLE2K word list. However, similar decisions
\r
177 were also required for the plurals of words in the supplemental lists, and
\r
178 were made in the same way, for the same kinds of reasons.)
\r
180 The following purported plurals were removed from WORD.LST because no
\r
181 adequate justification could be found for including them.
\r
219 keratoconjuctivites
\r
220 keratoconjuctivitides
\r
229 neurofibromatosises
\r
273 As a general rule, additional plurals were added to an appropriate
\r
274 supplemental list rather than to the main list. However, a few were
\r
275 added directly to WORD.LST. With one exception (salpiglossises), these
\r
276 were all plurals of medical terms supported by the MW Medical Dictionary.
\r
277 These additional plurals are:
\r
289 The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by two dictionaries (for
\r
290 long words), or by one (for short words). Because the evidence for these
\r
291 plurals is unequivocal, they were all added to the main ENABLE list as
\r
292 "signature words" (see SIGWORD.DOC) unless they were also present in the
\r
293 new MW10 words list (MW10ADD.LST). Entries in this list marked with an
\r
294 asterisk are new to the first revision of the ENABLE2K supplement, and
\r
295 are not signature words, as the signature words were not changed for this
\r
453 The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by only a single
\r
454 dictionary (and therefore were not added to the 2DICTS.LST file).
\r
493 Determining the plurals for the following words was not completely
\r
494 obvious, and there is room for disagreement with my conclusions. However,
\r
495 I am reasonably confident that I made the right choices. Because of the
\r
496 potent for controversy, I am giving information about cases where plurals
\r
497 were not added as well as ones in which they were. In the lists below,
\r
498 a "=" precedes a plural listed in the previous version of ENABLE which I
\r
499 retained, a "!" indicates a potential plural which was not added, a "+"
\r
500 indicates a plural which was added, and a "-" indicates a previously
\r
501 accepted plural which was rejected.
\r
506 =acromia, +acromions
\r
508 =agapae, =agapai, !agapes
\r
510 =alewives, !alewifes
\r
512 =alnicoes, +alnicos
\r
514 =anestri, +anestruses
\r
516 =anthraces, !anthraxes
\r
520 +archentera, =archenterons
\r
524 =asparagus, +asparaguses
\r
526 =barytes, !baryteses
\r
528 !behalfs, =behalves
\r
530 !blowbies, =blowbys
\r
532 !broadleafs, =broadleaves
\r
536 =buttinskies, +buttinskis
\r
538 =cacoethes, !cacoetheses
\r
540 =cannelloni, !cannellonis
\r
542 =chlamydiae, +chlamydias
\r
544 +chloasmas, =chloasmata
\r
548 !colobomas, =colobomata
\r
550 =confetti, !confettis
\r
552 =coreopsis, +coreopsises
\r
554 =cowlstaffs, =cowlstaves
\r
560 =czardas, +czardases
\r
564 =dentalia, +dentaliums
\r
566 =dessertspoonfuls, =dessertspoonsful
\r
568 =diencephala, +diencephalons
\r
570 =diptera, !dipterons
\r
572 !endleafs, =endleaves
\r
574 =epistaxes, !epistaxises
\r
576 =eremuri, !eremuruses
\r
580 =falafel, +falafels
\r
582 =felafel, +felafels
\r
584 =fettucine, !fettucines
\r
586 =fettucini, !fettucinis
\r
588 =fettuccine, !fettuccines
\r
590 =fettuccini, !fettuccinis
\r
592 =flanken, +flankens
\r
594 !flyleafs, =flyleaves
\r
598 =franglais, !franglaises
\r
600 !gaposes, =gaposises
\r
604 =gingkoes, !gingkos
\r
606 =gnocchi, !gnocchis
\r
620 =hermae, =hermai, !hermas
\r
624 =hesperidia, !hesperidiums
\r
626 =highlifes, !highlives
\r
630 =hornfels, !hornfelses
\r
632 =hypolimnia, +hypolimnions
\r
634 =impatiens, +impatienses
\r
638 =kazachki, +kazachoks
\r
642 +kerygmas, =kerygmata
\r
644 =kreplach, !kreplaches
\r
650 !leatherleafs, =leatherleaves
\r
662 =manicotti, +manicottis
\r
664 =meatloaves, !meatloafs
\r
666 =mesencephala, +mesencephalons
\r
668 =mesentera, !mesenterons
\r
670 =mesonephroi, !mesonephroses
\r
672 =metanephroi, !metanephroses
\r
674 !midlifes, =midlives
\r
676 !mooncalfs, =mooncalves
\r
678 =multimedia, =multimedias
\r
688 =nephritides, +nephritises
\r
690 +notornes, =notornis, +notornises
\r
694 +ornises, =ornithes
\r
698 +parashahs, =parashioth, +parashot, =parashoth
\r
700 =peculia, !peculiums
\r
702 =plasmodesma, =plasmodesmata, +plasmodesms
\r
704 =procambia, =procambiums
\r
706 =propyla, +propylons
\r
708 =prosencephala, !prosencephalas, +prosencephalons
\r
710 =pseudomonades, !pseudomonases
\r
712 =psoae, =psoai, !psoases
\r
714 =pyknoses, !pyknosises
\r
716 !qwerties, =qwertys
\r
718 =rhombencephala, +rhombencephalons
\r
720 =rotorcraft, !rotorcrafts
\r
724 =saphenae, !saphenas
\r
726 =sartorii, !sartoriuses
\r
728 +sastrugas, =sastrugi
\r
730 =scaleni, !scalenuses
\r
734 =solidi, +soliduses
\r
736 =strappadoes, +strappados
\r
738 =superphenomena, +superphenomenons
\r
742 !swingbies, =swingby
\r
748 +tallises, =tallisim
\r
750 +tallits, =tallitim
\r
754 =tegmenta, !tegmentums
\r
756 =telencephala, +telencephalons
\r
758 =testatrices, +testatrixes
\r
762 =tsimmes, +tsimmeses
\r
764 =tzimmes, +tzimmeses
\r
766 =utriculi, !utriculuses
\r
772 =viewdata, +viewdatas
\r
776 =wildlife, !wildlifes, !wildlives
\r
780 +zastrugas, =zastrugi
\r
782 (During the work on this revision of ENABLE2K, two further words with
\r
783 questionable plurals turned up. These words were overlooked in the
\r
784 investigations described in the document. The status quo for these
\r
785 words is not outrageous, so I have not made the attempt to resolve
\r
786 them at this time. These words are:
\r
789 !avoirdupois, =avoirdupoises
\r
794 Finally, we have the list of difficult cases. These are the words for
\r
795 which I found decisions far from obvious, and where I think a reasonable
\r
796 reviewer might have good cause to question my conclusions. For each
\r
797 potential plural, in additional to the marks described above, a "?" is
\r
798 used to indicate those plurals that are dubious, and a brief debate is
\r
799 given on the merits of accepting or rejecting the plural. A * marks the
\r
800 "winning" side to such debates (which is almost always the last side to
\r
801 speak). In some cases, you may well find the losing side of the debate
\r
802 more eloquent or convincing. You may also find these decisions to be
\r
803 inconsistent, and that evidence for a plural adequate in one case was
\r
804 found inadequate in another. Life is like that sometimes.
\r
807 =aerenchymas, +?aerenchymata
\r
809 Con: I have found no evidence at all for the use of "aerenchymata".
\r
810 *Pro: MW10 shows that one plural of -enchyma is -enchymata. In
\r
811 practice, "aerenchyma" (a sort of tissue) is a word very
\r
812 unlikely to be used in the plural, regular or not, so why
\r
813 not accept the one slightly relevant piece of evidence we've
\r
817 =allodia, +?allodiums
\r
819 =alodia, +?alodiums
\r
821 Con: "allodium" is a technical legal term, for which one expects
\r
822 a Latin plural, as shown by OSPD and RHWCD.
\r
823 *Pro: "allodiums" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW4.
\r
826 =alphosises, +?alphoses
\r
828 Con: OSPD says "alphosises" is the only plural of "alphosis".
\r
829 *Pro: "alphosis" is a medical term. For it not to have an -oses
\r
830 plural would be highly surprising.
\r
833 =apomixes, +?apomixises
\r
835 Con: As a scientific word, "apomixis" should be assumed to have only
\r
836 a Latinate plural. Further, neither OSW nor OSPD lists
\r
838 *Pro: There is little consistency to the way that dictionaries list
\r
839 plurals for words ending in -mixis. Given the failure to show
\r
840 an explicit plural of "apomixis" by several of the source
\r
841 dictionaries, and the fact that a plural ending in -mixises is
\r
842 listed, or even preferred, for other such words, it seems best
\r
843 to accept such a plural here as well. A close call.
\r
846 =?arteritides, +arteritises
\r
848 Con: I can find no sign of acceptance of "arteritides", except...
\r
849 *Pro: According to the web pages describing TWL98, it accepts the
\r
850 validity of "arteritides". Since the Merriam-Webster crew was
\r
851 involved with defining TWL98, there may be something to it.
\r
854 =asperges, !?aspergeses
\r
856 Pro: None of the source dictionaries indicate that "asperges" is
\r
858 *Con: It is most unusual for words ending in -es (pronounced "eez")
\r
859 to add another -es for the plural. ("herculeses" is an
\r
863 !?behoofs, =behooves
\r
865 Pro: Most of the source dictionaries do not show a special plural
\r
866 for "behoof", and OSW lists "behoofs".
\r
867 *Con: There is substantial documentation for "behooves" as the only
\r
868 plural. This is a very close call.
\r
873 Pro: None of the source dictionaries (other than OSPD) show an
\r
874 irregular plural, leading to a strong implication of the
\r
875 correctness of "brises".
\r
876 *Con: OSPD shows only "brisses", and, to my eye, "brisses" seems
\r
882 Con: With so little evidence, there's no point in trying to second-
\r
883 guess OSPD. Failure of MW10 to list a plural is probably
\r
884 an oversight, or an indication of the lack of use of the plural.
\r
885 *Pro: Because one expects irregular plurals for -o words, dictionaries
\r
886 tend to list explicit plurals somewhat more often than for other
\r
887 sorts of words. Accordingly, failure to list a plural for one is
\r
888 stronger evidence of regularity than in the general case.
\r
891 =cementa, +?cementums
\r
893 Con: One expects "cementum", as a medical term, to have a Latinate
\r
895 *Pro: So why doesn't any dictionary (other than OSPD and OSW)
\r
896 document "cementa"?
\r
899 =cestoi, +?cestoses
\r
901 Con: Another case of almost no evidence. But RHWCD lists "cestos" as
\r
902 a variant of "cestus", whose plural is "cesti". This leads one
\r
903 to expect a Latin/Greek plural for "cestos" as well.
\r
904 *Pro: But RHWCD could say so, and it doesn't. Further, "cestoses" is
\r
908 !?charismas, =charismata
\r
910 Pro: Can you imagine Dan Rather contrasting the "charismata" of
\r
911 the various presidential hopefuls?
\r
912 *Con: But virtually all my sources are convinced "charismata" is
\r
913 the only accepted plural.
\r
916 =chlorenchymas, +?chlorenchymata
\r
921 =collenchymas, +?collenchymata
\r
926 =departed, !?departeds
\r
928 Pro: There are precedents for this construction, such as "marrieds"
\r
930 *Con: But "departeds" just doesn't ring true.
\r
933 +?dihedra, =dihedrons
\r
935 *Pro: Anyone who studied geometry in high school knows the preferred
\r
936 plural for -hedron is -hedra. And OSW lists "dihedra".
\r
937 Con: The listings in the primary dictionaries for the other -hedron
\r
938 words give explicit -hedra plurals. The absence of such listings
\r
939 for "dihedron" is strong evidence against "dihedra".
\r
944 Con: Very little evidence here, as the word is listed only in OSPD
\r
945 and MW10. Best to trust OSPD.
\r
946 *Pro: "dynein", a chemical name, is just not the sort of word one
\r
947 expects to be its own plural.
\r
950 +?eceses, =ecesises
\r
952 *Pro: "ecesis" is a technical term, clearly of Greek origin, exactly
\r
953 the sort of word one expects to have a -ses plural.
\r
954 Con: OSPD says it's "ecesises", and I can't find any actual evidence
\r
960 Con: In many contexts, "education" is a collective noun that doesn't
\r
961 pluralize, and that "ed" should have the same property is quite
\r
963 *Pro: But it's not obviously so, especially when no non-Scrabble
\r
964 dictionary mentions it.
\r
967 +?endomixes, =?endomixises
\r
969 Con: Only OSPD and OSW say anything about plurals for this word.
\r
970 There aren't enough -mixis words to establish a pattern. For
\r
971 the other -mixis words, MW10 lists a -mixes plural, but for
\r
972 "endomixis" it does not. This serves as evidence for
\r
974 *Pro: The "endomixes" plural is clearly more natural. OSW lists both
\r
975 plurals, which seems like a reasonable solution.
\r
978 !?enoses, =enosises
\r
980 Pro: "enosis" is derived from Greek, and OSW shows "enoses" as the
\r
982 *Con: "enosis" comes from modern, not ancient Greek, and is a
\r
983 political rather than a scientific term, which makes the
\r
984 absence of the usual -oses plural more plausible.
\r
987 =fracti, !?fractuses
\r
989 Pro: WNW fails to give an explicit plural for "fractus". Since WNW
\r
990 is the only source dictionary listing this word, all the evidence
\r
991 we have points to a regular English plural.
\r
992 *Con: Other cloud names have only Latinate plurals. Also, since
\r
993 "fractus" is listed in only one source dictionary, there is
\r
994 insufficent evident to overrule OSPD.
\r
997 =gammadia, +gammadions
\r
999 Con: "gammadion" is clearly Greek-derived, so why expect a regular
\r
1001 *Pro: The documentation for "gammadia" is insufficent to make me
\r
1002 reject the implied "gammadions".
\r
1005 +?gastritides, +gastritises
\r
1010 =gelati, +?gelatis
\r
1012 Con: "gelati" is already plural.
\r
1013 *Pro: Not according to several dictionaries.
\r
1018 Con: So what is the plural of the Japanese game "go"? Is it "go",
\r
1019 since Japanese itself has no plural. Or is it "goes", the same
\r
1020 as the plural of the verb "go"?
\r
1021 *Pro: In the absence of an explicit plural, "gos" is what you'd
\r
1022 expect. And OSW lists it.
\r
1025 =?grandiflorae, =grandifloras
\r
1027 Con: "grandiflora" is a species name, and such names only
\r
1028 infrequently have Latinate plurals. Given the lack of
\r
1029 documentation for "grandiflorae", the logical assumption is
\r
1030 that only "grandifloras" is used.
\r
1031 *Pro: "flora" pluralizes as "florae" as well as "floras". So why
\r
1032 shouldn't "grandiflora" follow the pattern?
\r
1035 =gravlax, !?gravlaxes
\r
1037 Pro: None of the non-OSPD sources indicate that "gravlax" is plural,
\r
1038 and OSW lists "gravlaxes".
\r
1039 *Con: In the definition of "gravlax" ("smoked salmon"), "salmon"
\r
1040 itself is plural. How much more explicit do you need to
\r
1046 Pro: Neither RHWCD nor AH give an explicit plural for "hao". Since
\r
1047 "hao" is a currency, this is enough justification to list it
\r
1049 *Con: All other listed Vietnamese currencies are self-plural. And
\r
1050 both RHWCD and AH, despite failing to specify a plural in their
\r
1051 definitions, use "hao" as a plural in their currency tables.
\r
1054 =hypermedia, +?hypermedias
\r
1056 Con: "media" is plural, so is "hypermedia".
\r
1057 *Pro: MW10's rather strange definition of "hypermedia" ("a database
\r
1058 format") is clearly singular, with a meaningful plural.
\r
1063 Con: "inion" is an anatomical term, and should have a Latinate plural.
\r
1064 OSPD says it does. What's the problem?
\r
1065 *Pro: Only OSPD and OSW show the Latinate plural. Everyone else,
\r
1066 including MW Medical, fails to mention it. Especially since
\r
1067 "inion" doesn't look particularly foreign, this is most likely
\r
1068 intended to indicate a regular plural.
\r
1071 =jackanapes, =?jackanapeses
\r
1073 Con: "jackanapeses"? Aw, come on, pull the other one.
\r
1074 *Pro: "jackanapeses" is recognized by the Hasbro Scrabble game, and
\r
1075 only one source dictionary (Encarta (r)) contradicts this. A
\r
1079 =jailbait, !?jailbaits
\r
1081 Pro: "jailbait" means "a girl under the age of consent". This clearly
\r
1082 has a meaningful plural. In the absence of contrary information,
\r
1083 that plural must be "jailbaits".
\r
1084 *Con: "bait", in the sense of "food used as a fishing lure", is a
\r
1085 collective noun. We speak of buying "bait", not "baits".
\r
1086 "jailbait" is derived from this usage of "bait". Besides, can
\r
1087 anyone imagine overhearing "Oh man! Look at those jailbaits!"
\r
1090 =jejuna, !?jejunums
\r
1092 Pro: A majority of the ENABLE dictionaries as well as MW10 leave out
\r
1093 any plural for "jejunum". While the word is certainly strange,
\r
1094 it doesn't have the feel that would lead one to assume a Latin
\r
1096 *Con: No one but a medical professional is going to speak or write about
\r
1097 a "jejunum", much less more than one. And MW Medical testifies
\r
1098 that they'll be using the -a plural.
\r
1103 See "hao", replacing Vietnam with China. (Since "jiao" is not listed
\r
1104 in MW10's currency table, the part of the argument about currency
\r
1105 tables does not apply.)
\r
1108 +?kenoses, =kenosises
\r
1110 See "mimesis". It should be noted that it is almost impossible to
\r
1111 imagine a circumstance where "kenosis" might be used in the plural.
\r
1116 Pro: "lezes" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW. Additionally, the
\r
1117 plural of the variant spelling "les" is "leses", since "lesses" is
\r
1119 *Con: "lezzes" has more support, and is a far more sensible spelling.
\r
1122 =lochia, +?lochias
\r
1124 Con: OSPD and The MW Medical Dictionary agree that "lochia" is its
\r
1125 own plural. Isn't that enough?
\r
1126 *Pro: But none of the primary dictionaries that actually list
\r
1127 "lochia" support this conclusion.
\r
1132 Pro: Besides OSPD, the only actual evidence for "logoi" is in
\r
1133 MW10 which, since it capitalizes "Logos", is irrelevant.
\r
1134 *Con: "logos" is a Greek word used as a technical term used in
\r
1135 philosophy and theology. One expects a Greek plural, and one
\r
1136 assumes that anyone erudite enough to actually use the word will
\r
1137 recognize that. Besides, "logoses" is awkward. Another very
\r
1141 =lordoses, !?lordosises
\r
1143 Pro: "lordosis" is not an -osis in the usual way the suffix is
\r
1144 used. A majority of the source dictionaries give no explicit
\r
1145 plural, which, in these cirucmstances, is support for a
\r
1146 regular English plural.
\r
1147 *Con: A sufficent number of sources document "lordoses" to make
\r
1148 "lordosises" rather unlikely.
\r
1151 =malines, !?malineses
\r
1153 Pro: "malines" is a fabric, it should have a plural. And no
\r
1154 source dictionary shows it as its own plural.
\r
1155 *Con: The "s" in "malines" is silent. Given that, is "malineses"
\r
1156 a reasonable spelling for the plural? Besides which, a
\r
1157 variant of "malines" is "maline". I consider it to be
\r
1158 possible that "malines" was originally a plural for which
\r
1159 the singular gradually dropped out of usage.
\r
1162 =mankind, !?mankinds
\r
1164 Pro: OSW lists "mankinds", and none of the source dictionaries
\r
1165 actually labels "mankind" as already plural.
\r
1166 *Con: "mankinds"? You gotta be kidding!
\r
1169 =metacercariae, !?metacercarias
\r
1171 Pro: MW10 is the only dictionary listing "metacercaria", and it
\r
1172 implies a regular plural.
\r
1173 *Con: Three tertiary sources, including the MW Medical Dictionary,
\r
1174 give the plural as "metacercariae", and it is the sort of
\r
1175 word one expects to have an irregular plural.
\r
1178 +?mimeses, =mimesises
\r
1180 Con: OSPD shows "mimesis" as regular, and no source dictionary
\r
1182 *Pro: This word screams for a Latinate plural, which is listed by
\r
1186 =muggins, +?mugginses
\r
1188 Con: "mugginses" is pretty damn unnatural.
\r
1189 *Pro: It's not all that much worse than "joneses". And it's listed
\r
1190 by OSW. Still, a very close call.
\r
1193 =natriureses, !?natriuresises
\r
1195 Pro: No source actually lists "natriureses", including the MW
\r
1196 Medical Dictionary. Because MWMD is so consistently precise
\r
1197 about plurals, this is strong evidence that in fact the plural
\r
1199 *Con: Not strong enough!
\r
1202 +?noeses, =noesises
\r
1207 =omphali, +?omphaloses
\r
1209 Con: It's Greek, and obviously Greek. Enough said.
\r
1210 *Pro: Though I don't know Greek, if "omphalos" took a Greek plural, and
\r
1211 conformed to the pattern of other Greek-derived -os words in
\r
1212 English, its plural would be "omphaloi". For this reason, failure
\r
1213 of multiple dictionaries to list an explicit plural cannot be
\r
1214 construed as evidence for "omphali".
\r
1217 =omphaloskepses, !?omphaloskepsises
\r
1219 Pro: This is one of the most frustrating words of the 170,000 in
\r
1220 ENABLE2K, because there is no evidence! In the absence of
\r
1221 evidence, we have no choice but to assume a regular plural.
\r
1222 *Con: Not so. "omphaloskepsis" reeks of Greek. Do you really
\r
1223 think it has an regular English plural? (Either way, or
\r
1224 even both ways at once, I'm not convinced.)
\r
1229 Con: It seems that "once" is a noun, meaning "one single time".
\r
1230 OK, but can a word meaning "one single time" actually have a
\r
1232 *Pro: Sure. Here's an example: "We had each tried LSD once, but
\r
1233 our onces had affected us quite differently."
\r
1236 !?oyeses, =oyesses
\r
1238 Pro: "oyeses" is listed in OSW, and implied by a solid majority
\r
1239 of the source dictionaries.
\r
1240 *Con: "oyesses" is a far more reasonable plural, and is adequately
\r
1244 =oyesses, !?oyezes
\r
1246 Pro: See "oyes" Pro. In addition, "oyesses" is a pretty weird
\r
1247 plural for "oyez". If it were beyond dispute, don't you
\r
1248 think that all of the dictionaries would have mentioned it?
\r
1249 *Con: Yes, there is a strong case for "oyezes". But if I accept
\r
1250 it, I have little justification for rejecting "oyeses" as
\r
1251 a plural of "oyes", even though it seems to me clearly wrong.
\r
1254 +panmixes, +?panmixises
\r
1256 See "apomixis" and "endomixis". (One difference from "endomixis":
\r
1257 OSW does not list "panmixes", but OSPD does.)
\r
1260 =parenchymas, +?parenchymata
\r
1265 !?paterfamiliases, =patresfamilias
\r
1267 Pro: "paterfamiliases" is implied by RHWCD, and explicitly listed
\r
1269 *Con: Insufficent, when compared to the weight of evidence against
\r
1275 Pro: "pennes" is listed by OSW, and implied by Encarta.
\r
1276 *Con: Admittedly, some pastas are plural and some pastas are
\r
1277 singular. But the evidence that "penne" is plural is
\r
1278 much stronger than the evidence it is not.
\r
1281 +pereia, !?pereions
\r
1285 Pro: The only listing of these words outside of OSPD is in MW10, and
\r
1286 it implies a regular plural.
\r
1287 *Con: You expect a word meaning "an anatomical part of a crustacean" to
\r
1288 have a regular plural?
\r
1291 =pinyin, !?pinyins
\r
1293 Pro: "pinyins" is clearly implied everywhere "pinyin" is listed,
\r
1294 including OSPD (before emendation by TWL98).
\r
1295 *Con: But TWL98 got it right. There is only one "pinyin".
\r
1298 =pocketfuls, =?pocketsful
\r
1300 Con: "pocketsful" is cited as a valid plural by AH3, but not by MW10.
\r
1301 Also, since MW10 lists the only plural of the suffix -ful as
\r
1302 -fuls, "pocketsful" is not even implied by MW10. Since the main
\r
1303 ENABLE word list should contain only words from OSPD and MW10,
\r
1304 "pocketsful" should be removed.
\r
1305 *Pro: "pocketsful" was added to the list of valid words by the TWL98
\r
1306 committee. Where plausible, such changes should be included
\r
1307 even without support from MW10 (see also "mongoloids" and
\r
1311 =postcavae, !?postcavas
\r
1313 Pro: If there were a word "cava" with plural "cavae", the implication
\r
1314 of "postcavae" would be strong. Without it, the failure of MW10
\r
1315 and AH3 to show a plural must be considered evidence favoring
\r
1317 *Con: There is no explicit evidence for "postcavas" and one expects
\r
1318 a Latinate plural for such anatomical terms. Also, "postcavae"
\r
1319 is implied by the plural "venae cavae" of "vena cava". A close
\r
1323 +pronephra, +pronephroi, -?pronephroses
\r
1325 *Pro: The Hasbro Scrabble game accepts "pronephroses". While
\r
1326 this is not the strongest possible evidence, we should not
\r
1327 casually disregard it.
\r
1328 Con: The evidence for the irregular plurals is strong, and it
\r
1329 is likely that the entries showing no explicit plural (MW10
\r
1330 and WNW) are oversights rather than testimony for a regular
\r
1331 plural. Also, there is no particular evidence of a regular
\r
1332 plural for *any* -nephros word. Yet another close call.
\r
1335 =prosenchymas, +?prosenchymata
\r
1340 =pseudoparenchymas, +?pseudoparenchymata
\r
1345 =puerperia, !?puerperiums
\r
1347 *Con: A clear majority of the sources list "puerperia" as the only
\r
1348 plural, including MW Medical.
\r
1349 Pro: Yeah, I suppose so. But my intuitions lead me to expect
\r
1350 "puerperiums" to also be acceptable. While "puerperium" does
\r
1351 indeed have a medical aspect, it's not quite the same sort of
\r
1352 word as "diverticulum".
\r
1357 Con: The evidence for "pula" is very weak, consisting of OSW and
\r
1358 an omitted plural in AH3.
\r
1359 *Pro: Currency plurals are one of the issues on which dictionaries
\r
1360 strongly disagree. By analogy with other currencies, AH3's
\r
1361 omitted plural is better read as an endorsement of "pulas"
\r
1362 than as some kind of oversight.
\r
1365 +?pyroses, =pyrosises
\r
1370 +quadrivia, =?quadriviums
\r
1372 Con: The issue is not whether to accept "quadrivia", which is
\r
1373 listed by multiple sources, but whether to also accept
\r
1374 "quadriviums". One notes that there is unanimity that
\r
1375 the only plural of "trivium" is "trivia". Why should
\r
1376 "quadrivium" be any different?
\r
1377 *Pro: But a majority of the sources, including MW10, give no
\r
1378 indication of an irregular plural. Besides, the Hasbro
\r
1379 game recognizes "quadriviums", and that should count for
\r
1383 =rapini, +?rapinis
\r
1385 Con: The situation of this word is *really* muddled. It is not
\r
1386 even in the paper OSPD, though there is good evidence it's
\r
1387 supposed to be. It's an alternate spelling for "rappini",
\r
1388 which, according to OSPD and most other sources, is already
\r
1389 plural, implying the nonexistence of "rapinis".
\r
1390 *Pro: The definition of "rapini" in MW10 is a singular definition,
\r
1391 not a plural. Further, the Hasbro Scrabble computer game
\r
1392 dictionary includes a definition of "rapini" as a word with a
\r
1393 regular plural. (It must be admitted, however, that the Hasbro
\r
1394 game, despite the definition, does not actually accept "rapinis".)
\r
1397 =rappini, +?rappinis
\r
1399 See "rapini". The sitation is slightly different, since the Hasbro
\r
1400 game agrees with OSPD in this instance, but since "rapini" and
\r
1401 "rappini" are alternate spellings of the same word, they ought not to
\r
1402 have different forms of pluralization, at least not without good
\r
1403 documentation thereof.
\r
1406 =reticula, !?reticulums
\r
1408 Pro: "reticulums" is implied by MW10, and listed in OSW.
\r
1409 *Con: Not very good evidence compared the rest of the American
\r
1410 lexicographic world, all of which accept only "reticula".
\r
1414 =rufiyaa, +?rufiyaas
\r
1419 !?seecatches, =seecatchie
\r
1421 Pro: WNW4 fails to list a plural for "seecatch". This can't be
\r
1422 construed as support for "seecatchie", which is obviously a most
\r
1423 unusual pluralization.
\r
1424 *Con: Actually, WNW4 lists "seecatchie" as an alternate form of
\r
1425 "seecatch". Three other sources agree that "seecatchie" is
\r
1426 the plural; the WNW4 entry is most easily explained as the
\r
1427 result of confusion, rather than as evidence for "seecatches".
\r
1430 =serpigines, =serpigoes, !?serpigos
\r
1432 Pro: More sources imply a regular plural for "serpigo" than list an
\r
1434 *Con: "serpigo" is a disease, and there is seldom call to use it in
\r
1435 the plural. No more than this should be read from the failure
\r
1436 to mention a specific plural.
\r
1439 =shrapnel, +?shrapnels
\r
1441 Con: No reason to doubt OSPD and MW10 on this one.
\r
1442 *Pro: In addition to the meaning of "fragments from a shell", an
\r
1443 inherently plural meaning, "shrapnel" can also mean "a shell
\r
1444 designed to scatter shrapnel". This meaning is singular, and
\r
1445 pretty obviously has a regular plural. This is confirmed by
\r
1449 !?skepses, =?skepsises
\r
1451 Pro: We've seen "omphalos" and "ompahloskepsis" - now here's the
\r
1452 missing piece. While it's true that no one lists the plural
\r
1453 "skepses", that didn't keep us from accepting "mimeses" or
\r
1455 *Con: This time, OSW agrees with OSPD, and lists only "skepsises".
\r
1456 It's still a close thing, but without other evidence I'm not
\r
1457 inclined to overrule them both.
\r
1460 =spermathecae, !?spermathecas
\r
1462 Pro: Three sources imply a regular plural for "spermatheca"; only one
\r
1463 lists "spermathecae".
\r
1464 *Con: A "spermatheca" is a kind of "theca", for which only the single
\r
1465 plural "thecae" is listed. Someone used to discussing thecae
\r
1466 would clearly use the corresponding plural for the derived word.
\r
1469 =stereopses, =stereopsides, !?stereopsises
\r
1471 Pro: Other than the listing of -opsis in MW10, which shows plurals of
\r
1472 -opses and -opsides, there is no evidence of any plural but a
\r
1473 regular English one.
\r
1474 *Con: "stereopsis" means "stereoscopic vision"; it is unlikely to be
\r
1475 used in the plural. This, rather than regularity, is the reason
\r
1476 that lexicographers don't bother to list a plural. Given this,
\r
1477 the MW10 suffix information is the best we have.
\r
1480 =supersedeas, !?supersedeases
\r
1482 Pro: "supersedeas" doesn't conform to any of the patterns of self-
\r
1483 plural English words, and unlike many such constructions,
\r
1484 "supersedeases" sounds (to me) quite natural. And only OSPD and
\r
1485 RHWCD support the "supersedeas" plural.
\r
1486 *Con: "supersedeas" is an old (15th century) legal term. A regular
\r
1487 plural is not especially to be expected. Still, a close call.
\r
1490 +?syneses, =sysesises
\r
1498 *Pro: "logos" is not listed in OSW. "telos" is, and according to OSW
\r
1499 the plural is "teloses".
\r
1502 +triskelia, =?triskelions
\r
1504 Con: The issue is not "triskelia", which is well-documented, but
\r
1505 "triskelions", which is not accepted by any of ENABLE2K's sources
\r
1506 except the Hasbro Scrabble computer game. MW10's failure to list
\r
1507 an explicit plural is most likely an oversight.
\r
1508 *Pro: Nothing about "triskelion" leads one to doubt MW10's implication
\r
1509 of a regular plural. See "gammadion".
\r
1512 =tsooris, !?tsoorises
\r
1514 =tsores, !?tsoreses
\r
1516 =tsoris, !?tsorises
\r
1518 =tsorris, !?tsorrises
\r
1520 =tsouris, !?tsourises
\r
1522 =tsuris, !?tsurises
\r
1524 Pro: Not one of the listings for all these spellings of "tsuris" (the
\r
1525 most accepted spelling) other than OSPD implies that the word is
\r
1526 its own plural. If it were, it seems like someone would have
\r
1528 *Con: Mendel assures me from personal experience that, as a Yiddish
\r
1529 synonym for "troubles", "tsuris" is already plural. While the
\r
1530 lexicographical evidence seems (to me) to support "tsurises", et.
\r
1531 al., real word usage trumps scholarship, and I trust Mendel's
\r
1532 expertise. (Whether his expertise was in Yiddish, or in troubles,
\r
1536 =?tympanites, -?tympaniteses
\r
1538 *Con: "tympanites" is a medical condition, ending with an -eez sound.
\r
1539 Such words (diabetes, calvities, rabies, etc.) consistently
\r
1540 remain unchanged in the plural. The only source for the -eses
\r
1541 plural is the Hasbro Scrabble CD-ROM, not a source which, by
\r
1542 itself, lends much credibility.
\r
1543 Pro: Maybe so, but why doesn't anyone document this? Even MW Medical
\r
1544 implies a regular plural. The -eses plural is ugly, but it is
\r
1545 more consistent with the lexicographical evidence than the
\r
1546 alternative. This is another extremely close call.
\r
1549 =tzuris, !?tzurises
\r
1551 See "tsooris", et. al.
\r
1556 Con: "varia" is already plural.
\r
1557 *Pro: According to AH3, a "varia" is a "miscellany", a word with a
\r
1558 singular meaning which admits a plural.
\r
1561 =waterleafs, !?waterleaves
\r
1563 Pro: While the "waterleafs" plural is well-documented, it is likely
\r
1564 that "waterleaves" is also valid. Several dictionaries list no
\r
1565 plural for "waterleaf". This implies a regular plural, which is
\r
1566 "waterleaves", not "waterleafs".
\r
1567 *Con: The listings for other plants whose names end in -leaf explicitly
\r
1568 list the -leaves plural. This leads me to believe that, in fact,
\r
1569 a -leaves plural is considered irregular, and that omission of a
\r
1570 plural actually implies -leafs. (While all dictionaries state
\r
1571 that implicit plurals are assumed to be regular, they don't
\r
1572 generally state what regularity means. Usually, it's obvious,
\r
1573 but sometimes, as here or for words like "whiz" and "yes", a few
\r
1574 details would be helpful.)
\r
1577 =womankind, !?womankinds
\r
1579 =womenkind, !?womenkinds
\r
1585 Scrabble is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc.
\r
1586 The OSPD is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc.
\r
1587 Encarta is a trademark of the Microsoft Corp.
\r