[svn-upgrade] Tagging scowl (7.1)

[deb_pkgs/scowl.git] / 7.1 / r / enable-sup / plurals.doc

                      THE ENABLE2K "PLURAL REFORM"\r
ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ\r
\r
\r
All dictionaries, it would seem, have a "How to Use This Dictionary"\r
section which assures the reader that, whenever a noun has an irregular or\r
possibly confusing plural, all plurals will be explicitly stated in the\r
corresponding entry.  In practice, all dictionaries routinely ignore this\r
promise.  The result is that there are many nouns for which a correct\r
plural or plurals cannot easily be determined, and one who wishes to do so\r
is reduced to guesswork and pattern-matching.\r
\r
This fact of life has been a constant irritation during the compilation\r
of ENABLE.  Midway into the compilation of ENABLE2K, I decided I'd really\r
had enough of dealing with this in a piecemeal way.  I decided instead to\r
undertake a thorough study of the entire "plural situation", by gathering\r
information in one place about every listed noun lacking complete plural\r
information.  Ultimately, a data base of around 800 words requiring careful\r
consideration was compiled; many other words were given a more superficial\r
examination.  A side effect of this crusade was the discovery of a number\r
of plurals unnoted in previous versions of ENABLE whose correctness was\r
very well documented.\r
\r
Kinds of words for which the correct plural might be in doubt include:\r
\r
1.  Scientific and technical words (e.g., paralysis).\r
2.  Words of foreign origin (e.g., tableau).\r
3.  Words ending in "f", "s" or "z" (e.g., asparagus).\r
4.  Words ending in "o" (e.g., tomato).\r
5.  Words with a collective meaning or unusual usage patterns (e.g.,\r
    jailbait, dickens).\r
6.  Words similar to other words with irregular plurals (e.g., mongoose,\r
    shaman).\r
\r
To complicate matters, it is clear that dictionary writers omit plurals\r
for a number of different reasons, including:\r
\r
1.  The word has a regular English plural, and the compilers do not\r
    anticipate any difficulties (e.g., circus).\r
2.  The word's plural(s) can be predicted from the plural of a suffix\r
    or ending word from which the word is formed (e.g., airman,\r
    psychoanalysis).\r
3.  The word is of a sort for which the plural form is not often used\r
    (e.g., diabetes).\r
4.  The plural was carelessly omitted.  (Few examples can be proven,\r
    but, after all, lexicographers are human too.  One clear example is\r
    the omission of any plural for the word "flanken" by OSPD (r),\r
    which is the *only* case I've found where OSPD fails to keep its\r
    vow to explicitly state all inflections, or the lack thereof.)\r
\r
Whenever words of the classes listed above are shown in some of the\r
source dictionaries without an explicit plural, a decision was needed as\r
to which plurals to include in ENABLE2K and its supplemental lists.\r
Attempting to codify binding rules for these decisions, though a useful\r
exercise in recognizing English word patterns, was not adequate to solve\r
the problem.  After failing to establish ironclad rules for plural\r
determination, I have gradually developed a number of rules of thumb,\r
including:\r
\r
1.  Any plural given in OSPD is taken on face value.  OSPD was based\r
on several out-of-print dictionaries, and the fact that I can find no\r
current source for a particular plural is not particularly germane.\r
\r
2.  In the absence of any other information, technical words of Latin or\r
Greek origin are assumed to have only a Latin/Greek plural.  (Exceptions\r
are chemical elements, for which OSPD clearly establishes that plurals are\r
English-standard, and the names of species, where Latinate plurals are\r
uncommon, though not unheard-of.)  This rule is based in part on the\r
observed fact that such plurals are regularly omitted from dictionaries,\r
but can generally be readily intuited by the scientifically literate\r
reader.  Note that this rule carries somewhat more force for scientific and\r
medical terms than for the vocabulary of fields like grammar, architecture\r
and theology.  Also, it carries more weight for a word that "looks Greek"\r
than for one whose foreignness is not obvious to the eye.\r
\r
3.  A corollary of the above rule is that words with certain suffixes can\r
safely be assumed to have regular Greek or Latin plurals, which most\r
dictionaries are likely to omit.  Words ending in -genesis, -iasis,\r
-lysis, -osis, -stasis and -taxis, in particular, can be assumed to have\r
plurals in which the "is" is changed to "es", unless another plural is\r
explicitly shown.\r
\r
4.  In the absence of other information (such as formation from a suffix\r
like -man, with its own pluralization patterns), non-technical words\r
are assumed to have regular English plurals, even if another plural, such\r
as a foreign plural, is plausible.  This is based in part on the idea that\r
the dictionary cannot expect its readers to know a variety of non-English\r
languages, and so is failing them if it neglects to give explicit foreign\r
plurals.  Thus, when AHD3 gives no explicit plural for the word "sastruga",\r
this must be a claim that "sastrugas" is a legitimate plural, since the\r
alternative is to suppose that its compilers assumed all readers would be\r
familiar enough with Russian (and its transliteration into the Roman\r
alphabet) to guess the plural "sastrugi" instead. As another example,\r
someone who looks up the word "arras" and finds no plural listed has no\r
reason to suppose the plural is anything but "arrases", which we list in\r
the ENABLE2K supplement despite the fact that one dictionary (MW10) shows\r
only an explicit plural of "arras".  An exception to this rule is that any\r
really appalling regular English plural will be rejected ("appalling" as\r
measured by the ENABLE compilers, of course).  An example is the plural\r
of "manyplies".  The failure of any source dictionary to show an explicit\r
plural for this word would otherwise imply a plural of "manyplieses", but\r
this construct so clashes with English word patterns as to be rejected on\r
that basis.\r
\r
(It should be noted for the record that, unlike AHD3, AHD4 gives an\r
explicit plural of "sastrugi" for "sastruga".  The word "hafiz", for\r
which MW10 gives only the plural "hafis", but about which the other major\r
dictionaries are silent, is perhaps now a better example.)\r
\r
5.  Suffix-based plurals are given more weight if they are confirmed by\r
explicit plurals.  The fact that -man words pluralize in -men is well-\r
confirmed.  The MW10 entry for -osis says it pluralizes in either -oses\r
or -osises, but in fact an explicit plural of -osises is seldom seen.\r
For this reason, we allow an -osises plural only if explicitly shown in\r
one of the source dictionaries.  Finally, consider the suffix -enchyma.\r
This is shown as having two plurals, -enchymas and -enchymata.  We\r
reluctantly accept both plurals, the reluctance stemming from the fact\r
that not a single word so suffixed is listed anywhere with an explicit\r
plural.  This lack lends more credibility to the natural plural form.\r
But since the suffix plural is the only piece of explicit information we\r
have, we have no better option than to believe it, and list both plurals.\r
\r
6.  For help in resolving difficult cases, the ENABLE2K compilers have\r
used a few secondary sources of additional information.  These are the\r
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary,\r
the list of accepted words in British Scrabble(r) (OSW), and the list of\r
words accepted by the Hasbro computer Scrabble game.  The Merriam-Webster\r
Medical Dictionary was especially valuable for finding plurals of\r
biological and medical words, not least because this dictionary is far\r
more explicit about pluralization than any of the general-purpose\r
dictionaries.  When MWMD shows no explicit plural for "bronchitis", one\r
feels safe in assuming that it regards "bronchitises" as the only plural.\r
If "bronchites" or "bronchitides" were considered acceptable, I feel\r
certain MWMD would have made explicit mention of them.\r
\r
\r
ENABLE2K is comprised of a main word list (short words from OSPD and\r
long words from MW10), plus a number of additional lists.  When, as a\r
result of this research, new plurals were found or previously recorded\r
plurals were invalidated, there remained the issue of how to record the\r
changes.  When plurals were invalidated, there was no choice but to remove\r
them from the main list.  Invalid plurals were almost exclusively plurals\r
of diseases.  In a few cases, on the authority of MWMD, a new disease\r
plural was added directly to the main list.  This was especially necessary\r
when all the previously recorded plurals for a disease had been removed.\r
Beyond this, if a new plural was implied by an entry in MW10, the plural\r
was added to the MW10ADD list.  For long words, if a plural was listed or\r
implied by two other dictionaries (of the five used by ENABLE), it was\r
added to the 2DICTS list.  Similarly, for short words, any plural listed\r
or implied by a single source dictionary was added to the OSPDADD list.\r
Finally, all new plurals which were not placed directly into the main list\r
were added to the file PLURALS.LST.  This includes plurals of long words\r
only noted by a single source as well as irregular plurals which are\r
documented by no dictionary (other than OSW), but about which we are\r
highly confident, such as "mimeses".\r
\r
Note that the discussion above applies only to plurals which were added\r
for words already recognized as nouns.  It does not apply to any plural\r
added for a word which was previously recognized only as an adjective or\r
interjection.  For instance, the word "mutuals", the plural of a word\r
which is described by OSPD as an adjective, is not present in PLURALS.LST.\r
\r
As stated above, detailed information was collected on 800 words, giving\r
all possible reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) plurals, together\r
with the reasons for accepting them.  It is very unlikely that many\r
readers would find this data anything other than an exercise in boredom.\r
But I do think it worthwhile to list the final results, in terms of words\r
removed from the list and words added.  In most cases, decisions about\r
whether or not to include a possible plural were clear-cut.  In some\r
cases, such decisions were very much subject to debate, and I have chosen\r
to risk boring my audience by describing these situations.  Readers with\r
less than obsessive interest in the subject may well wish to stop reading\r
at this point.\r
\r
(I have chosen only to give data on plurals for words whose singular form\r
is present in the main ENABLE2K word list.  However, similar decisions\r
were also required for the plurals of words in the supplemental lists, and\r
were made in the same way, for the same kinds of reasons.)\r
\r
The following purported plurals were removed from WORD.LST because no\r
adequate justification could be found for including them.\r
\r
amyloidosises\r
appendicites\r
appendicitides\r
ariboflavinosises\r
babesiosises\r
bronchites\r
bronchitides\r
carcinomatosises\r
cellulitides\r
cervicites\r
cervicitides\r
cholecystites\r
cholecystitises\r
conjunctivites\r
conjunctivitides\r
dermatites\r
diverticulites\r
diverticulitides\r
diverticulosises\r
endocytosises\r
endometriosises\r
endometrites\r
endometritides\r
epididymites\r
epididymitides\r
fibrosites\r
fibrositides\r
folluluiculites\r
folluluiculitides\r
gastroenteritises\r
gingivites\r
gingivitides\r
hallucinosises\r
hemochromatosises\r
heterokaryosises\r
histoplasmosises\r
keratoconjuctivites\r
keratoconjuctivitides\r
laryngites\r
laryngitises\r
leukocytosises\r
lymphocytosises\r
mastoidites\r
mastoiditises\r
mononucleosises\r
myxomatosises\r
neurofibromatosises\r
pediculosises\r
periostites\r
periostitides\r
peritonites\r
peritonitides\r
pneumonites\r
pneumonitises\r
pollenosises\r
pollinosises\r
prediabeteses\r
premaxillas\r
pronephroses\r
prostatites\r
prostatitides\r
psittacosises\r
saccharomyceses\r
salpiglosses\r
salpingites\r
salpingitides\r
scintillae\r
spondylites\r
spondylitides\r
sporotrichosises\r
strongyloidosises\r
tendinites\r
tendinitides\r
tendonites\r
tendonitides\r
thyroidites\r
thyroiditides\r
tonsillites\r
tonsillitides\r
tracheites\r
tracheitides\r
trichinosises\r
tympaniteses\r
urethrites\r
urethritides\r
vaginitises\r
valvulites\r
valvulitides\r
vulvovaginitises\r
\r
As a general rule, additional plurals were added to an appropriate\r
supplemental list rather than  to the main list.  However, a few were\r
added directly to WORD.LST.  With one exception (salpiglossises), these\r
were all plurals of medical terms supported by the MW Medical Dictionary.\r
These additional plurals are:\r
\r
arteritides\r
carditides\r
gastritises\r
pronephroi\r
salpiglossises\r
tsutsugamushis\r
uveitides\r
vaginitides\r
vulvovaginitides\r
\r
The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by two dictionaries (for\r
long words), or by one (for short words).  Because the evidence for these\r
plurals is unequivocal, they were all added to the main ENABLE list as\r
"signature words" (see SIGWORD.DOC) unless they were also present in the\r
new MW10 words list (MW10ADD.LST).  Entries in this list marked with an\r
asterisk are new to the first revision of the ENABLE2K supplement, and\r
are not signature words, as the signature words were not changed for this\r
revision.\r
\r
acciaccature\r
aliyoth\r
amphisbaenae\r
antefixae\r
antipastos\r
armamentariums\r
bacchanalias\r
barramundies\r
bedsoniae\r
bialies\r
bonsais\r
buckos\r
buncoes\r
bunkoes\r
cafetoria\r
calvariums\r
calzoni*\r
cannolis\r
canolas\r
castratos\r
chapaties\r
chapatties\r
chedarim\r
chilis\r
chitals\r
colobuses\r
concertini\r
corneae\r
corpuses\r
coteaus\r
creodonta\r
cyclopes\r
daemones\r
dentaliums\r
dickys\r
dominatrixes\r
droshkys\r
droskys\r
drosophilae\r
effluviums*\r
emeritas\r
enchiridions\r
enureses\r
epineuria\r
epitheliums\r
esophaguses\r
farragos\r
fianchetti\r
filses\r
forzandi*\r
frangipanis\r
gateaus\r
gemeinschaften\r
gingkos*\r
haftoros*\r
haikus\r
halachoth\r
hamadryades\r
helleris\r
herbariums\r
heterokarya\r
kaddishes\r
kiddushim\r
klezmers\r
kobos\r
kois\r
kolache\r
kurtoses\r
kwachas\r
kylices\r
mafiosos\r
mahimahis\r
megilloth\r
metencephalons\r
midrashot\r
mikvos\r
mikvot\r
mucros\r
muskellunges\r
myelencephalons\r
myrmidones*\r
nairas\r
nancys\r
nereises\r
notornes\r
omnibusses\r
osteites\r
ostinati\r
ouguiyas\r
oxymorons\r
palaestras\r
palpebras\r
pancratia\r
panettoni\r
paradores\r
parae\r
parashot\r
pastorali\r
penicilliums\r
phylloxerae\r
pingoes\r
portamentos\r
prezzes*\r
proscenia\r
prosomata\r
protozoons\r
qindarkas\r
quadrivia\r
quarterstaffs\r
ranulae\r
reais*\r
rhinencephalons\r
rilievos\r
rubati\r
saltarelli\r
santimu*\r
scarabaei\r
schnozes\r
scleromas\r
scriptoriums\r
siliculas\r
siliquas\r
sinfonias\r
soleuses\r
sostenuti\r
spaetzles*\r
spatzles\r
squeteagues\r
strappadoes\r
substratums\r
succubas\r
superstratums\r
synkarya\r
talliths\r
tandoors\r
tectums\r
tessiture\r
thebes\r
toeas\r
triskelia\r
tusses\r
ulpans\r
uredines\r
usneae\r
vibriones\r
violoncellos\r
vitelli\r
wackoes\r
wendigoes\r
windigoes\r
wizzes\r
wunderkinds\r
xystuses\r
zoariums\r
\r
The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by only a single\r
dictionary (and therefore were not added to the 2DICTS.LST file).\r
\r
administratrixes\r
aggiornamenti\r
andantini\r
appoggiature\r
barricados\r
brontosauri\r
buttinskys*\r
chylomicra\r
clostridiums\r
condominia\r
contralti\r
cypripedia\r
decrescendi\r
diminuendoes\r
encephalons\r
epilimnia\r
epiphenomenons\r
fricandeaux\r
gesellschaften\r
hydromedusas\r
kilohertzes\r
megahertzes\r
microfilarias\r
millimicra*\r
neurohypophysises\r
oesophaguses\r
opprobria\r
perihelions\r
phosphori\r
pococuranti\r
risorgimenti\r
scherzandi\r
stegosauri\r
submaxillas\r
tomatilloes\r
zucchetti\r
\r
Determining the plurals for the following words was not completely\r
obvious, and there is room for disagreement with my conclusions.  However,\r
I am reasonably confident that I made the right choices.  Because of the\r
potent for controversy, I am giving information about cases where plurals\r
were not added as well as ones in which they were.  In the lists below,\r
a "=" precedes a plural listed in the previous version of ENABLE which I\r
retained, a "!" indicates a potential plural which was not added, a "+"\r
indicates a plural which was added, and a "-" indicates a previously\r
accepted plural which was rejected.\r
\r
acetum\r
   =aceta, +acetums\r
acromion\r
   =acromia, +acromions\r
agape\r
   =agapae, =agapai, !agapes\r
alewife\r
   =alewives, !alewifes\r
alnico\r
   =alnicoes, +alnicos\r
anestrus\r
   =anestri, +anestruses\r
anthrax\r
   =anthraces, !anthraxes\r
arcana\r
   =arcana, +arcanas\r
archenteron\r
   +archentera, =archenterons\r
arras\r
   =arras, +arrases\r
asparagus\r
   =asparagus, +asparaguses\r
barytes\r
   =barytes, !baryteses\r
behalf\r
   !behalfs, =behalves\r
blowby\r
   !blowbies, =blowbys\r
broadleaf\r
   !broadleafs, =broadleaves\r
bute\r
   =bute, +butes\r
buttinski\r
   =buttinskies, +buttinskis\r
cacoethes\r
   =cacoethes, !cacoetheses\r
cannelloni\r
   =cannelloni, !cannellonis\r
chlamydia\r
   =chlamydiae, +chlamydias\r
chloasma\r
   +chloasmas, =chloasmata\r
clavus\r
   =clavi, !clavuses\r
coloboma\r
   !colobomas, =colobomata\r
confetti\r
   =confetti, !confettis\r
coreopsis\r
   =coreopsis, +coreopsises\r
cowlstaff\r
   =cowlstaffs, =cowlstaves\r
culex\r
   +culexes, =culices\r
culpa\r
   =culpae, !culpas\r
czardas\r
   =czardas, +czardases\r
danish\r
   =danish, +danishes\r
dentalium\r
   =dentalia, +dentaliums\r
dessertspoonful\r
   =dessertspoonfuls, =dessertspoonsful\r
diencephalon\r
   =diencephala, +diencephalons\r
dipteron\r
   =diptera, !dipterons\r
endleaf\r
   !endleafs, =endleaves\r
epistaxis\r
   =epistaxes, !epistaxises\r
eremurus\r
   =eremuri, !eremuruses\r
exedra\r
   =exedrae, +exedras\r
falafel\r
   =falafel, +falafels\r
felafel\r
   =felafel, +felafels\r
fettucine\r
   =fettucine, !fettucines\r
fettucini\r
   =fettucini, !fettucinis\r
fettuccine\r
   =fettuccine, !fettuccines\r
fettuccini\r
   =fettuccini, !fettuccinis\r
flanken\r
   =flanken, +flankens\r
flyleaf\r
   !flyleafs, =flyleaves\r
fortis\r
   =fortes, !fortises\r
franglais\r
   =franglais, !franglaises\r
gaposis\r
   !gaposes, =gaposises\r
gesso\r
   =gessoes, !gessos\r
gingko\r
   =gingkoes, !gingkos\r
gnocchi\r
   =gnocchi, !gnocchis\r
gonion\r
   =gonia, +gonions\r
greek\r
   =greek, !greeks\r
gules\r
   =gules, !guleses\r
gusto\r
   =gustoes, !gustos\r
hades\r
   =hades, !hadeses\r
hafiz\r
   =hafis, +hafizes\r
herma\r
   =hermae, =hermai, !hermas\r
herpes\r
   =herpes, !herpeses\r
hesperidium\r
   =hesperidia, !hesperidiums\r
highlife\r
   =highlifes, !highlives\r
hokku\r
   =hokku, !hokkus\r
hornfels\r
   =hornfels, !hornfelses\r
hypolimnion\r
   =hypolimnia, +hypolimnions\r
impatiens\r
   =impatiens, +impatienses\r
inion\r
   =inia, +inions\r
kazachok\r
   =kazachki, +kazachoks\r
kermes\r
   =kermes, +kermeses\r
kerygma\r
   +kerygmas, =kerygmata\r
kreplach\r
   =kreplach, !kreplaches\r
kuchen\r
   =kuchen, +kuchens\r
laches\r
   =laches, !lacheses\r
leatherleaf\r
   !leatherleafs, =leatherleaves\r
lenis\r
   =lenes, !lenises\r
lexis\r
   =lexes, +lexises\r
linguine\r
   =linguines\r
linguini\r
   =linguinis\r
lues\r
   =lues, !lueses\r
manicotti\r
   =manicotti, +manicottis\r
meatloaf\r
   =meatloaves, !meatloafs\r
mesencephalon\r
   =mesencephala, +mesencephalons\r
mesenteron\r
   =mesentera, !mesenterons\r
mesonephros\r
   =mesonephroi, !mesonephroses\r
metanephros\r
   =metanephroi, !metanephroses\r
midlife\r
   !midlifes, =midlives\r
mooncalf\r
   !mooncalfs, =mooncalves\r
multimedia\r
   =multimedia, =multimedias\r
mythos\r
   =mythoi, !mythoses\r
nachas\r
   =nachas, !nachases\r
naches\r
   =naches, !nacheses\r
nene\r
   =nene, +nenes\r
nephritis\r
   =nephritides, +nephritises\r
notornis\r
   +notornes, =notornis, +notornises\r
nucha\r
   =nuchae, !nuchas\r
ornis\r
   +ornises, =ornithes\r
osculum\r
   =oscula, !osculums\r
parashah\r
   +parashahs, =parashioth, +parashot, =parashoth\r
peculium\r
   =peculia, !peculiums\r
plasmodesm\r
   =plasmodesma, =plasmodesmata, +plasmodesms\r
procambium\r
   =procambia, =procambiums\r
propylon\r
   =propyla, +propylons\r
prosencephalon\r
   =prosencephala, !prosencephalas, +prosencephalons\r
pseudomonas\r
   =pseudomonades, !pseudomonases\r
psoas\r
   =psoae, =psoai, !psoases\r
pyknosis\r
   =pyknoses, !pyknosises\r
qwerty\r
   !qwerties, =qwertys\r
rhombencephalon\r
   =rhombencephala, +rhombencephalons\r
rotorcraft\r
   =rotorcraft, !rotorcrafts\r
sanies\r
   =sanies, !sanieses\r
saphena\r
   =saphenae, !saphenas\r
sartorius\r
   =sartorii, !sartoriuses\r
sastruga\r
   +sastrugas, =sastrugi\r
scalenus\r
   =scaleni, !scalenuses\r
schul\r
   =schuln, +schuls\r
solidus\r
   =solidi, +soliduses\r
strappado\r
   =strappadoes, +strappados\r
superphenomenon\r
   =superphenomena, +superphenomenons\r
surimi\r
   =surimi, +surimis\r
swingby\r
   !swingbies, =swingby\r
tabes\r
   =tabes, !tabeses\r
taka\r
   =taka, +takas\r
tallis\r
   +tallises, =tallisim\r
tallit\r
   +tallits, =tallitim\r
taxis\r
   =taxes, !taxises\r
tegmentum\r
   =tegmenta, !tegmentums\r
telencephalon\r
   =telencephala, +telencephalons\r
testatrix\r
   =testatrices, +testatrixes\r
torr\r
   =torr, +torrs\r
tsimmes\r
   =tsimmes, +tsimmeses\r
tzimmes\r
   =tzimmes, +tzimmeses\r
utriculus\r
   =utriculi, !utriculuses\r
vagus\r
   =vagi, !vaguses\r
vermis\r
   =vermes, !vermises\r
viewdata\r
   =viewdata, +viewdatas\r
whiz\r
   !whizes, =whizzes\r
wildlife\r
   =wildlife, !wildlifes, !wildlives\r
witan\r
   =witan, +witans\r
zastruga\r
   +zastrugas, =zastrugi\r
\r
(During the work on this revision of ENABLE2K, two further words with\r
questionable plurals turned up.  These words were overlooked in the\r
investigations described in the document.  The status quo for these\r
words is not outrageous, so I have not made the attempt to resolve\r
them at this time.  These words are:\r
\r
avoirdupois\r
   !avoirdupois, =avoirdupoises\r
flak\r
   =flak, !flaks\r
)\r
\r
Finally, we have the list of difficult cases.  These are the words for\r
which I found decisions far from obvious, and where I think a reasonable\r
reviewer might have good cause to question my conclusions.  For each\r
potential plural, in additional to the marks described above, a "?" is\r
used to indicate those plurals that are dubious, and a brief debate is\r
given on the merits of accepting or rejecting the plural.  A * marks the\r
"winning" side to such debates (which is almost always the last side to\r
speak).  In some cases, you may well find the losing side of the debate\r
more eloquent or convincing.  You may also find these decisions to be\r
inconsistent, and that evidence for a plural adequate in one case was\r
found inadequate in another.  Life is like that sometimes.\r
\r
aerenchyma\r
   =aerenchymas, +?aerenchymata\r
\r
   Con: I have found no evidence at all for the use of "aerenchymata".\r
  *Pro: MW10 shows that one plural of -enchyma is -enchymata.  In\r
        practice, "aerenchyma" (a sort of tissue) is a word very\r
        unlikely to be used in the plural, regular or not, so why\r
        not accept the one slightly relevant piece of evidence we've\r
        got?\r
\r
allodium\r
   =allodia, +?allodiums\r
alodium\r
   =alodia, +?alodiums\r
\r
   Con: "allodium" is a technical legal term, for which one expects\r
        a Latin plural, as shown by OSPD and RHWCD.\r
  *Pro: "allodiums" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW4.\r
\r
alphosis\r
   =alphosises, +?alphoses\r
\r
   Con: OSPD says "alphosises" is the only plural of "alphosis".\r
  *Pro: "alphosis" is a medical term.  For it not to have an -oses\r
        plural would be highly surprising.\r
\r
apomixis\r
   =apomixes, +?apomixises\r
\r
   Con: As a scientific word, "apomixis" should be assumed to have only\r
        a Latinate plural.  Further, neither OSW nor OSPD lists\r
        "apomixises".\r
  *Pro: There is little consistency to the way that dictionaries list\r
        plurals for words ending in -mixis.  Given the failure to show\r
        an explicit plural of "apomixis" by several of the source\r
        dictionaries, and the fact that a plural ending in -mixises is\r
        listed, or even preferred, for other such words, it seems best\r
        to accept such a plural here as well.  A close call.\r
\r
arteritis\r
   =?arteritides, +arteritises\r
\r
   Con: I can find no sign of acceptance of "arteritides", except...\r
  *Pro: According to the web pages describing TWL98, it accepts the\r
        validity of "arteritides". Since the Merriam-Webster crew was\r
        involved with defining TWL98, there may be something to it.\r
\r
asperges\r
   =asperges, !?aspergeses\r
\r
   Pro: None of the source dictionaries indicate that "asperges" is\r
        irregular.\r
  *Con: It is most unusual for words ending in -es (pronounced "eez")\r
        to add another -es for the plural.  ("herculeses" is an\r
        exception.)\r
\r
behoof\r
   !?behoofs, =behooves\r
\r
   Pro: Most of the source dictionaries do not show a special plural\r
        for "behoof", and OSW lists "behoofs".\r
  *Con: There is substantial documentation for "behooves" as the only\r
        plural.  This is a very close call.\r
\r
bris\r
   !?brises, =brisses\r
\r
   Pro: None of the source dictionaries (other than OSPD) show an\r
        irregular plural, leading to a strong implication of the\r
        correctness of "brises".\r
  *Con: OSPD shows only "brisses", and, to my eye, "brisses" seems\r
        much more natural.\r
\r
calo\r
   =calo, +?calos\r
\r
   Con: With so little evidence, there's no point in trying to second-\r
        guess OSPD.  Failure of MW10 to list a plural is probably\r
        an oversight, or an indication of the lack of use of the plural.\r
  *Pro: Because one expects irregular plurals for -o words, dictionaries\r
        tend to list explicit plurals somewhat more often than for other\r
        sorts of words.  Accordingly, failure to list a plural for one is\r
        stronger evidence of regularity than in the general case.\r
\r
cementum\r
   =cementa, +?cementums\r
\r
   Con: One expects "cementum", as a medical term, to have a Latinate\r
        plural.\r
  *Pro: So why doesn't any dictionary (other than OSPD and OSW)\r
        document "cementa"?\r
\r
cestos\r
   =cestoi, +?cestoses\r
\r
   Con: Another case of almost no evidence.  But RHWCD lists "cestos" as\r
        a variant of "cestus", whose plural is "cesti".  This leads one\r
        to expect a Latin/Greek plural for "cestos" as well.\r
  *Pro: But RHWCD could say so, and it doesn't.  Further, "cestoses" is\r
        in OSW.\r
\r
charisma\r
   !?charismas, =charismata\r
\r
   Pro: Can you imagine Dan Rather contrasting the "charismata" of\r
        the various presidential hopefuls?\r
  *Con: But virtually all my sources are convinced "charismata" is\r
        the only accepted plural.\r
\r
chlorenchyma\r
   =chlorenchymas, +?chlorenchymata\r
\r
   See "aerenchyma".\r
\r
collenchyma\r
   =collenchymas, +?collenchymata\r
\r
   See "aerenchyma".\r
\r
departed\r
   =departed, !?departeds\r
\r
   Pro: There are precedents for this construction, such as "marrieds"\r
        and "insureds".\r
  *Con: But "departeds" just doesn't ring true.\r
\r
dihedron\r
   +?dihedra, =dihedrons\r
\r
  *Pro: Anyone who studied geometry in high school knows the preferred\r
        plural for -hedron is -hedra.  And OSW lists "dihedra".\r
   Con: The listings in the primary dictionaries for the other -hedron\r
        words give explicit -hedra plurals.  The absence of such listings\r
        for "dihedron" is strong evidence against "dihedra".\r
\r
dynein\r
   =dynein, +?dyneins\r
\r
   Con: Very little evidence here, as the word is listed only in OSPD\r
        and MW10.  Best to trust OSPD.\r
  *Pro: "dynein", a chemical name, is just not the sort of word one\r
        expects to be its own plural.\r
\r
ecesis\r
   +?eceses, =ecesises\r
\r
  *Pro: "ecesis" is a technical term, clearly of Greek origin, exactly\r
        the sort of word one expects to have a -ses plural.\r
   Con: OSPD says it's "ecesises", and I can't find any actual evidence\r
        to overrule it.\r
\r
ed\r
   =ed, +?eds\r
\r
   Con: In many contexts, "education" is a collective noun that doesn't\r
        pluralize, and that "ed" should have the same property is quite\r
        reasonable.\r
  *Pro: But it's not obviously so, especially when no non-Scrabble\r
        dictionary mentions it.\r
\r
endomixis\r
   +?endomixes, =?endomixises\r
\r
   Con: Only OSPD and OSW say anything about plurals for this word.\r
        There aren't enough -mixis words to establish a pattern.  For\r
        the other -mixis words, MW10 lists a -mixes plural, but for\r
        "endomixis" it does not.  This serves as evidence for\r
        "endomixises".\r
  *Pro: The "endomixes" plural is clearly more natural.  OSW lists both\r
        plurals, which seems like a reasonable solution.\r
\r
enosis\r
   !?enoses, =enosises\r
\r
   Pro: "enosis" is derived from Greek, and OSW shows "enoses" as the\r
        plural.\r
  *Con: "enosis" comes from modern, not ancient Greek, and is a\r
        political rather than a scientific term, which makes the\r
        absence of the usual -oses plural more plausible.\r
\r
fractus\r
   =fracti, !?fractuses\r
\r
   Pro: WNW fails to give an explicit plural for "fractus".  Since WNW\r
        is the only source dictionary listing this word, all the evidence\r
        we have points to a regular English plural.\r
  *Con: Other cloud names have only Latinate plurals.  Also, since\r
        "fractus" is listed in only one source dictionary, there is\r
        insufficent evident to overrule OSPD.\r
\r
gammadion\r
   =gammadia, +gammadions\r
\r
   Con: "gammadion" is clearly Greek-derived, so why expect a regular\r
        English plural?\r
  *Pro: The documentation for "gammadia" is insufficent to make me\r
        reject the implied "gammadions".\r
\r
gastritis\r
   +?gastritides, +gastritises\r
\r
   See "arteritis".\r
\r
gelati\r
   =gelati, +?gelatis\r
\r
   Con: "gelati" is already plural.\r
  *Pro: Not according to several dictionaries.\r
\r
go\r
    +?gos\r
\r
    Con: So what is the plural of the Japanese game "go"?  Is it "go",\r
         since Japanese itself has no plural.  Or is it "goes", the same\r
         as the plural of the verb "go"?\r
   *Pro: In the absence of an explicit plural, "gos" is what you'd\r
         expect.  And OSW lists it.\r
\r
grandiflora\r
   =?grandiflorae, =grandifloras\r
\r
   Con: "grandiflora" is a species name, and such names only\r
        infrequently have Latinate plurals.  Given the lack of\r
        documentation for "grandiflorae", the logical assumption is\r
        that only "grandifloras" is used.\r
  *Pro: "flora" pluralizes as "florae" as well as "floras".  So why\r
        shouldn't "grandiflora" follow the pattern?\r
\r
gravlax\r
   =gravlax, !?gravlaxes\r
\r
   Pro: None of the non-OSPD sources indicate that "gravlax" is plural,\r
        and OSW lists "gravlaxes".\r
  *Con: In the definition of "gravlax" ("smoked salmon"), "salmon"\r
        itself is plural.  How much more explicit do you need to\r
        be?\r
\r
hao\r
   =hao, !?haos\r
\r
   Pro: Neither RHWCD nor AH give an explicit plural for "hao".  Since\r
        "hao" is a currency, this is enough justification to list it\r
        (see "pula").\r
  *Con: All other listed Vietnamese currencies are self-plural.  And\r
        both RHWCD and AH, despite failing to specify a plural in their\r
        definitions, use "hao" as a plural in their currency tables.\r
\r
hypermedia\r
   =hypermedia, +?hypermedias\r
\r
   Con: "media" is plural, so is "hypermedia".\r
  *Pro: MW10's rather strange definition of "hypermedia" ("a database\r
        format") is clearly singular, with a meaningful plural.\r
\r
inion\r
   =inia, +?inions\r
\r
   Con: "inion" is an anatomical term, and should have a Latinate plural.\r
        OSPD says it does.  What's the problem?\r
  *Pro: Only OSPD and OSW show the Latinate plural.  Everyone else,\r
        including MW Medical, fails to mention it.  Especially since\r
        "inion" doesn't look particularly foreign, this is most likely\r
        intended to indicate a regular plural.\r
\r
jackanapes\r
   =jackanapes, =?jackanapeses\r
\r
   Con: "jackanapeses"?  Aw, come on, pull the other one.\r
  *Pro: "jackanapeses" is recognized by the Hasbro Scrabble game, and\r
        only one source dictionary (Encarta (r)) contradicts this.  A\r
        very close call.\r
\r
jailbait\r
   =jailbait, !?jailbaits\r
\r
   Pro: "jailbait" means "a girl under the age of consent".  This clearly\r
        has a meaningful plural.  In the absence of contrary information,\r
        that plural must be "jailbaits".\r
  *Con: "bait", in the sense of "food used as a fishing lure", is a\r
        collective noun.  We speak of buying "bait", not "baits".\r
        "jailbait" is derived from this usage of "bait".  Besides, can\r
        anyone imagine overhearing "Oh man!  Look at those jailbaits!"\r
\r
jejunum\r
   =jejuna, !?jejunums\r
\r
   Pro: A majority of the ENABLE dictionaries as well as MW10 leave out\r
        any plural for "jejunum".  While the word is certainly strange,\r
        it doesn't have the feel that would lead one to assume a Latin\r
        plural.\r
  *Con: No one but a medical professional is going to speak or write about\r
        a "jejunum", much less more than one.  And MW Medical testifies\r
        that they'll be using the -a plural.\r
\r
jiao\r
   =jiao, !?jiaos\r
\r
   See "hao", replacing Vietnam with China.  (Since "jiao" is not listed\r
   in MW10's currency table, the part of the argument about currency\r
   tables does not apply.)\r
\r
kenosis\r
   +?kenoses, =kenosises\r
\r
   See "mimesis".  It should be noted that it is almost impossible to\r
   imagine a circumstance where "kenosis" might be used in the plural.\r
\r
lez\r
   !?lezes, =lezzes\r
\r
   Pro: "lezes" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW.  Additionally, the\r
        plural of the variant spelling "les" is "leses", since "lesses" is\r
        clearly wrong.\r
  *Con: "lezzes" has more support, and is a far more sensible spelling.\r
\r
lochia\r
   =lochia, +?lochias\r
\r
   Con: OSPD and The MW Medical Dictionary agree that "lochia" is its\r
        own plural.  Isn't that enough?\r
  *Pro: But none of the primary dictionaries that actually list\r
        "lochia" support this conclusion.\r
\r
logos\r
   =logoi, !?logoses\r
\r
   Pro: Besides OSPD, the only actual evidence for "logoi" is in\r
        MW10 which, since it capitalizes "Logos", is irrelevant.\r
  *Con: "logos" is a Greek word used as a technical term used in\r
        philosophy and theology.  One expects a Greek plural, and one\r
        assumes that anyone erudite enough to actually use the word will\r
        recognize that.  Besides, "logoses" is awkward.  Another very\r
        close call.\r
\r
lordosis\r
   =lordoses, !?lordosises\r
\r
   Pro: "lordosis" is not an -osis in the usual way the suffix is\r
        used.  A majority of the source dictionaries give no explicit\r
        plural, which, in these cirucmstances, is support for a\r
        regular English plural.\r
  *Con: A sufficent number of sources document "lordoses" to make\r
        "lordosises" rather unlikely.\r
\r
malines\r
   =malines, !?malineses\r
\r
   Pro: "malines" is a fabric, it should have a plural.  And no\r
        source dictionary shows it as its own plural.\r
  *Con: The "s" in "malines" is silent.  Given that, is "malineses"\r
        a reasonable spelling for the plural?  Besides which, a\r
        variant of "malines" is "maline".  I consider it to be\r
        possible that "malines" was originally a plural for which\r
        the singular gradually dropped out of usage.\r
\r
mankind\r
   =mankind, !?mankinds\r
\r
   Pro: OSW lists "mankinds", and none of the source dictionaries\r
        actually labels "mankind" as already plural.\r
  *Con: "mankinds"?  You gotta be kidding!\r
\r
metacercaria\r
   =metacercariae, !?metacercarias\r
\r
   Pro: MW10 is the only dictionary listing "metacercaria", and it\r
        implies a regular plural.\r
  *Con: Three tertiary sources, including the MW Medical Dictionary,\r
        give the plural as "metacercariae", and it is the sort of\r
        word one expects to have an irregular plural.\r
\r
mimesis\r
   +?mimeses, =mimesises\r
\r
   Con: OSPD shows "mimesis" as regular, and no source dictionary\r
        contradicts this.\r
  *Pro: This word screams for a Latinate plural, which is listed by\r
        OSW.\r
\r
muggins\r
   =muggins, +?mugginses\r
\r
   Con: "mugginses" is pretty damn unnatural.\r
  *Pro: It's not all that much worse than "joneses".  And it's listed\r
        by OSW.  Still, a very close call.\r
\r
natriuresis\r
   =natriureses, !?natriuresises\r
\r
   Pro: No source actually lists "natriureses", including the MW\r
        Medical Dictionary.  Because MWMD is so consistently precise\r
        about plurals, this is strong evidence that in fact the plural\r
        is regular.\r
  *Con: Not strong enough!\r
\r
noesis\r
   +?noeses, =noesises\r
\r
   See "mimesis".\r
\r
omphalos\r
   =omphali, +?omphaloses\r
\r
   Con: It's Greek, and obviously Greek.  Enough said.\r
  *Pro: Though I don't know Greek, if "omphalos" took a Greek plural, and\r
        conformed to the pattern of other Greek-derived -os words in\r
        English, its plural would be "omphaloi".  For this reason, failure\r
        of multiple dictionaries to list an explicit plural cannot be\r
        construed as evidence for "omphali".\r
\r
omphaloskepsis\r
   =omphaloskepses, !?omphaloskepsises\r
\r
   Pro: This is one of the most frustrating words of the 170,000 in\r
        ENABLE2K, because there is no evidence!  In the absence of\r
        evidence, we have no choice but to assume a regular plural.\r
  *Con: Not so.  "omphaloskepsis" reeks of Greek.  Do you really\r
        think it has an regular English plural?  (Either way, or\r
        even both ways at once, I'm not convinced.)\r
\r
once\r
   =once, +?onces\r
\r
   Con: It seems that "once" is a noun, meaning "one single time".\r
        OK, but can a word meaning "one single time" actually have a\r
        plural?\r
  *Pro: Sure.  Here's an example:  "We had each tried LSD once, but\r
        our onces had affected us quite differently."\r
\r
oyes\r
   !?oyeses, =oyesses\r
\r
   Pro: "oyeses" is listed in OSW, and implied by a solid majority\r
        of the source dictionaries.\r
  *Con: "oyesses" is a far more reasonable plural, and is adequately\r
        documented.\r
\r
oyez\r
   =oyesses, !?oyezes\r
\r
   Pro: See "oyes" Pro.  In addition, "oyesses" is a pretty weird\r
        plural for "oyez".  If it were beyond dispute, don't you\r
        think that all of the dictionaries would have mentioned it?\r
  *Con: Yes, there is a strong case for "oyezes".  But if I accept\r
        it, I have little justification for rejecting "oyeses" as\r
        a plural of "oyes", even though it seems to me clearly wrong.\r
\r
panmixis\r
   +panmixes, +?panmixises\r
\r
   See "apomixis" and "endomixis".  (One difference from "endomixis":\r
   OSW does not list "panmixes", but OSPD does.)\r
\r
parenchyma\r
   =parenchymas, +?parenchymata\r
\r
   See "aerenchyma".\r
\r
paterfamilias\r
   !?paterfamiliases, =patresfamilias\r
\r
   Pro: "paterfamiliases" is implied by RHWCD, and explicitly listed\r
        by RH Unabridged.\r
  *Con: Insufficent, when compared to the weight of evidence against\r
        it.\r
\r
penne\r
    =penne, !?pennes\r
\r
    Pro: "pennes" is listed by OSW, and implied by Encarta.\r
   *Con: Admittedly, some pastas are plural and some pastas are\r
         singular.  But the evidence that "penne" is plural is\r
         much stronger than the evidence it is not.\r
\r
pereion\r
   +pereia, !?pereions\r
pereon\r
   +perea, !?pereons\r
\r
   Pro: The only listing of these words outside of OSPD is in MW10, and\r
        it implies a regular plural.\r
  *Con: You expect a word meaning "an anatomical part of a crustacean" to\r
        have a regular plural?\r
\r
pinyin\r
   =pinyin, !?pinyins\r
\r
   Pro: "pinyins" is clearly implied everywhere "pinyin" is listed,\r
        including OSPD (before emendation by TWL98).\r
  *Con: But TWL98 got it right.  There is only one "pinyin".\r
\r
pocketful:\r
   =pocketfuls, =?pocketsful\r
\r
   Con: "pocketsful" is cited as a valid plural by AH3, but not by MW10.\r
        Also, since MW10 lists the only plural of the suffix -ful as\r
        -fuls, "pocketsful" is not even implied by MW10.  Since the main\r
        ENABLE word list should contain only words from OSPD and MW10,\r
        "pocketsful" should be removed.\r
  *Pro: "pocketsful" was added to the list of valid words by the TWL98\r
        committee.  Where plausible, such changes should be included\r
        even without support from MW10 (see also "mongoloids" and\r
        "samaritans".)\r
\r
postcava\r
   =postcavae, !?postcavas\r
\r
   Pro: If there were a word "cava" with plural "cavae", the implication\r
        of "postcavae" would be strong.  Without it, the failure of MW10\r
        and AH3 to show a plural must be considered evidence favoring\r
        "postcavas".\r
  *Con: There is no explicit evidence for "postcavas" and one expects\r
        a Latinate plural for such anatomical terms.  Also, "postcavae"\r
        is implied by the plural "venae cavae" of "vena cava".  A close\r
        call.\r
\r
pronephros\r
   +pronephra, +pronephroi, -?pronephroses\r
\r
  *Pro: The Hasbro Scrabble game accepts "pronephroses".  While\r
        this is not the strongest possible evidence, we should not\r
        casually disregard it.\r
   Con: The evidence for the irregular plurals is strong, and it\r
        is likely that the entries showing no explicit plural (MW10\r
        and WNW) are oversights rather than testimony for a regular\r
        plural.  Also, there is no particular evidence of a regular\r
        plural for *any* -nephros word.  Yet another close call.\r
\r
prosenchyma\r
   =prosenchymas, +?prosenchymata\r
\r
   See "aerenchyma".\r
\r
pseudoparenchyma\r
   =pseudoparenchymas, +?pseudoparenchymata\r
\r
   See "aerenchyma".\r
\r
puerperium\r
   =puerperia, !?puerperiums\r
\r
  *Con: A clear majority of the sources list "puerperia" as the only\r
        plural, including MW Medical.\r
   Pro: Yeah, I suppose so.  But my intuitions lead me to expect\r
        "puerperiums" to also be acceptable.  While "puerperium" does\r
        indeed have a medical aspect, it's not quite the same sort of\r
        word as "diverticulum".\r
\r
pula\r
   =pula, +?pulas\r
\r
   Con: The evidence for "pula" is very weak, consisting of OSW and\r
        an omitted plural in AH3.\r
  *Pro: Currency plurals are one of the issues on which dictionaries\r
        strongly disagree.  By analogy with other currencies, AH3's\r
        omitted plural is better read as an endorsement of "pulas"\r
        than as some kind of oversight.\r
\r
pyrosis\r
   +?pyroses, =pyrosises\r
\r
   See "mimesis".\r
\r
quadrivium\r
   +quadrivia, =?quadriviums\r
\r
   Con: The issue is not whether to accept "quadrivia", which is\r
        listed by multiple sources, but whether to also accept\r
        "quadriviums".  One notes that there is unanimity that\r
        the only plural of "trivium" is "trivia".  Why should\r
        "quadrivium" be any different?\r
  *Pro: But a majority of the sources, including MW10, give no\r
        indication of an irregular plural.  Besides, the Hasbro\r
        game recognizes "quadriviums", and that should count for\r
        something.\r
\r
rapini\r
   =rapini, +?rapinis\r
\r
   Con: The situation of this word is *really* muddled.  It is not\r
        even in the paper OSPD, though there is good evidence it's\r
        supposed to be.  It's an alternate spelling for "rappini",\r
        which, according to OSPD and most other sources, is already\r
        plural, implying the nonexistence of "rapinis".\r
  *Pro: The definition of "rapini" in MW10 is a singular definition,\r
        not a plural.  Further, the Hasbro Scrabble computer game\r
        dictionary includes a definition of "rapini" as a word with a\r
        regular plural.  (It must be admitted, however, that the Hasbro\r
        game, despite the definition, does not actually accept "rapinis".)\r
\r
rappini\r
   =rappini, +?rappinis\r
\r
   See "rapini".  The sitation is slightly different, since the Hasbro\r
   game agrees with OSPD in this instance, but since "rapini" and\r
   "rappini" are alternate spellings of the same word, they ought not to\r
   have different forms of pluralization, at least not without good\r
   documentation thereof.\r
\r
reticulum\r
   =reticula, !?reticulums\r
\r
   Pro: "reticulums" is implied by MW10, and listed in OSW.\r
  *Con: Not very good evidence compared the rest of the American\r
        lexicographic world, all of which accept only "reticula".\r
        A close call.\r
\r
rufiyaa\r
   =rufiyaa, +?rufiyaas\r
\r
   See "pula".\r
\r
seecatch\r
   !?seecatches, =seecatchie\r
\r
   Pro: WNW4 fails to list a plural for "seecatch".  This can't be\r
        construed as support for "seecatchie", which is obviously a most\r
        unusual pluralization.\r
  *Con: Actually, WNW4 lists "seecatchie" as an alternate form of\r
        "seecatch".  Three other sources agree that "seecatchie" is\r
        the plural; the WNW4 entry is most easily explained as the\r
        result of confusion, rather than as evidence for "seecatches".\r
\r
serpigo\r
   =serpigines, =serpigoes, !?serpigos\r
\r
   Pro: More sources imply a regular plural for "serpigo" than list an\r
        irregular one.\r
  *Con: "serpigo" is a disease, and there is seldom call to use it in\r
        the plural.  No more than this should be read from the failure\r
        to mention a specific plural.\r
\r
shrapnel\r
   =shrapnel, +?shrapnels\r
\r
   Con: No reason to doubt OSPD and MW10 on this one.\r
  *Pro: In addition to the meaning of "fragments from a shell", an\r
        inherently plural meaning, "shrapnel" can also mean "a shell\r
        designed to scatter shrapnel".  This meaning is singular, and\r
        pretty obviously has a regular plural.  This is confirmed by\r
        OSW.\r
\r
skepsis\r
   !?skepses, =?skepsises\r
\r
   Pro: We've seen "omphalos" and "ompahloskepsis" - now here's the\r
        missing piece.  While it's true that no one lists the plural\r
        "skepses", that didn't keep us from accepting "mimeses" or\r
        "pyroses".\r
  *Con: This time, OSW agrees with OSPD, and lists only "skepsises".\r
        It's still a close thing, but without other evidence I'm not\r
        inclined to overrule them both.\r
\r
spermatheca\r
   =spermathecae, !?spermathecas\r
\r
   Pro: Three sources imply a regular plural for "spermatheca"; only one\r
        lists "spermathecae".\r
  *Con: A "spermatheca" is a kind of "theca", for which only the single\r
        plural "thecae" is listed.  Someone used to discussing thecae\r
        would clearly use the corresponding plural for the derived word.\r
\r
stereopsis\r
   =stereopses, =stereopsides, !?stereopsises\r
\r
   Pro: Other than the listing of -opsis in MW10, which shows plurals of\r
        -opses and -opsides, there is no evidence of any plural but a\r
        regular English one.\r
  *Con: "stereopsis" means "stereoscopic vision"; it is unlikely to be\r
        used in the plural.  This, rather than regularity, is the reason\r
        that lexicographers don't bother to list a plural.  Given this,\r
        the MW10 suffix information is the best we have.\r
\r
supersedeas\r
   =supersedeas, !?supersedeases\r
\r
   Pro: "supersedeas" doesn't conform to any of the patterns of self-\r
        plural English words, and unlike many such constructions,\r
        "supersedeases" sounds (to me) quite natural.  And only OSPD and\r
        RHWCD support the "supersedeas" plural.\r
  *Con: "supersedeas" is an old (15th century) legal term.  A regular\r
        plural is not especially to be expected.  Still, a close call.\r
\r
synesis\r
   +?syneses, =sysesises\r
\r
   See "mimesis".\r
\r
telos\r
   =teloi, +?teloses\r
\r
   Con: See "logos".\r
  *Pro: "logos" is not listed in OSW.  "telos" is, and according to OSW\r
        the plural is "teloses".\r
\r
triskelion\r
   +triskelia, =?triskelions\r
\r
   Con: The issue is not "triskelia", which is well-documented, but\r
        "triskelions", which is not accepted by any of ENABLE2K's sources\r
        except the Hasbro Scrabble computer game.  MW10's failure to list\r
        an explicit plural is most likely an oversight.\r
  *Pro: Nothing about "triskelion" leads one to doubt MW10's implication\r
        of a regular plural.  See "gammadion".\r
\r
tsooris\r
   =tsooris, !?tsoorises\r
tsores\r
   =tsores, !?tsoreses\r
tsoris\r
   =tsoris, !?tsorises\r
tsorris\r
   =tsorris, !?tsorrises\r
tsouris\r
   =tsouris, !?tsourises\r
tsuris\r
   =tsuris, !?tsurises\r
\r
   Pro: Not one of the listings for all these spellings of "tsuris" (the\r
        most accepted spelling) other than OSPD implies that the word is\r
        its own plural.  If it were, it seems like someone would have\r
        mentioned it.\r
  *Con: Mendel assures me from personal experience that, as a Yiddish\r
        synonym for "troubles", "tsuris" is already plural.  While the\r
        lexicographical evidence seems (to me) to support "tsurises", et.\r
        al., real word usage trumps scholarship, and I trust Mendel's\r
        expertise.  (Whether his expertise was in Yiddish, or in troubles,\r
        he didn't say.)\r
\r
tympanites\r
   =?tympanites, -?tympaniteses\r
\r
  *Con: "tympanites" is a medical condition, ending with an -eez sound.\r
        Such words (diabetes, calvities, rabies, etc.) consistently\r
        remain unchanged in the plural.  The only source for the -eses\r
        plural is the Hasbro Scrabble CD-ROM, not a source which, by\r
        itself, lends much credibility.\r
   Pro: Maybe so, but why doesn't anyone document this?  Even MW Medical\r
        implies a regular plural.  The -eses plural is ugly, but it is\r
        more consistent with the lexicographical evidence than the\r
        alternative.  This is another extremely close call.\r
\r
tzuris\r
   =tzuris, !?tzurises\r
\r
   See "tsooris", et. al.\r
\r
varia\r
   =varia, +?varias\r
\r
   Con: "varia" is already plural.\r
  *Pro: According to AH3, a "varia" is a "miscellany", a word with a\r
        singular meaning which admits a plural.\r
\r
waterleaf\r
   =waterleafs, !?waterleaves\r
\r
   Pro: While the "waterleafs" plural is well-documented, it is likely\r
        that "waterleaves" is also valid.  Several dictionaries list no\r
        plural for "waterleaf".  This implies a regular plural, which is\r
        "waterleaves", not "waterleafs".\r
  *Con: The listings for other plants whose names end in -leaf explicitly\r
        list the -leaves plural.  This leads me to believe that, in fact,\r
        a -leaves plural is considered irregular, and that omission of a\r
        plural actually implies -leafs.  (While all dictionaries state\r
        that implicit plurals are assumed to be regular, they don't\r
        generally state what regularity means.  Usually, it's obvious,\r
        but sometimes, as here or for words like "whiz" and "yes", a few\r
        details would be helpful.)\r
\r
womankind\r
   =womankind, !?womankinds\r
womenkind\r
   =womenkind, !?womenkinds\r
\r
   See "mankind".\r
\r
\r
---\r
Scrabble is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc.\r
The OSPD is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc.\r
Encarta is a trademark of the Microsoft Corp.\r
\r
\r
\r
--Alan Beale\r