+++ /dev/null
- 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
projects / deb_pkgs / scowl.git / blobdiff