--- /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