X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=deb_pkgs%2Fscowl.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=6%2Fr%2Fenable-sup%2Fplurals.doc;fp=6%2Fr%2Fenable-sup%2Fplurals.doc;h=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000;hp=2ffc24e4ec424ce745c7cd467233ee207dacf69e;hb=b13ea8a082364672c6de2b010e558211ff52ec9a;hpb=01534a94130c1f5a3a230cf4fe18365a235ba271 diff --git a/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc b/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc deleted file mode 100644 index 2ffc24e..0000000 --- a/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1591 +0,0 @@ - THE ENABLE2K "PLURAL REFORM" -ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ - - -All dictionaries, it would seem, have a "How to Use This Dictionary" -section which assures the reader that, whenever a noun has an irregular or -possibly confusing plural, all plurals will be explicitly stated in the -corresponding entry. In practice, all dictionaries routinely ignore this -promise. The result is that there are many nouns for which a correct -plural or plurals cannot easily be determined, and one who wishes to do so -is reduced to guesswork and pattern-matching. - -This fact of life has been a constant irritation during the compilation -of ENABLE. Midway into the compilation of ENABLE2K, I decided I'd really -had enough of dealing with this in a piecemeal way. I decided instead to -undertake a thorough study of the entire "plural situation", by gathering -information in one place about every listed noun lacking complete plural -information. Ultimately, a data base of around 800 words requiring careful -consideration was compiled; many other words were given a more superficial -examination. A side effect of this crusade was the discovery of a number -of plurals unnoted in previous versions of ENABLE whose correctness was -very well documented. - -Kinds of words for which the correct plural might be in doubt include: - -1. Scientific and technical words (e.g., paralysis). -2. Words of foreign origin (e.g., tableau). -3. Words ending in "f", "s" or "z" (e.g., asparagus). -4. Words ending in "o" (e.g., tomato). -5. Words with a collective meaning or unusual usage patterns (e.g., - jailbait, dickens). -6. Words similar to other words with irregular plurals (e.g., mongoose, - shaman). - -To complicate matters, it is clear that dictionary writers omit plurals -for a number of different reasons, including: - -1. The word has a regular English plural, and the compilers do not - anticipate any difficulties (e.g., circus). -2. The word's plural(s) can be predicted from the plural of a suffix - or ending word from which the word is formed (e.g., airman, - psychoanalysis). -3. The word is of a sort for which the plural form is not often used - (e.g., diabetes). -4. The plural was carelessly omitted. (Few examples can be proven, - but, after all, lexicographers are human too. One clear example is - the omission of any plural for the word "flanken" by OSPD (r), - which is the *only* case I've found where OSPD fails to keep its - vow to explicitly state all inflections, or the lack thereof.) - -Whenever words of the classes listed above are shown in some of the -source dictionaries without an explicit plural, a decision was needed as -to which plurals to include in ENABLE2K and its supplemental lists. -Attempting to codify binding rules for these decisions, though a useful -exercise in recognizing English word patterns, was not adequate to solve -the problem. After failing to establish ironclad rules for plural -determination, I have gradually developed a number of rules of thumb, -including: - -1. Any plural given in OSPD is taken on face value. OSPD was based -on several out-of-print dictionaries, and the fact that I can find no -current source for a particular plural is not particularly germane. - -2. In the absence of any other information, technical words of Latin or -Greek origin are assumed to have only a Latin/Greek plural. (Exceptions -are chemical elements, for which OSPD clearly establishes that plurals are -English-standard, and the names of species, where Latinate plurals are -uncommon, though not unheard-of.) This rule is based in part on the -observed fact that such plurals are regularly omitted from dictionaries, -but can generally be readily intuited by the scientifically literate -reader. Note that this rule carries somewhat more force for scientific and -medical terms than for the vocabulary of fields like grammar, architecture -and theology. Also, it carries more weight for a word that "looks Greek" -than for one whose foreignness is not obvious to the eye. - -3. A corollary of the above rule is that words with certain suffixes can -safely be assumed to have regular Greek or Latin plurals, which most -dictionaries are likely to omit. Words ending in -genesis, -iasis, --lysis, -osis, -stasis and -taxis, in particular, can be assumed to have -plurals in which the "is" is changed to "es", unless another plural is -explicitly shown. - -4. In the absence of other information (such as formation from a suffix -like -man, with its own pluralization patterns), non-technical words -are assumed to have regular English plurals, even if another plural, such -as a foreign plural, is plausible. This is based in part on the idea that -the dictionary cannot expect its readers to know a variety of non-English -languages, and so is failing them if it neglects to give explicit foreign -plurals. Thus, when AHD3 gives no explicit plural for the word "sastruga", -this must be a claim that "sastrugas" is a legitimate plural, since the -alternative is to suppose that its compilers assumed all readers would be -familiar enough with Russian (and its transliteration into the Roman -alphabet) to guess the plural "sastrugi" instead. As another example, -someone who looks up the word "arras" and finds no plural listed has no -reason to suppose the plural is anything but "arrases", which we list in -the ENABLE2K supplement despite the fact that one dictionary (MW10) shows -only an explicit plural of "arras". An exception to this rule is that any -really appalling regular English plural will be rejected ("appalling" as -measured by the ENABLE compilers, of course). An example is the plural -of "manyplies". The failure of any source dictionary to show an explicit -plural for this word would otherwise imply a plural of "manyplieses", but -this construct so clashes with English word patterns as to be rejected on -that basis. - -(It should be noted for the record that, unlike AHD3, AHD4 gives an -explicit plural of "sastrugi" for "sastruga". The word "hafiz", for -which MW10 gives only the plural "hafis", but about which the other major -dictionaries are silent, is perhaps now a better example.) - -5. Suffix-based plurals are given more weight if they are confirmed by -explicit plurals. The fact that -man words pluralize in -men is well- -confirmed. The MW10 entry for -osis says it pluralizes in either -oses -or -osises, but in fact an explicit plural of -osises is seldom seen. -For this reason, we allow an -osises plural only if explicitly shown in -one of the source dictionaries. Finally, consider the suffix -enchyma. -This is shown as having two plurals, -enchymas and -enchymata. We -reluctantly accept both plurals, the reluctance stemming from the fact -that not a single word so suffixed is listed anywhere with an explicit -plural. This lack lends more credibility to the natural plural form. -But since the suffix plural is the only piece of explicit information we -have, we have no better option than to believe it, and list both plurals. - -6. For help in resolving difficult cases, the ENABLE2K compilers have -used a few secondary sources of additional information. These are the -Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, -the list of accepted words in British Scrabble(r) (OSW), and the list of -words accepted by the Hasbro computer Scrabble game. The Merriam-Webster -Medical Dictionary was especially valuable for finding plurals of -biological and medical words, not least because this dictionary is far -more explicit about pluralization than any of the general-purpose -dictionaries. When MWMD shows no explicit plural for "bronchitis", one -feels safe in assuming that it regards "bronchitises" as the only plural. -If "bronchites" or "bronchitides" were considered acceptable, I feel -certain MWMD would have made explicit mention of them. - - -ENABLE2K is comprised of a main word list (short words from OSPD and -long words from MW10), plus a number of additional lists. When, as a -result of this research, new plurals were found or previously recorded -plurals were invalidated, there remained the issue of how to record the -changes. When plurals were invalidated, there was no choice but to remove -them from the main list. Invalid plurals were almost exclusively plurals -of diseases. In a few cases, on the authority of MWMD, a new disease -plural was added directly to the main list. This was especially necessary -when all the previously recorded plurals for a disease had been removed. -Beyond this, if a new plural was implied by an entry in MW10, the plural -was added to the MW10ADD list. For long words, if a plural was listed or -implied by two other dictionaries (of the five used by ENABLE), it was -added to the 2DICTS list. Similarly, for short words, any plural listed -or implied by a single source dictionary was added to the OSPDADD list. -Finally, all new plurals which were not placed directly into the main list -were added to the file PLURALS.LST. This includes plurals of long words -only noted by a single source as well as irregular plurals which are -documented by no dictionary (other than OSW), but about which we are -highly confident, such as "mimeses". - -Note that the discussion above applies only to plurals which were added -for words already recognized as nouns. It does not apply to any plural -added for a word which was previously recognized only as an adjective or -interjection. For instance, the word "mutuals", the plural of a word -which is described by OSPD as an adjective, is not present in PLURALS.LST. - -As stated above, detailed information was collected on 800 words, giving -all possible reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) plurals, together -with the reasons for accepting them. It is very unlikely that many -readers would find this data anything other than an exercise in boredom. -But I do think it worthwhile to list the final results, in terms of words -removed from the list and words added. In most cases, decisions about -whether or not to include a possible plural were clear-cut. In some -cases, such decisions were very much subject to debate, and I have chosen -to risk boring my audience by describing these situations. Readers with -less than obsessive interest in the subject may well wish to stop reading -at this point. - -(I have chosen only to give data on plurals for words whose singular form -is present in the main ENABLE2K word list. However, similar decisions -were also required for the plurals of words in the supplemental lists, and -were made in the same way, for the same kinds of reasons.) - -The following purported plurals were removed from WORD.LST because no -adequate justification could be found for including them. - -amyloidosises -appendicites -appendicitides -ariboflavinosises -babesiosises -bronchites -bronchitides -carcinomatosises -cellulitides -cervicites -cervicitides -cholecystites -cholecystitises -conjunctivites -conjunctivitides -dermatites -diverticulites -diverticulitides -diverticulosises -endocytosises -endometriosises -endometrites -endometritides -epididymites -epididymitides -fibrosites -fibrositides -folluluiculites -folluluiculitides -gastroenteritises -gingivites -gingivitides -hallucinosises -hemochromatosises -heterokaryosises -histoplasmosises -keratoconjuctivites -keratoconjuctivitides -laryngites -laryngitises -leukocytosises -lymphocytosises -mastoidites -mastoiditises -mononucleosises -myxomatosises -neurofibromatosises -pediculosises -periostites -periostitides -peritonites -peritonitides -pneumonites -pneumonitises -pollenosises -pollinosises -prediabeteses -premaxillas -pronephroses -prostatites -prostatitides -psittacosises -saccharomyceses -salpiglosses -salpingites -salpingitides -scintillae -spondylites -spondylitides -sporotrichosises -strongyloidosises -tendinites -tendinitides -tendonites -tendonitides -thyroidites -thyroiditides -tonsillites -tonsillitides -tracheites -tracheitides -trichinosises -tympaniteses -urethrites -urethritides -vaginitises -valvulites -valvulitides -vulvovaginitises - -As a general rule, additional plurals were added to an appropriate -supplemental list rather than to the main list. However, a few were -added directly to WORD.LST. With one exception (salpiglossises), these -were all plurals of medical terms supported by the MW Medical Dictionary. -These additional plurals are: - -arteritides -carditides -gastritises -pronephroi -salpiglossises -tsutsugamushis -uveitides -vaginitides -vulvovaginitides - -The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by two dictionaries (for -long words), or by one (for short words). Because the evidence for these -plurals is unequivocal, they were all added to the main ENABLE list as -"signature words" (see SIGWORD.DOC) unless they were also present in the -new MW10 words list (MW10ADD.LST). Entries in this list marked with an -asterisk are new to the first revision of the ENABLE2K supplement, and -are not signature words, as the signature words were not changed for this -revision. - -acciaccature -aliyoth -amphisbaenae -antefixae -antipastos -armamentariums -bacchanalias -barramundies -bedsoniae -bialies -bonsais -buckos -buncoes -bunkoes -cafetoria -calvariums -calzoni* -cannolis -canolas -castratos -chapaties -chapatties -chedarim -chilis -chitals -colobuses -concertini -corneae -corpuses -coteaus -creodonta -cyclopes -daemones -dentaliums -dickys -dominatrixes -droshkys -droskys -drosophilae -effluviums* -emeritas -enchiridions -enureses -epineuria -epitheliums -esophaguses -farragos -fianchetti -filses -forzandi* -frangipanis -gateaus -gemeinschaften -gingkos* -haftoros* -haikus -halachoth -hamadryades -helleris -herbariums -heterokarya -kaddishes -kiddushim -klezmers -kobos -kois -kolache -kurtoses -kwachas -kylices -mafiosos -mahimahis -megilloth -metencephalons -midrashot -mikvos -mikvot -mucros -muskellunges -myelencephalons -myrmidones* -nairas -nancys -nereises -notornes -omnibusses -osteites -ostinati -ouguiyas -oxymorons -palaestras -palpebras -pancratia -panettoni -paradores -parae -parashot -pastorali -penicilliums -phylloxerae -pingoes -portamentos -prezzes* -proscenia -prosomata -protozoons -qindarkas -quadrivia -quarterstaffs -ranulae -reais* -rhinencephalons -rilievos -rubati -saltarelli -santimu* -scarabaei -schnozes -scleromas -scriptoriums -siliculas -siliquas -sinfonias -soleuses -sostenuti -spaetzles* -spatzles -squeteagues -strappadoes -substratums -succubas -superstratums -synkarya -talliths -tandoors -tectums -tessiture -thebes -toeas -triskelia -tusses -ulpans -uredines -usneae -vibriones -violoncellos -vitelli -wackoes -wendigoes -windigoes -wizzes -wunderkinds -xystuses -zoariums - -The following plurals were explicitly mentioned by only a single -dictionary (and therefore were not added to the 2DICTS.LST file). - -administratrixes -aggiornamenti -andantini -appoggiature -barricados -brontosauri -buttinskys* -chylomicra -clostridiums -condominia -contralti -cypripedia -decrescendi -diminuendoes -encephalons -epilimnia -epiphenomenons -fricandeaux -gesellschaften -hydromedusas -kilohertzes -megahertzes -microfilarias -millimicra* -neurohypophysises -oesophaguses -opprobria -perihelions -phosphori -pococuranti -risorgimenti -scherzandi -stegosauri -submaxillas -tomatilloes -zucchetti - -Determining the plurals for the following words was not completely -obvious, and there is room for disagreement with my conclusions. However, -I am reasonably confident that I made the right choices. Because of the -potent for controversy, I am giving information about cases where plurals -were not added as well as ones in which they were. In the lists below, -a "=" precedes a plural listed in the previous version of ENABLE which I -retained, a "!" indicates a potential plural which was not added, a "+" -indicates a plural which was added, and a "-" indicates a previously -accepted plural which was rejected. - -acetum - =aceta, +acetums -acromion - =acromia, +acromions -agape - =agapae, =agapai, !agapes -alewife - =alewives, !alewifes -alnico - =alnicoes, +alnicos -anestrus - =anestri, +anestruses -anthrax - =anthraces, !anthraxes -arcana - =arcana, +arcanas -archenteron - +archentera, =archenterons -arras - =arras, +arrases -asparagus - =asparagus, +asparaguses -barytes - =barytes, !baryteses -behalf - !behalfs, =behalves -blowby - !blowbies, =blowbys -broadleaf - !broadleafs, =broadleaves -bute - =bute, +butes -buttinski - =buttinskies, +buttinskis -cacoethes - =cacoethes, !cacoetheses -cannelloni - =cannelloni, !cannellonis -chlamydia - =chlamydiae, +chlamydias -chloasma - +chloasmas, =chloasmata -clavus - =clavi, !clavuses -coloboma - !colobomas, =colobomata -confetti - =confetti, !confettis -coreopsis - =coreopsis, +coreopsises -cowlstaff - =cowlstaffs, =cowlstaves -culex - +culexes, =culices -culpa - =culpae, !culpas -czardas - =czardas, +czardases -danish - =danish, +danishes -dentalium - =dentalia, +dentaliums -dessertspoonful - =dessertspoonfuls, =dessertspoonsful -diencephalon - =diencephala, +diencephalons -dipteron - =diptera, !dipterons -endleaf - !endleafs, =endleaves -epistaxis - =epistaxes, !epistaxises -eremurus - =eremuri, !eremuruses -exedra - =exedrae, +exedras -falafel - =falafel, +falafels -felafel - =felafel, +felafels -fettucine - =fettucine, !fettucines -fettucini - =fettucini, !fettucinis -fettuccine - =fettuccine, !fettuccines -fettuccini - =fettuccini, !fettuccinis -flanken - =flanken, +flankens -flyleaf - !flyleafs, =flyleaves -fortis - =fortes, !fortises -franglais - =franglais, !franglaises -gaposis - !gaposes, =gaposises -gesso - =gessoes, !gessos -gingko - =gingkoes, !gingkos -gnocchi - =gnocchi, !gnocchis -gonion - =gonia, +gonions -greek - =greek, !greeks -gules - =gules, !guleses -gusto - =gustoes, !gustos -hades - =hades, !hadeses -hafiz - =hafis, +hafizes -herma - =hermae, =hermai, !hermas -herpes - =herpes, !herpeses -hesperidium - =hesperidia, !hesperidiums -highlife - =highlifes, !highlives -hokku - =hokku, !hokkus -hornfels - =hornfels, !hornfelses -hypolimnion - =hypolimnia, +hypolimnions -impatiens - =impatiens, +impatienses -inion - =inia, +inions -kazachok - =kazachki, +kazachoks -kermes - =kermes, +kermeses -kerygma - +kerygmas, =kerygmata -kreplach - =kreplach, !kreplaches -kuchen - =kuchen, +kuchens -laches - =laches, !lacheses -leatherleaf - !leatherleafs, =leatherleaves -lenis - =lenes, !lenises -lexis - =lexes, +lexises -linguine - =linguines -linguini - =linguinis -lues - =lues, !lueses -manicotti - =manicotti, +manicottis -meatloaf - =meatloaves, !meatloafs -mesencephalon - =mesencephala, +mesencephalons -mesenteron - =mesentera, !mesenterons -mesonephros - =mesonephroi, !mesonephroses -metanephros - =metanephroi, !metanephroses -midlife - !midlifes, =midlives -mooncalf - !mooncalfs, =mooncalves -multimedia - =multimedia, =multimedias -mythos - =mythoi, !mythoses -nachas - =nachas, !nachases -naches - =naches, !nacheses -nene - =nene, +nenes -nephritis - =nephritides, +nephritises -notornis - +notornes, =notornis, +notornises -nucha - =nuchae, !nuchas -ornis - +ornises, =ornithes -osculum - =oscula, !osculums -parashah - +parashahs, =parashioth, +parashot, =parashoth -peculium - =peculia, !peculiums -plasmodesm - =plasmodesma, =plasmodesmata, +plasmodesms -procambium - =procambia, =procambiums -propylon - =propyla, +propylons -prosencephalon - =prosencephala, !prosencephalas, +prosencephalons -pseudomonas - =pseudomonades, !pseudomonases -psoas - =psoae, =psoai, !psoases -pyknosis - =pyknoses, !pyknosises -qwerty - !qwerties, =qwertys -rhombencephalon - =rhombencephala, +rhombencephalons -rotorcraft - =rotorcraft, !rotorcrafts -sanies - =sanies, !sanieses -saphena - =saphenae, !saphenas -sartorius - =sartorii, !sartoriuses -sastruga - +sastrugas, =sastrugi -scalenus - =scaleni, !scalenuses -schul - =schuln, +schuls -solidus - =solidi, +soliduses -strappado - =strappadoes, +strappados -superphenomenon - =superphenomena, +superphenomenons -surimi - =surimi, +surimis -swingby - !swingbies, =swingby -tabes - =tabes, !tabeses -taka - =taka, +takas -tallis - +tallises, =tallisim -tallit - +tallits, =tallitim -taxis - =taxes, !taxises -tegmentum - =tegmenta, !tegmentums -telencephalon - =telencephala, +telencephalons -testatrix - =testatrices, +testatrixes -torr - =torr, +torrs -tsimmes - =tsimmes, +tsimmeses -tzimmes - =tzimmes, +tzimmeses -utriculus - =utriculi, !utriculuses -vagus - =vagi, !vaguses -vermis - =vermes, !vermises -viewdata - =viewdata, +viewdatas -whiz - !whizes, =whizzes -wildlife - =wildlife, !wildlifes, !wildlives -witan - =witan, +witans -zastruga - +zastrugas, =zastrugi - -(During the work on this revision of ENABLE2K, two further words with -questionable plurals turned up. These words were overlooked in the -investigations described in the document. The status quo for these -words is not outrageous, so I have not made the attempt to resolve -them at this time. These words are: - -avoirdupois - !avoirdupois, =avoirdupoises -flak - =flak, !flaks -) - -Finally, we have the list of difficult cases. These are the words for -which I found decisions far from obvious, and where I think a reasonable -reviewer might have good cause to question my conclusions. For each -potential plural, in additional to the marks described above, a "?" is -used to indicate those plurals that are dubious, and a brief debate is -given on the merits of accepting or rejecting the plural. A * marks the -"winning" side to such debates (which is almost always the last side to -speak). In some cases, you may well find the losing side of the debate -more eloquent or convincing. You may also find these decisions to be -inconsistent, and that evidence for a plural adequate in one case was -found inadequate in another. Life is like that sometimes. - -aerenchyma - =aerenchymas, +?aerenchymata - - Con: I have found no evidence at all for the use of "aerenchymata". - *Pro: MW10 shows that one plural of -enchyma is -enchymata. In - practice, "aerenchyma" (a sort of tissue) is a word very - unlikely to be used in the plural, regular or not, so why - not accept the one slightly relevant piece of evidence we've - got? - -allodium - =allodia, +?allodiums -alodium - =alodia, +?alodiums - - Con: "allodium" is a technical legal term, for which one expects - a Latin plural, as shown by OSPD and RHWCD. - *Pro: "allodiums" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW4. - -alphosis - =alphosises, +?alphoses - - Con: OSPD says "alphosises" is the only plural of "alphosis". - *Pro: "alphosis" is a medical term. For it not to have an -oses - plural would be highly surprising. - -apomixis - =apomixes, +?apomixises - - Con: As a scientific word, "apomixis" should be assumed to have only - a Latinate plural. Further, neither OSW nor OSPD lists - "apomixises". - *Pro: There is little consistency to the way that dictionaries list - plurals for words ending in -mixis. Given the failure to show - an explicit plural of "apomixis" by several of the source - dictionaries, and the fact that a plural ending in -mixises is - listed, or even preferred, for other such words, it seems best - to accept such a plural here as well. A close call. - -arteritis - =?arteritides, +arteritises - - Con: I can find no sign of acceptance of "arteritides", except... - *Pro: According to the web pages describing TWL98, it accepts the - validity of "arteritides". Since the Merriam-Webster crew was - involved with defining TWL98, there may be something to it. - -asperges - =asperges, !?aspergeses - - Pro: None of the source dictionaries indicate that "asperges" is - irregular. - *Con: It is most unusual for words ending in -es (pronounced "eez") - to add another -es for the plural. ("herculeses" is an - exception.) - -behoof - !?behoofs, =behooves - - Pro: Most of the source dictionaries do not show a special plural - for "behoof", and OSW lists "behoofs". - *Con: There is substantial documentation for "behooves" as the only - plural. This is a very close call. - -bris - !?brises, =brisses - - Pro: None of the source dictionaries (other than OSPD) show an - irregular plural, leading to a strong implication of the - correctness of "brises". - *Con: OSPD shows only "brisses", and, to my eye, "brisses" seems - much more natural. - -calo - =calo, +?calos - - Con: With so little evidence, there's no point in trying to second- - guess OSPD. Failure of MW10 to list a plural is probably - an oversight, or an indication of the lack of use of the plural. - *Pro: Because one expects irregular plurals for -o words, dictionaries - tend to list explicit plurals somewhat more often than for other - sorts of words. Accordingly, failure to list a plural for one is - stronger evidence of regularity than in the general case. - -cementum - =cementa, +?cementums - - Con: One expects "cementum", as a medical term, to have a Latinate - plural. - *Pro: So why doesn't any dictionary (other than OSPD and OSW) - document "cementa"? - -cestos - =cestoi, +?cestoses - - Con: Another case of almost no evidence. But RHWCD lists "cestos" as - a variant of "cestus", whose plural is "cesti". This leads one - to expect a Latin/Greek plural for "cestos" as well. - *Pro: But RHWCD could say so, and it doesn't. Further, "cestoses" is - in OSW. - -charisma - !?charismas, =charismata - - Pro: Can you imagine Dan Rather contrasting the "charismata" of - the various presidential hopefuls? - *Con: But virtually all my sources are convinced "charismata" is - the only accepted plural. - -chlorenchyma - =chlorenchymas, +?chlorenchymata - - See "aerenchyma". - -collenchyma - =collenchymas, +?collenchymata - - See "aerenchyma". - -departed - =departed, !?departeds - - Pro: There are precedents for this construction, such as "marrieds" - and "insureds". - *Con: But "departeds" just doesn't ring true. - -dihedron - +?dihedra, =dihedrons - - *Pro: Anyone who studied geometry in high school knows the preferred - plural for -hedron is -hedra. And OSW lists "dihedra". - Con: The listings in the primary dictionaries for the other -hedron - words give explicit -hedra plurals. The absence of such listings - for "dihedron" is strong evidence against "dihedra". - -dynein - =dynein, +?dyneins - - Con: Very little evidence here, as the word is listed only in OSPD - and MW10. Best to trust OSPD. - *Pro: "dynein", a chemical name, is just not the sort of word one - expects to be its own plural. - -ecesis - +?eceses, =ecesises - - *Pro: "ecesis" is a technical term, clearly of Greek origin, exactly - the sort of word one expects to have a -ses plural. - Con: OSPD says it's "ecesises", and I can't find any actual evidence - to overrule it. - -ed - =ed, +?eds - - Con: In many contexts, "education" is a collective noun that doesn't - pluralize, and that "ed" should have the same property is quite - reasonable. - *Pro: But it's not obviously so, especially when no non-Scrabble - dictionary mentions it. - -endomixis - +?endomixes, =?endomixises - - Con: Only OSPD and OSW say anything about plurals for this word. - There aren't enough -mixis words to establish a pattern. For - the other -mixis words, MW10 lists a -mixes plural, but for - "endomixis" it does not. This serves as evidence for - "endomixises". - *Pro: The "endomixes" plural is clearly more natural. OSW lists both - plurals, which seems like a reasonable solution. - -enosis - !?enoses, =enosises - - Pro: "enosis" is derived from Greek, and OSW shows "enoses" as the - plural. - *Con: "enosis" comes from modern, not ancient Greek, and is a - political rather than a scientific term, which makes the - absence of the usual -oses plural more plausible. - -fractus - =fracti, !?fractuses - - Pro: WNW fails to give an explicit plural for "fractus". Since WNW - is the only source dictionary listing this word, all the evidence - we have points to a regular English plural. - *Con: Other cloud names have only Latinate plurals. Also, since - "fractus" is listed in only one source dictionary, there is - insufficent evident to overrule OSPD. - -gammadion - =gammadia, +gammadions - - Con: "gammadion" is clearly Greek-derived, so why expect a regular - English plural? - *Pro: The documentation for "gammadia" is insufficent to make me - reject the implied "gammadions". - -gastritis - +?gastritides, +gastritises - - See "arteritis". - -gelati - =gelati, +?gelatis - - Con: "gelati" is already plural. - *Pro: Not according to several dictionaries. - -go - +?gos - - Con: So what is the plural of the Japanese game "go"? Is it "go", - since Japanese itself has no plural. Or is it "goes", the same - as the plural of the verb "go"? - *Pro: In the absence of an explicit plural, "gos" is what you'd - expect. And OSW lists it. - -grandiflora - =?grandiflorae, =grandifloras - - Con: "grandiflora" is a species name, and such names only - infrequently have Latinate plurals. Given the lack of - documentation for "grandiflorae", the logical assumption is - that only "grandifloras" is used. - *Pro: "flora" pluralizes as "florae" as well as "floras". So why - shouldn't "grandiflora" follow the pattern? - -gravlax - =gravlax, !?gravlaxes - - Pro: None of the non-OSPD sources indicate that "gravlax" is plural, - and OSW lists "gravlaxes". - *Con: In the definition of "gravlax" ("smoked salmon"), "salmon" - itself is plural. How much more explicit do you need to - be? - -hao - =hao, !?haos - - Pro: Neither RHWCD nor AH give an explicit plural for "hao". Since - "hao" is a currency, this is enough justification to list it - (see "pula"). - *Con: All other listed Vietnamese currencies are self-plural. And - both RHWCD and AH, despite failing to specify a plural in their - definitions, use "hao" as a plural in their currency tables. - -hypermedia - =hypermedia, +?hypermedias - - Con: "media" is plural, so is "hypermedia". - *Pro: MW10's rather strange definition of "hypermedia" ("a database - format") is clearly singular, with a meaningful plural. - -inion - =inia, +?inions - - Con: "inion" is an anatomical term, and should have a Latinate plural. - OSPD says it does. What's the problem? - *Pro: Only OSPD and OSW show the Latinate plural. Everyone else, - including MW Medical, fails to mention it. Especially since - "inion" doesn't look particularly foreign, this is most likely - intended to indicate a regular plural. - -jackanapes - =jackanapes, =?jackanapeses - - Con: "jackanapeses"? Aw, come on, pull the other one. - *Pro: "jackanapeses" is recognized by the Hasbro Scrabble game, and - only one source dictionary (Encarta (r)) contradicts this. A - very close call. - -jailbait - =jailbait, !?jailbaits - - Pro: "jailbait" means "a girl under the age of consent". This clearly - has a meaningful plural. In the absence of contrary information, - that plural must be "jailbaits". - *Con: "bait", in the sense of "food used as a fishing lure", is a - collective noun. We speak of buying "bait", not "baits". - "jailbait" is derived from this usage of "bait". Besides, can - anyone imagine overhearing "Oh man! Look at those jailbaits!" - -jejunum - =jejuna, !?jejunums - - Pro: A majority of the ENABLE dictionaries as well as MW10 leave out - any plural for "jejunum". While the word is certainly strange, - it doesn't have the feel that would lead one to assume a Latin - plural. - *Con: No one but a medical professional is going to speak or write about - a "jejunum", much less more than one. And MW Medical testifies - that they'll be using the -a plural. - -jiao - =jiao, !?jiaos - - See "hao", replacing Vietnam with China. (Since "jiao" is not listed - in MW10's currency table, the part of the argument about currency - tables does not apply.) - -kenosis - +?kenoses, =kenosises - - See "mimesis". It should be noted that it is almost impossible to - imagine a circumstance where "kenosis" might be used in the plural. - -lez - !?lezes, =lezzes - - Pro: "lezes" is listed by OSW, and implied by WNW. Additionally, the - plural of the variant spelling "les" is "leses", since "lesses" is - clearly wrong. - *Con: "lezzes" has more support, and is a far more sensible spelling. - -lochia - =lochia, +?lochias - - Con: OSPD and The MW Medical Dictionary agree that "lochia" is its - own plural. Isn't that enough? - *Pro: But none of the primary dictionaries that actually list - "lochia" support this conclusion. - -logos - =logoi, !?logoses - - Pro: Besides OSPD, the only actual evidence for "logoi" is in - MW10 which, since it capitalizes "Logos", is irrelevant. - *Con: "logos" is a Greek word used as a technical term used in - philosophy and theology. One expects a Greek plural, and one - assumes that anyone erudite enough to actually use the word will - recognize that. Besides, "logoses" is awkward. Another very - close call. - -lordosis - =lordoses, !?lordosises - - Pro: "lordosis" is not an -osis in the usual way the suffix is - used. A majority of the source dictionaries give no explicit - plural, which, in these cirucmstances, is support for a - regular English plural. - *Con: A sufficent number of sources document "lordoses" to make - "lordosises" rather unlikely. - -malines - =malines, !?malineses - - Pro: "malines" is a fabric, it should have a plural. And no - source dictionary shows it as its own plural. - *Con: The "s" in "malines" is silent. Given that, is "malineses" - a reasonable spelling for the plural? Besides which, a - variant of "malines" is "maline". I consider it to be - possible that "malines" was originally a plural for which - the singular gradually dropped out of usage. - -mankind - =mankind, !?mankinds - - Pro: OSW lists "mankinds", and none of the source dictionaries - actually labels "mankind" as already plural. - *Con: "mankinds"? You gotta be kidding! - -metacercaria - =metacercariae, !?metacercarias - - Pro: MW10 is the only dictionary listing "metacercaria", and it - implies a regular plural. - *Con: Three tertiary sources, including the MW Medical Dictionary, - give the plural as "metacercariae", and it is the sort of - word one expects to have an irregular plural. - -mimesis - +?mimeses, =mimesises - - Con: OSPD shows "mimesis" as regular, and no source dictionary - contradicts this. - *Pro: This word screams for a Latinate plural, which is listed by - OSW. - -muggins - =muggins, +?mugginses - - Con: "mugginses" is pretty damn unnatural. - *Pro: It's not all that much worse than "joneses". And it's listed - by OSW. Still, a very close call. - -natriuresis - =natriureses, !?natriuresises - - Pro: No source actually lists "natriureses", including the MW - Medical Dictionary. Because MWMD is so consistently precise - about plurals, this is strong evidence that in fact the plural - is regular. - *Con: Not strong enough! - -noesis - +?noeses, =noesises - - See "mimesis". - -omphalos - =omphali, +?omphaloses - - Con: It's Greek, and obviously Greek. Enough said. - *Pro: Though I don't know Greek, if "omphalos" took a Greek plural, and - conformed to the pattern of other Greek-derived -os words in - English, its plural would be "omphaloi". For this reason, failure - of multiple dictionaries to list an explicit plural cannot be - construed as evidence for "omphali". - -omphaloskepsis - =omphaloskepses, !?omphaloskepsises - - Pro: This is one of the most frustrating words of the 170,000 in - ENABLE2K, because there is no evidence! In the absence of - evidence, we have no choice but to assume a regular plural. - *Con: Not so. "omphaloskepsis" reeks of Greek. Do you really - think it has an regular English plural? (Either way, or - even both ways at once, I'm not convinced.) - -once - =once, +?onces - - Con: It seems that "once" is a noun, meaning "one single time". - OK, but can a word meaning "one single time" actually have a - plural? - *Pro: Sure. Here's an example: "We had each tried LSD once, but - our onces had affected us quite differently." - -oyes - !?oyeses, =oyesses - - Pro: "oyeses" is listed in OSW, and implied by a solid majority - of the source dictionaries. - *Con: "oyesses" is a far more reasonable plural, and is adequately - documented. - -oyez - =oyesses, !?oyezes - - Pro: See "oyes" Pro. In addition, "oyesses" is a pretty weird - plural for "oyez". If it were beyond dispute, don't you - think that all of the dictionaries would have mentioned it? - *Con: Yes, there is a strong case for "oyezes". But if I accept - it, I have little justification for rejecting "oyeses" as - a plural of "oyes", even though it seems to me clearly wrong. - -panmixis - +panmixes, +?panmixises - - See "apomixis" and "endomixis". (One difference from "endomixis": - OSW does not list "panmixes", but OSPD does.) - -parenchyma - =parenchymas, +?parenchymata - - See "aerenchyma". - -paterfamilias - !?paterfamiliases, =patresfamilias - - Pro: "paterfamiliases" is implied by RHWCD, and explicitly listed - by RH Unabridged. - *Con: Insufficent, when compared to the weight of evidence against - it. - -penne - =penne, !?pennes - - Pro: "pennes" is listed by OSW, and implied by Encarta. - *Con: Admittedly, some pastas are plural and some pastas are - singular. But the evidence that "penne" is plural is - much stronger than the evidence it is not. - -pereion - +pereia, !?pereions -pereon - +perea, !?pereons - - Pro: The only listing of these words outside of OSPD is in MW10, and - it implies a regular plural. - *Con: You expect a word meaning "an anatomical part of a crustacean" to - have a regular plural? - -pinyin - =pinyin, !?pinyins - - Pro: "pinyins" is clearly implied everywhere "pinyin" is listed, - including OSPD (before emendation by TWL98). - *Con: But TWL98 got it right. There is only one "pinyin". - -pocketful: - =pocketfuls, =?pocketsful - - Con: "pocketsful" is cited as a valid plural by AH3, but not by MW10. - Also, since MW10 lists the only plural of the suffix -ful as - -fuls, "pocketsful" is not even implied by MW10. Since the main - ENABLE word list should contain only words from OSPD and MW10, - "pocketsful" should be removed. - *Pro: "pocketsful" was added to the list of valid words by the TWL98 - committee. Where plausible, such changes should be included - even without support from MW10 (see also "mongoloids" and - "samaritans".) - -postcava - =postcavae, !?postcavas - - Pro: If there were a word "cava" with plural "cavae", the implication - of "postcavae" would be strong. Without it, the failure of MW10 - and AH3 to show a plural must be considered evidence favoring - "postcavas". - *Con: There is no explicit evidence for "postcavas" and one expects - a Latinate plural for such anatomical terms. Also, "postcavae" - is implied by the plural "venae cavae" of "vena cava". A close - call. - -pronephros - +pronephra, +pronephroi, -?pronephroses - - *Pro: The Hasbro Scrabble game accepts "pronephroses". While - this is not the strongest possible evidence, we should not - casually disregard it. - Con: The evidence for the irregular plurals is strong, and it - is likely that the entries showing no explicit plural (MW10 - and WNW) are oversights rather than testimony for a regular - plural. Also, there is no particular evidence of a regular - plural for *any* -nephros word. Yet another close call. - -prosenchyma - =prosenchymas, +?prosenchymata - - See "aerenchyma". - -pseudoparenchyma - =pseudoparenchymas, +?pseudoparenchymata - - See "aerenchyma". - -puerperium - =puerperia, !?puerperiums - - *Con: A clear majority of the sources list "puerperia" as the only - plural, including MW Medical. - Pro: Yeah, I suppose so. But my intuitions lead me to expect - "puerperiums" to also be acceptable. While "puerperium" does - indeed have a medical aspect, it's not quite the same sort of - word as "diverticulum". - -pula - =pula, +?pulas - - Con: The evidence for "pula" is very weak, consisting of OSW and - an omitted plural in AH3. - *Pro: Currency plurals are one of the issues on which dictionaries - strongly disagree. By analogy with other currencies, AH3's - omitted plural is better read as an endorsement of "pulas" - than as some kind of oversight. - -pyrosis - +?pyroses, =pyrosises - - See "mimesis". - -quadrivium - +quadrivia, =?quadriviums - - Con: The issue is not whether to accept "quadrivia", which is - listed by multiple sources, but whether to also accept - "quadriviums". One notes that there is unanimity that - the only plural of "trivium" is "trivia". Why should - "quadrivium" be any different? - *Pro: But a majority of the sources, including MW10, give no - indication of an irregular plural. Besides, the Hasbro - game recognizes "quadriviums", and that should count for - something. - -rapini - =rapini, +?rapinis - - Con: The situation of this word is *really* muddled. It is not - even in the paper OSPD, though there is good evidence it's - supposed to be. It's an alternate spelling for "rappini", - which, according to OSPD and most other sources, is already - plural, implying the nonexistence of "rapinis". - *Pro: The definition of "rapini" in MW10 is a singular definition, - not a plural. Further, the Hasbro Scrabble computer game - dictionary includes a definition of "rapini" as a word with a - regular plural. (It must be admitted, however, that the Hasbro - game, despite the definition, does not actually accept "rapinis".) - -rappini - =rappini, +?rappinis - - See "rapini". The sitation is slightly different, since the Hasbro - game agrees with OSPD in this instance, but since "rapini" and - "rappini" are alternate spellings of the same word, they ought not to - have different forms of pluralization, at least not without good - documentation thereof. - -reticulum - =reticula, !?reticulums - - Pro: "reticulums" is implied by MW10, and listed in OSW. - *Con: Not very good evidence compared the rest of the American - lexicographic world, all of which accept only "reticula". - A close call. - -rufiyaa - =rufiyaa, +?rufiyaas - - See "pula". - -seecatch - !?seecatches, =seecatchie - - Pro: WNW4 fails to list a plural for "seecatch". This can't be - construed as support for "seecatchie", which is obviously a most - unusual pluralization. - *Con: Actually, WNW4 lists "seecatchie" as an alternate form of - "seecatch". Three other sources agree that "seecatchie" is - the plural; the WNW4 entry is most easily explained as the - result of confusion, rather than as evidence for "seecatches". - -serpigo - =serpigines, =serpigoes, !?serpigos - - Pro: More sources imply a regular plural for "serpigo" than list an - irregular one. - *Con: "serpigo" is a disease, and there is seldom call to use it in - the plural. No more than this should be read from the failure - to mention a specific plural. - -shrapnel - =shrapnel, +?shrapnels - - Con: No reason to doubt OSPD and MW10 on this one. - *Pro: In addition to the meaning of "fragments from a shell", an - inherently plural meaning, "shrapnel" can also mean "a shell - designed to scatter shrapnel". This meaning is singular, and - pretty obviously has a regular plural. This is confirmed by - OSW. - -skepsis - !?skepses, =?skepsises - - Pro: We've seen "omphalos" and "ompahloskepsis" - now here's the - missing piece. While it's true that no one lists the plural - "skepses", that didn't keep us from accepting "mimeses" or - "pyroses". - *Con: This time, OSW agrees with OSPD, and lists only "skepsises". - It's still a close thing, but without other evidence I'm not - inclined to overrule them both. - -spermatheca - =spermathecae, !?spermathecas - - Pro: Three sources imply a regular plural for "spermatheca"; only one - lists "spermathecae". - *Con: A "spermatheca" is a kind of "theca", for which only the single - plural "thecae" is listed. Someone used to discussing thecae - would clearly use the corresponding plural for the derived word. - -stereopsis - =stereopses, =stereopsides, !?stereopsises - - Pro: Other than the listing of -opsis in MW10, which shows plurals of - -opses and -opsides, there is no evidence of any plural but a - regular English one. - *Con: "stereopsis" means "stereoscopic vision"; it is unlikely to be - used in the plural. This, rather than regularity, is the reason - that lexicographers don't bother to list a plural. Given this, - the MW10 suffix information is the best we have. - -supersedeas - =supersedeas, !?supersedeases - - Pro: "supersedeas" doesn't conform to any of the patterns of self- - plural English words, and unlike many such constructions, - "supersedeases" sounds (to me) quite natural. And only OSPD and - RHWCD support the "supersedeas" plural. - *Con: "supersedeas" is an old (15th century) legal term. A regular - plural is not especially to be expected. Still, a close call. - -synesis - +?syneses, =sysesises - - See "mimesis". - -telos - =teloi, +?teloses - - Con: See "logos". - *Pro: "logos" is not listed in OSW. "telos" is, and according to OSW - the plural is "teloses". - -triskelion - +triskelia, =?triskelions - - Con: The issue is not "triskelia", which is well-documented, but - "triskelions", which is not accepted by any of ENABLE2K's sources - except the Hasbro Scrabble computer game. MW10's failure to list - an explicit plural is most likely an oversight. - *Pro: Nothing about "triskelion" leads one to doubt MW10's implication - of a regular plural. See "gammadion". - -tsooris - =tsooris, !?tsoorises -tsores - =tsores, !?tsoreses -tsoris - =tsoris, !?tsorises -tsorris - =tsorris, !?tsorrises -tsouris - =tsouris, !?tsourises -tsuris - =tsuris, !?tsurises - - Pro: Not one of the listings for all these spellings of "tsuris" (the - most accepted spelling) other than OSPD implies that the word is - its own plural. If it were, it seems like someone would have - mentioned it. - *Con: Mendel assures me from personal experience that, as a Yiddish - synonym for "troubles", "tsuris" is already plural. While the - lexicographical evidence seems (to me) to support "tsurises", et. - al., real word usage trumps scholarship, and I trust Mendel's - expertise. (Whether his expertise was in Yiddish, or in troubles, - he didn't say.) - -tympanites - =?tympanites, -?tympaniteses - - *Con: "tympanites" is a medical condition, ending with an -eez sound. - Such words (diabetes, calvities, rabies, etc.) consistently - remain unchanged in the plural. The only source for the -eses - plural is the Hasbro Scrabble CD-ROM, not a source which, by - itself, lends much credibility. - Pro: Maybe so, but why doesn't anyone document this? Even MW Medical - implies a regular plural. The -eses plural is ugly, but it is - more consistent with the lexicographical evidence than the - alternative. This is another extremely close call. - -tzuris - =tzuris, !?tzurises - - See "tsooris", et. al. - -varia - =varia, +?varias - - Con: "varia" is already plural. - *Pro: According to AH3, a "varia" is a "miscellany", a word with a - singular meaning which admits a plural. - -waterleaf - =waterleafs, !?waterleaves - - Pro: While the "waterleafs" plural is well-documented, it is likely - that "waterleaves" is also valid. Several dictionaries list no - plural for "waterleaf". This implies a regular plural, which is - "waterleaves", not "waterleafs". - *Con: The listings for other plants whose names end in -leaf explicitly - list the -leaves plural. This leads me to believe that, in fact, - a -leaves plural is considered irregular, and that omission of a - plural actually implies -leafs. (While all dictionaries state - that implicit plurals are assumed to be regular, they don't - generally state what regularity means. Usually, it's obvious, - but sometimes, as here or for words like "whiz" and "yes", a few - details would be helpful.) - -womankind - =womankind, !?womankinds -womenkind - =womenkind, !?womenkinds - - See "mankind". - - ---- -Scrabble is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc. -The OSPD is a trademark of the Milton Bradley Co., Inc. -Encarta is a trademark of the Microsoft Corp. - - - ---Alan Beale