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=2ffc24e4ec424ce745c7cd467233ee207dacf69e;hp=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000;hb=d5cbd5b855d8157fe44cd0979c2e517b93fb5004;hpb=0ba1587a200ebb44aea6355ee9330a720e3ecde2 diff --git a/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc b/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ffc24e --- /dev/null +++ b/6/r/enable-sup/plurals.doc @@ -0,0 +1,1591 @@ + 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