OT: about butchering latin *AND* english
Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be
Thu Jun 17 09:36:53 BST 2010
On Thu, June 17, 2010 09:52, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 17 June 2010 07:21, Amedee Van Gasse <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
>> On 17-06-10 03:08, Jan Claeys wrote:
>>> Op dinsdag 15-06-2010 om 13:22 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef
>>>> There are no virii that work on Linux.
>>> There are no "virii" on Windows either[*].
>>> [*]<pedantic>"Virii" is a non-existent word. The latin word "virus" is
>>> already plural (and has no singular). And in any case, "virii" could
>>> only be the plural of a word like "virius", not something like "virus".
>>> Oh, and of course the only correct plural of the English word "virus"
>> "viri" would be the plural of "vir" = man. Is that correct?
> Virus is no more a plural than sheep.
> The plural is often believed to be viri or even virii, but neither is
> correct Latin and both are neologistic folk etymology. The word has no
> plural in Latin as it is a mass noun, like oxygen or sunlight. 
>  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Usage_notes
That's not an answer to my question, but I can also use Wiktionary
So the answer to my question is yes, provided that the information on
Wiktionary is correct, and I am unable to verify at this moment.
However the legal use of the terms "et vir" (and husband) and "et ux" (and
wife) seems to confirm this.
More information about the sounder