OT: about butchering latin *AND* english

[Amedee Van Gasse (ub)]

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
>>> Christopher
>>> Chan:
>>>> 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"
>>> is
>>> "viruses".</pedantic>
>>>
>>>
>> "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. [1]
>
> Chris
>
> [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Usage_notes

That's not an answer to my question, but I can also use Wiktionary
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vir#Latin

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.

-- 
Amedee