View Single Post
Old 06-05-2010, 04:23 AM   #70
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,548
Karma: 93383099
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlorenceArt View Post
If Websters is the same as Merriam-Webster, they don't, according to their online dictionary, but they do accept octopi.
Thank you; I read Darqref's post as saying that Mr. Spoor would have wrong to use "octopuses", and that the style manual he refers to says that "octopi" must be used.

Changing the subject for a moment, I find that Merriam-Webster dictionary entry to which you've linked a little odd. It claims that octopus comes from "New Latin octopod". My issue with this is that there is no conceivable grammatical rule in Latin that will give you a plural of "pi" from a singular of "pod", so I'm still at a loss to see how "octopi" can be considered a grammatically valid plural.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote