Arggghhh - No, no, Ryk Spoor!

[HarryT]

They certainly have platypodes there.

[omk3]

Hippopotami is actually the correct greek plural of this greek word. Written hippopotamoi, to be precise (well, ιπποπόταμοι), but pronounced the same.
And singular is hippopotamOs, not hippopotamUs. Sheesh

Did I mention that I like octopi? It's a really cute word
And platypodes are always cute (and venomous), whatever you do with their plural!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by omk3

Computer words are one good example of american words entering the greek language. We also 'google'(that's not even a word, I know, but we even use it with greek verb inflections)

Google comes from "googol," the mathematical term; it means 1 with a hundred zeros.

A googolplex is 1-with-a-googol-zeros."

I knew both of those terms from childhood and instantly understood what "Google" was trying to claim about its search engine.

[omk3]

Interesting, thanks, I didn't know the word.

And now I hate having known 'google' before 'googol'.

[Worldwalker]

I've heard, though it may be just Internet rumor, and I've never been interested enough to try to verify it, that the founders of Google actually intended to call it Googol, but they misspelled the term. It might be true, but I suspect it of being an urban legend ("founders of hugely successful company couldn't spell its name!") and the real reason was a matter of inventing a name that could be trademarked.

[Halk]

I have to agree with Harry on this, it shouldn't annoy me, but it does.

I'm literally burning with rage when I read a mistake like that. <-- That's my current favourite, it figuratively makes me burn with rage when people use literally incorrectly.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I said earlier in this thread, Laine, both the Oxford and Chambers dictionaries disapprove of "octopi" - in fact Chambers specifically says that it's wrong.

Baen Books is an American publisher, and they specifically reference the Chicago Manual of Style, which itself references Websters when judging plurals. Websters says octopi, therefore it would have been changed (or at least questioned) by the editors if spelled otherwise.

And if Chicago specifies octopi, then its likely that academics would also use it, since many other American technical pubs use that style manual.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Darqref

Baen Books is an American publisher, and they specifically reference the Chicago Manual of Style, which itself references Websters when judging plurals. Websters says octopi, therefore it would have been changed (or at least questioned) by the editors if spelled otherwise.

And if Chicago specifies octopi, then its likely that academics would also use it, since many other American technical pubs use that style manual.

Are you saying that Websters actually disapproves of "octopuses"? That's what I find odd about all this; I don't expect people to know the rules for forming Greek plurals, since Greek is no longer widely taught in schools; what I really don't get is this need to form "fake" Latin plurals. Do people think that it makes them sound erudite? Why not just put an "s" (or in this case an "es") on the end of the word, as you would with any other English word?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you saying that Websters actually disapproves of "octopuses"? That's what I find odd about all this; I don't expect people to know the rules for forming Greek plurals, since Greek is no longer widely taught in schools; what I really don't get is this need to form "fake" Latin plurals. Do people think that it makes them sound erudite? Why not just put an "s" (or in this case an "es") on the end of the word, as you would with any other English word?

If Websters is the same as Merriam-Webster, they don't, according to their online dictionary, but they do accept octopi.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

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.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why not just put an "s" (or in this case an "es") on the end of the word, as you would with any other English word?

Sometimes things just feel right, and that's what people do despite what guidelines might indicate.
Once someone came up with octopi as a plural, enough people must have liked it for it to catch on. I doubt many people are concerned with its origins.

For people who are knowledgeable about etymology, 'octopi' probably seems wrong - but often ignorance is bliss; the more you know, the more irritating becomes the discourse of the great unwashed. It's your own fault for knowing too much.

[BooksForABuck]

Editing is hard and expensive. Recently I've noticed that several of Baen's releases have been underedited. For me, octopuses/octopi would rate fairly low as a howler. Then again, I am really bothered by new world foods showing up in medieval-set stories. Everyone has their pet-peeves.

Rob Preece
Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com

[seawasp]

Originally Posted by BooksForABuck

Editing is hard and expensive. Recently I've noticed that several of Baen's releases have been underedited. For me, octopuses/octopi would rate fairly low as a howler. Then again, I am really bothered by new world foods showing up in medieval-set stories. Everyone has their pet-peeves.

Rob Preece
Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com

Hey there, Rob, Harry, everyone else --

First, thanks for reading, and I'm glad that despite Octopi you're enjoying Boundary; Rendezvous With Rama was one of my two major targets for feel/inspirations while writing, the other being some of the RAH Juveniles. (FYI, I found the forum and discussion because Google pings me when my name is mentioned in various contexts)

I think the latter part quoted above -- "everyone has their pet peeves" -- is one of the key items. All authors have writing quirks, ranging from using unusual plurals, to similar turns of phrase, to either ignoring or being unaware of various elements of what they're writing, which will annoy some number of readers. I agree with some posters that to me, "octopi" is just more fun than "octopuses" -- and my father, a biology teacher and pharmacological researcher, preferred it as well, and thus it became fixed in my head. (I also like "virii", but I know THAT one is just wrong)

*MY* pet peeve is inconsistency in the universe -- I don't care how bizarre your world is, or what it does that doesn't fit the real world (unless you strongly indicate it's SUPPOSED to be in the real world) but if it's internally inconsistent, then I'll really start twitching. That is of course also my nightmare as an author; publishing a story where I have something happen that is so inconsistent that I can't even fanwank an explanation for it.

Naturally, all SF authors (at least all those I have talked to) have to make decisions about how far they're going to take their research and realism. Sometimes you make decisions based on what makes a better story even when you know that you are glossing over the realism. In the case of Boundary and its sequel Threshold, I did quite a bit of that in terms of exact transit times; I cheat and assume favorable positions of celestial bodies, I have a particular drive system in Threshold come up to full levels of operation in minutes when I suspect the actual time would be hours or possibly even days, and so on.

In softer SF (such as my recent Grand Central Arena) you can of course get away with more because it's clear you're already, um, not precisely adhering to the rules of our universe. In fantasy, it's almost entirely down to consistency; you can do anything you like, but make sure that you understand the implications of what you're doing and that you either hold to them, or explain somehow why those implications don't hold. The latter issue is one of the constant bugaboos of RPGs; the rules give a character the power to do X, and the player realizes that by doing X in a certain way he can do Y and Z, which were not the intent of that power but make perfect sense, and the GM has to figure out either how to change the explanation for the power or how to deal with the suddenly-expanded utility of the power. In a novel, the author controls all the characters' actions and can prevent them from taking certain paths; not so in an RPG.

Well, enough rambling. Thanks again for reading!

[HarryT]

Welcome to MR, Ryk I thought "Boundary" was excellent, and I've just started "Threshold", which I'm enjoying just as much. Please ignore my meanderings about octopi; I'm a bit of an amateur linguist and etymologist, and these things are just my own personal "hobbyhorse". I love the old Clarke/Heinlein books, and found Boundary to be very much in that mould. One of the best books I've read in a long time.

I had a similar rant about mistakes in Eric Flint's Latin in "1632", if it's of any comfort

Thanks again for posting - great to see you here.

[Worldwalker]

Welcome to the madhouse!

With regard to RPGs, one of these days I ought to post some version my rant about how "Continual Light" totally breaks the basic D&D setting (though they've changed the spell since I first started ranting about it; I'm mildly curious if I'm the reason). Waaaaay too many people (and yes, this does include fantasy authors) overlook or ignore the ramifications of whatever tech (scientific or magical) they introduce to their worlds.

One wonderful example is the late Shadowbane MMORPG. They gave us medieval castles and Star Trek technology. Sure, they called it magic, but when you've got cloaking devices, phasers, and transporters, it's tech, no matter what you call it. And we used it accordingly. The medieval castle model didn't hold up too well, since it was designed to defend against people on foot with pointy things, not the functional equivalent of a stealth A-10 (aka my Channeler) cruising over the walls or a combined-arms force hitting the place from both outside and inside, with the hapless defenders trapped on the walls. They thought "we'll give the players castles, and that will make them act like medieval armies" ... we thought "we've got this tech, what can we do with it?" The answers to that question were the beginning of the end for Shadowbane.

And hey, at least we're all worked up about "octopi" (at least some of us are; it's my preferred plural) and not about you writing a rape/violence/beer fantasy ....