|
i'm pretty sure everything i am about to say is correct, but if there are any linguists here who can correct me feel free
"colossus" comes from the greek "kolossos" making it a second declension masculine noun. in english, second declension nouns ending in -us take -i, meaning the correct pluralization of "colossus" is "colossi" and not "colossuses"
not all -us ending words take this rule, as something like "walrus" comes from dutch making "walrii" incorrect and "walruses" correct
get it right, casters
|
|
day9 does not have to operate within the constraints of grammar, imo
|
|
most of the casters I bother listening to say 'colossii'.
|
On April 24 2010 17:20 Megalisk wrote: Its Colloxon FYI
Colloxen imo
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On April 24 2010 17:18 benjammin wrote:i'm pretty sure everything i am about to say is correct, but if there are any linguists here who can correct me feel free "colossus" comes from the greek "kolossos" making it a second declension masculine noun. in english, second declension nouns ending in -us take -i, meaning the correct pluralization of "colossus" is "colossi" and not "colossuses" not all -us ending words take this rule, as something like "walrus" comes from dutch making "walrii" incorrect and "walruses" correct get it right, casters well I doesnt really matter where a word comes from, imagine if we were to use the grammar of the language of origin for all lean words :o
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Correct usage is decided by actual usage in the relevant linguistic community. Word origin may determine initial usage but it does not bind any linguistic community. With most of these "-us" words the plural form "-uses" has entered common usage and is now accepted. Word origins may be interesting from an etymological point of view but they have no normative significance.
|
in english, second declension nouns ending in -us take -i, meaning the correct pluralization of "colossus" is "colossi" and not "colossuses" This part doesn't even make sense. There are no "second declension" nouns in English period. Second declension nouns in Latin have the ending -i when plural, but in Greek they have the ending -oi (kouros -> kouroi, e.g.). So you should be asserting that the proper plural of the word is kolossoi. (In fact, the reason it's spelled "colossus" with a C at all is because it came to English by way of Latin, which would indeed get you "colossi" as the plural.)
But none of this matters, because it's standard in English to pluralize even originally foreign words with English suffixes.
|
It matters so far as it being a foreign and thus adopted words. Adopted words follow seperate rules, usually based upon their language of origin when considering grammar.
|
5673 Posts
Help, a prescriptivist!
Nothing irks me more than people who try to impose arbitrary, archaic standards on new areas of language, simply because that's the way we've always done it. Grammar books don't decide language, speakers do, and while I myself use Colossi, I don't see a problem in casters saying Colossuses. In the end, the word that is used more will become the norm, and a blog post is not going to change that.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Colloxon's most definitely, bloody grammar nazis.
|
On April 24 2010 17:45 H wrote:Colloxen imo
Or maybe it's Colloxin.
|
What's important about language is communication. Rules are great from an academic standpoint, but functionally, as long as what you say/write transmits a clear thought, you're doing it right. Sure, you could structure things prettier... that's what the rules are about... but it doesn't really matter.
That's what makes grammar nazis annoying. They're so caught up in being smart and knowing the rules that they distract from on-topic communication.
|
Phoenices, baby. Phoenices.
|
Pretty sure both are correct, English is great like that.
|
Either are correct, that wiki page pretty much sums it up.
|
United States7166 Posts
you're too concerned about grammar for a virtual representation of a giant robot in a fictional video game world on the internets. People can call it whatever they want to call it
|
On April 24 2010 18:18 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Correct usage is decided by actual usage in the relevant linguistic community. Word origin may determine initial usage but it does not bind any linguistic community. With most of these "-us" words the plural form "-uses" has entered common usage and is now accepted. Word origins may be interesting from an etymological point of view but they have no normative significance.
Allowing this sort of operationalist mentality to corrupt your mind yields us the apathy of the many as kids today run around unwittingly engineering the latest in normative language such as "fail, lol, omg, fffuuu, rickrolled, collosuses" and other meme-laden gibberish as though they are speaking English.
What is etymology good for but to tell us what where words comes from, how to use them, and what they mean?
New words form all the time. but, these are qualitatively different from compacted grammar mistakes and memes.
When historical precedents (here it is proper word usage and etymological credence) takes a back-seat to normative usage, or "what the powerful, cool, rich or over-all majority are doing", you get fascism.
What is current, or actual, does not therby have any a priori relationship to truth unless you wish to posit that ontological Actuality is predicated by temporality?
That being said, say collosuses in your commentary of Starcraft II: Wing of Liberty if you chose.
But don't let them teach ebonics to posterity!
|
On April 24 2010 19:01 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 17:45 H wrote:On April 24 2010 17:20 Megalisk wrote: Its Colloxon FYI Colloxen imo Or maybe it's Colloxin. He said Colluxen once too...
|
|
|
|