If you've read "Lost Boys" you'll know what I'm talking about. The information about octopuses in the book - the part with the confrontation with the smarmy teacher - sparked a rather interesting confrontation with an equally-smarmy English teacher of mine.
I think I learned more about technology, family life and smart careering from Lost Boys than any other book.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Care to elaborate on said confrontation? There isn't much to respond to at the moment ...
Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :
Oops. Begging your pardon. That was pretty vague.
The father on Lost Boys has an argument with his son's teacher regarding some mistreatment. It eventually segues to the validity of her correction of Step Jr.'s paper using the word "octopuses".
Apparently "octopi" isn't generally considered valid. In the book, I believe, "octopoda" is meant to refer to the general whole of Octopus-kind, while octopuses is the general plural.
I believe since the book was written things have changed, but I'm still pretty unclear on the whole thing.
Maybe my original post should have asked something simpler: Is it possible to rip all of the buttons off of your shirt in one motion, as Step does in the book in response to a black widow attack?
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
FWIW: my buddy who is a grad student in Classics told me the plural is "octopods," and that it is a special word in English in that it uniquely preserves a certain Latin case.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
My dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, 1991) lists "octopuses" and "octopi" as correct, though the fact that it lists "octopuses" first suggests that that plural form is preferred. It doesn't list "octopoda" as a plural form of "octopod".
I'm not sure that "octopi" is the pseudointellectual affectation that OSC (through Step) makes it out to be; "octopus" is not a Greek word but a New Latin (1758) word derived from the Greek "oktopous", so it should probably take the Latin plural form if it takes any foreign one.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I guess it's a point of contention?
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clumpy: Is it possible to rip all of the buttons off of your shirt in one motion, as Step does in the book in response to a black widow attack?
I don't see why not. If you gripped the shirt in the middle of the buttons (equal number of buttons above and below your hand) and pulled outward, then you should be able to get them all provided you have enough upper body strength, and the buttons pop off fairly evenly. (also need long enough arms so that the point of your grip gets a sufficient distance from your body to put enough tension on the buttons).
If you aren't limited to that particular motion, then I guess you could start your hand up top and rip downward popping off all of the buttons on the way down (once again, provided you have the upper body strength).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clumpy: Is it possible to rip all of the buttons off of your shirt in one motion, as Step does in the book in response to a black widow attack?
I've had all the buttons ripped off my shirt in one motion by accident.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Some english expert (I forget who now) told me it was "octopedes" to be technically correct, but that octopi has become a de facto accepted plural anymore.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I had a highschool English teacher try to tell me I was wrong because I said few and several were not synonyms.
She pulled out her dictionary definitions to prove her case while I tried to use reason.
I could see her point, but argued that you couldn't substitute the words and keep the same meaning. For instance, "I only have a few dollars left" has a different meaning when 'a few' is replaced with 'several'. In fact it makes very little sense because the words aren't synonyms. The difference may be slight, but enough to change the meaning.
She wouldn't back down. So based on the power vested in her by the school district, city, and state I lost.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I'm not sure that "octopi" is the pseudointellectual affectation that OSC (through Step) makes it out to be; "octopus" is not a Greek word but a New Latin (1758) word derived from the Greek "oktopous", so it should probably take the Latin plural form if it takes any foreign one.
Why should it default to a Latin inflection?
Edit: I didn't see the part about it being a New Latin word. I'm not sure that it is one, though, considering that it's composed entirely of Greek roots.
[ November 12, 2007, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I agree, few and several are not interchangeable. The following convey nearly opposite meanings:
"I have several faults."
"I have few faults."
I'd have to say, though, that there's no way to win an argument with a teacher. Except...I heard tell over on Ornery that a certain fellow got more than one school employee fired by provoking them (verbally) to violence. I guess that counts as a win. Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Yeah, well. . . "lower" and "reduce" aren't interchangeable either, but that doesn't stop you from hearing about sellers "lowering prices."
I still shudder every time I hear that.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've never heard anyone complain about that use of "lower." What's wrong with it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Words can be synonyms without being completely interchangeable. Synonyms are, to cite Merriam-Webster, words which have
quote:the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
-- note the qualifiers.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
I guess this is obvious, but...
A person would tend to use the word "few" to accentuate how small of an amount there is, especally to provide contrast to how much there could have been.
the obvious corollary would also be true.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I've never heard anyone complain about that use of "lower." What's wrong with it?
"To lower" is to physically place something lower than its prior position. You lower an object.
A price is not a physical object and therefore cannot be lowered. It is an amount. Amounts are reduced.
I think it comes from the fact that "lower" is the antonym of 1 of the definitions of "raise" and people naturally assume that it must simply be the antonym of all of the definitions of "raise."
Although if you want to get really technical, prices are increased and not raised, as "to raise" also means physical placement. . . .
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Since the usage is common, and language is not static, you're wrong, Magson.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Moreover, it's in the dictionary. And listed neither as slang nor informal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Booyah!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: "To lower" is to physically place something lower than its prior position.
Since when? I demand proof.
quote:Although if you want to get really technical, prices are increased and not raised, as "to raise" also means physical placement. . . .
Now you're just pulling my leg. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I've never heard anyone complain about that use of "lower." What's wrong with it?
The cattle are lowing, the poor baby wakes...
There's lowering, of course.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
So, what about "cacti"? Is that okay, or since "cactus" ultimately comes from the Greek "kaktos" should only "cactuses" be acceptable?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
When a noun is borrowed into another language, there are two ways to handle the plural: either you borrow the foreign plural, or you take the borrowed form and add the plural from the borrowing language. This is why we have pairs like appendixes/appendices and forums/fora.
I'm not sure how the Romans handled it when they borrowed kaktos—they probably just nativized the word and used cacti as a plural. But in that case, the -os ending on the Greek word is analogous to the Latin -us ending. The problem with octopus is that the us on the end is not a case inflection but part of the morpheme pus, so you can't take it off and replace it with the plural case inflection -i. Does that make sense?
So to make a long story short, both cactuses and cacti are acceptable.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, I looked it up and it turns out that the (nominative singular form of the) Latin word for "foot" is "pes" with plural "pedes", as seen in "quadrupes", from which English gets "quadruped". So I guess the correct Latin form of "oktopous" is "octopes", and that, as OSC says, "octopus" is simply a Greek word that's been made to look and sound Latin, and therefore should not be conjugated like a Latin word.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The problem isn't that it's not Latin and thus shouldn't be declined (not conjugated—that's what verbs do) like Latin, but that it's not a Latin noun of the second declension.
Octopes is neither correct nor incorrect. It's simply a calque (a word-for-word translation) instead of a straight borrowing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
To get back to lower, I just checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and it looks like the earliest citation for lower as a verb is from 1606. The earliest citation with the specific meaning of "to diminish in amount, price, proportion, etc." is from 1690.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)