I reckon "Horcruces", my friend thinks that "Horcruxes". My argument is that it's a Latin word, so it needs a Latin conjugation (index - indeces, appendix - appendices); his argument is the example of box - boxes.
But "box" existed in OE, even if it did originate in Latin ("pux" or something, no?), so that means it was an old-enough word, integrated enough in English to be regarded as an "English" rather than Latin word.
But Horcrux was recently coined, so it ought to be "Horcruces", nay?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My vote is for Horcruxes, because it is an available option, and we are making the plural in English. To adopt another language's pluralization when there is a native pluralization available seems like an affection.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rowling says horcruxes, so that's the plural. When you make up a word, you get to make up the plural, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Within certain limits.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: But Horcrux was recently coined, so it ought to be "Horcruces", nay?
Nay. Recently coined words (other than scientific words) typically follow normal English patterns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Within certain limits.
Limits which have not even been approached in this case.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
I like horcruxes, just because I think it looks better.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
My vote is for Horcruxes, because it is an available option, and we are making the plural in English. To adopt another language's pluralization when there is a native pluralization available seems like an affection.
affectation.
That is all. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The plural of index is indices, except in databases, when the plural of index is indexes.
What's the plural of prefix? Of suffix? In software, "fix" can be a noun. "Have you implemented the fix yet?" What's its plural?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
For index and appendix, the regular English plurals are more common. The Latin plurals are commonly used in more technical contexts. As for fix, prefix, and suffix, you could always consult a dictionary.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
I'm sticking with Horcruxii.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Limits which have not even been approached in this case.
Very true--didn't mean to imply that you hadn't. Actually I had a sort of involved post having to do with made up words with plurals that bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the singular form, but in the end it just wasn't funny enough, so I deleted it and posted my single line instead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would have liked to see those. I tried to think of some to respond to your post, but couldn't find any funny enough, either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Karl Ed: You're completely right. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yeah, but that's nothing compared to my gaffe in the "Toward More Picturesque Speech" thread. (Where I misspelled "Speech" . . . twice.) Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, it makes sense—speak and speech are related, after all. I guess you were just thinking etymologically. Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
In the book, it says "Horcruxes." Since it's a fictional object, I'm assuming JK Rowling knows what she's talking about!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I would have liked to see those. I tried to think of some to respond to your post, but couldn't find any funny enough, either.
Yeah, it seems to be one of those ideas that appears to be rich with comic potential until you actually start trying to come up with something specific, doesn't it?
So Karl, I assume you spelled it "Speach"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Katie has graduated from omitting words to omitting syllables.
Is that better or worse?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I'm sticking with Horcruxii.
Mine iyes! Mine iyes!
"Indexes" and "appendixes" are only more recently used, and if I'm not mistaken, it originated in the US. My father was taught to write "plateux", and if you check the MS Word Spell Checker (yes, I know its reliability), the English (or at least the Australian) Dictionary accepts it, the US one does not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
But it's pronounced: "Throatwarblermangrove"
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I'm sticking with Horcruxii.
Horcrux, and coming soon, to a theater near you, Horcrux II, The Revenge Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe that the plural of Horcrux is officialy, "Fred".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:For index and appendix, the regular English plurals are more common.
I use the regular English plural of index most of the time, but always use "appendices". Don't ask why, I just do.
And I like Horcruces much better.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That was one avenue I considered, Glenn.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:For index and appendix, the regular English plurals are more common.
I use the regular English plural of index most of the time, but always use "appendices". Don't ask why, I just do.
Even for the organ?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
No, the plural of "organ" is "organs". Sheesh!
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: I'm sticking with Horcruxii.
Mine iyes! Mine iyes!
Heh. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Gansura, don't mind Jonathan. He operates on a different plane than most of us, and what is apparent to him is incomprehensible to the rest of us. You get used to it.
And Jonathan, you've got to know that I really like your contributions here. And you seem like more and more the mentch every day. Just so you know that I've noticed.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: He operates on a different plane than most of us
Sure I do, I operate of the plane of not murdering Latin all over again.
quote: Jonathan, you've got to know that I really like your contributions here.
Thanks, Tante.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
The stem of a third desclension noun is determined by removing the ending from the genitive. Since 'crux, crucis' is the dictionary entry (listing the nominative then the genitive) the plural nominative would be cruces, if we assume that horcrux is conjugated like crux (which means gallows or frame on which to kill prisoners btw) then the latin plural of horcrux would be horcruces. But, since Rowling invented the word, I think she ought to have the final say on how to pluralize it, and it ought to be referred to as horcruxes in English.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Even for the organ?
Honestly, I have never used the plural of "appendix", the organ.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
My husband bought a tux; they were on sale -- buy two tuces get one free.
We had tickets to see the White Sox vs the Red Sox -- battle of the Soces.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
In my humble opinion, horcrux should be pluralized as Horcruxi. Yeah, awsome plural form if you ask me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*having taken Latin, winces*
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Tante - "tux" is short for "tuxido", and "sox" is this weird AOL-styled mangling of "socks". It's NOT "tucesidoes" and NOT "soces".
I agree with kq. It's like "horcruxii" - that's why I shouted "mine iyes". But, to credit Alt, she said "in my humble opinion". I encourage these things!
Horcruces. I am studying a little Latin, and I can't face "indexes" and "appendixes", personally. Somehow, I can live with "plateaus"... Maybe 'cause that's how I first saw the word.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are also studying English. Why are you adopting the Latin ending for an English pluralization?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Tante - "tux" is short for "tuxido", and "sox" is this weird AOL-styled mangling of "socks". It's NOT "tucesidoes" and NOT "soces".
Yeah. I was joking around. And, by the way, if I recall correctly, the Red Sox and the White Sox, American baseball teams, both anteceded AOL by a few years.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Tante - "tux" is short for "tuxido", and "sox" is this weird AOL-styled mangling of "socks".
AOL-styled? O_o
Latin was never murdered, Jonathan. It simply evolved. And you can be sure that 2500 years ago, people were making the same complaints about language that you're making now.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, if I recall correctly, "tux" is short for "tuxedo", not "tuxido". Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
so then the plural form of tuxedo is tuxedi? Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Great, kq, butcher the spelling of words I never use! But the hair-gel I use still is used for "hair-stailing".
I don't know where the word "tuxedo" emerged from, so I can't really know the plural.
JB - AOL-styled because "cks" is condensed into "x". Besides, "socks" is plural anyway - and that's what "Red Sox" is! Latin tradition is murdered when people call it "horcruxii" *flinch* . And yes, people were quarreling about language just the same back then.
quote: You are also studying English. Why are you adopting the Latin ending for an English pluralization?
Because that's the way I was brought up to write. I still prefer to write "oktopos" and "oktopodes". Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I don't know where the word "tuxedo" emerged from, so I can't really know the plural.
quote: Once home to many wealthy New Yorkers. The formal attire takes its name from the town of Tuxedo and village of Tuxedo Park
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You were brought up to prefer a couple of dead languages to your own? I find that rather sad, to be honest.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I have two languages, one of which was semi-dead for two thousand years, I study dead languages for school, and I read dead forms of living languages.
So yeah, I guess.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"Dead forms of living languages" makes no sense. It's like saying your great-grandparents are dead forms of you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Because that's the way I was brought up to write.
You should have a better reason for your actions than "My mother told me to." Surely you can come up with some sort of justification. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: "Dead forms of living languages" makes no sense. It's like saying your great-grandparents are dead forms of you.
Makes sense to me. There are ancient languages that have modern version, but are incomprehensible to the modern speaker.
That's why people read the translation of Beowolf, even though it is written in English.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Makes sense to me. There are ancient languages that have modern version, but are incomprehensible to the modern speaker.
Yes, I know.
Would you call Australopithecus a dead version of living people? It may be related to living people, but it's not merely a dead version of them.
quote:That's why people read the translation of Beowolf, even though it is written in English.
It's arguable whether you could still call it English.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
If memory serves, they call that "Old English".
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm very aware of what they call it. However, names aren't the best indicator of what something is. It bears little resemblance to what we think of as English.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*absently wonders whether singular of feces is therefore fex*
I think the plural of horcrux should be horcrü.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: *absently wonders whether singular of feces is therefore fex*
It would be if it existed in English.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
[association] Well, I saw a book last year. A book studied by my friend's sister for school. It was a book with a couple of Shakespeare's plays. It had a lovely font, other than that it was pathetic.
On the one side it had William Shakespeare's texts, written in a linear format (as it's metrical), and in the original form, just elegantly reformed with a new, cleared font.
On the other side was the "corrected", "updated" version, written in modern, spoken English, completely out of meter (in paragraph form - one paragraph a character's line), and the spelling was updated into the modern American spelling.
Now, that's massacring our favourite Billy; that's modern English. [/association]
quote: You should have a better reason for your actions than "My mother told me to."
It's for the same reason I write "realise" and not "realize": it's one of two forms, and that is the one I read and used first. I use "appendices" bcause it's more natural to me. That's for the same reason I say "ad-VER-tis-ment", not "ad-ver-TISE-ment".
Jon Boy - you try understanding the Bible in Hebrew after you learned modern Hebrew as a native - it's not very easy. Most of the words you can understand, but if you're not religious (meaning: if you don't start learning around the age of six, after memorising nursery rhymes earlier) then the forms are quite difficult to master. Maybe that explains why the top people in the Hebrew Language Academy are religious and know a lot of Bible and Gemarra.
So yes, I'm talking about dead forms. Biblical Hebrew is a dead form. I can barely read Job, and I probably have some of the vastest vocabulary and some of the best Biblical reading-skills in my class. So what? It's still a dead form of a language.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was simply arguing semantics. Of course ancient Hebrew is dead, and of course it's different from modern Hebrew. I was just saying that the difference between them is more fundamental than one being alive while the other is dead (presumably, of course—I don't speak Hebrew).
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: the difference between them is more fundamental than one being alive while the other is dead
I lost you there. Ancient Hebrew is dead at the same time modern Hebrew is alive - for instance right at this moment.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I mean that it's not simply a version of modern Hebrew that isn't spoken or that stopped being spoken. The differences in grammar and phonology are probably much more significant. (Of course, Hebrew might not be the best example of this—I don't know the exact relationship of modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The relationship between biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew is much more along the lines of that between Middle English and modern than Old English and modern. (I think.)
In part, this is because for hundreds of years, biblical Hebrew was as dead as Latin, and used only as a language of scholarship. Only about 100 years ago, Ben Yehuda revived it as a modern language. He deliberately changed certain things from biblical Hebrew, but left many things the same. In fact, in many ways modern Hebrew is closer to biblical Hebrew than to the (considerably more recent) Talmudic Hebrew.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
And yet, people find the Mishnaic Hebrew far easier to understand than the Biblical Hebrew. I find it easier to read, even though it's got a far different vocbulary.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That was one avenue I considered, Glenn.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)