posted
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.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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. . . .
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what about "cacti"? Is that okay, or since "cactus" ultimately comes from the Greek "kaktos" should only "cactuses" be acceptable?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
