Editor: The plural of octopus

Viewing source

**Octopuses, octopi, or what?**

English, like most languages, includes many //loan words// (or borrowings) from other languages.  In most cases, when these words are nouns, the plural is formed with the usual //-s//.  For example, //pizza/pizzas// (not //pizze//), //kindergarten/kindergartens// (not //Kindergärten//), //ninja/ninjas//, //guru/gurus//, //typhoon/typhoons//, and so on.  But for some loans, especially from Latin, English also borrows the original plural.

A common class are Latin second-declension masculine nouns in //-us//,
with plurals in //-i//:

\ //fungus// → //fungi//\
\ //alumnus// → //alumni//\
\ //radius// → //radii//\
\ //locus// → //loci//

Not all such words use the Latin plural in English.  For instance,
//campus// and //genius// take the usual English //-uses// instead
of the Latin //-i//.  And for many words either form is acceptable.

Nor are all English loans from Latin in //-us// of this class.
Third-declension neuter nouns in //-us// take a plural with
//-era/-ora//:

\ //genus// → //genera//\
\ //corpus// → //corpora//\
\ //opus// → //opera//

Again, the English plural in //-uses// can often also be used.

A large class of Latin fourth-declension words in //-us// pluralize
by lengthening the //u//.  Since this has no phonological analog in
English, //-uses// should be used.  Examples are //status//, //nexus//,
//hiatus//, and //apparatus//.

In general, Latin loans in //-us// other than in the first two categories should use only the English //-uses//.  (A difficult case is //virus//, an unusual word for which there is no record of a Latin plural.)  And some words in //-us// (such as //caucus//) are not even from Latin.

And what of //octopus//?  It was not a classical Latin word at all but coined by Linnaeus around 1730.  It may seem wrong to use a (pseudo-)Latin plural in English with an invented word.  English dictionaries list //octopuses// as the preferred, and sometimes the only correct, form.

However, one could also argue that (1)\ medieval Latin as the common
tongue of educated Europe was a living language and still Latin even
with new words, and/or that (2) since //octopus// was coined from Latin
parts, using Latin forms is justified, much as if I coined a scientific
term //millifungus//, its plural should still be //millifungi//.

The word //octopus// was built on analogy with existing //-pus//
(=foot) words in classical Latin, particularly //polypus//, which
is what the Romans would have called an octopus.  However, these
words in Latin were in fact loan words themselves, from Greek!  And,
just like English, in Latin borrowings from other languages sometimes
borrowed the plural and sometimes used a regular Latin plural.  And,
again like English, in some cases either one could be used.

When any Greek plural was borrowed, commonly a “Latinized Greek”
variant of the third declension was used, in which the plural of
//octopus// would be //octopodes// (patterned like //antipodes//).
This is what Linnaeus used.  Some dictionaries list it as an acceptable
form in English, but most people would probably consider it affected.

Alternatively, some Greek words had a regular Latin plural, and in
fact the plural //polypi// is recorded.  On this basis, //octopi//,
often disparaged as erroneous, has some justification.  However,
in English usage it originates not from any stage of Latin but by
English speakers applying the //-i// plural indiscriminately.

Meanwhile, the form //octopuses// is undisputed and almost universally
considered primary.

==  See also

*  [[/zoo/sea/mollusk/octopus/|Octopuses]]

— You don't have edit privileges for this page.