Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What a fantastic comment. You've inspired me to research the evolution of virii, and their place in the world.



I'll help: The correct plural is "viruses".


Virus doesn't have a plural, but if it did it would be "virora".


http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g63.html

What is the plural of virus?

Viruses. It is not viri, or (worse) virii. True, the word comes directly from Latin, but not all Latin words ending in -us have -i as their plural.

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html

The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context.


Yes, I'm aware of the arguments.

Suffice to say that I don't find "it doesn't fit comfortably in the mouth of an English speaker" to be a good basis on which to form conclusions about how Latin speakers would decline their vocabulary.


Isn't the question how English speakers should form plurals for their vocabulary, though? Nobody is arguing that you should use "viruses" as the plural when writing articles in Latin.

I mean, despite being Greek, I don't particularly object to the fact that most of the Greek loanwords in English fail to fully follow Greek grammar when people speak English. For example, phobias rather than phoboi or phobioi has become the accepted plural of phobia. Heck, people don't even decline my name properly when speaking to me, since English doesn't use the vocative case.


Wouldn't it just be "phobies", rather than "phoboi", since that's the plural of "phobos"?


In Latin, you mean?


Yes. Virus is a latin word.


And an English word as well. For which the plural is "viruses".


Thanks. Should have trusted autocorrect.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: