Conference thebay::joyoflex

    My reference gives both "octopuses" and "octopi" in that order.
    However, the same reference lists "cacti" then "cactuses".  I guess
    your choice depends on what kind of impression you wish to make
    on your audience. :^)

    I don't have it handy, but some years ago the "Chicago Manual of
    Style" listed "octopi" as preferred, but "octopusses" is gaining
    acceptance.  I think "octopusses" is now more popular.

    re .1,.2:
    
    Exactly the reason I ask. 
    I once had a professor who was quite fond of octopussies for various
    reasons (their vision system, their presence in greek mythology).
    
    He argued that "octopi" was absolutely wrong in that you are applying
    a Roman pluralization to a Greek suffix. Also you are trying to
    pluralize something that is already plural, namely 'pus' being the
    plural of 'pod'.
    
    So, his pluralization of "octopus" was "octopods" (or was it
    "octopodes"?)
    
    Any argument?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    (1) The "-i" plural suffix is Latin, and "octopus" comes from two
    Greek words, "octo" (eight) and "pous" (foot). One should never
    (well, hardly ever) use a Latin suffix for a Greek root (or vice
    versa). Thus, "octopi" is technically incorrect.
    
    (2) The Greek plural for "pous" is "podes", so using the Greek
    scheme for creating plural forms, the plural for "octopus" is
    "octopodes".
    
    (3) The proper plural suffix for an English word ending in "s" is
    to add "es" (or "ses" if the "s" is preceded by a vowel). Since
    "octopus" is a English word and not a Greek word, the proper plural
    should be "octopusses".
    	The reason I say that "octopus" is English and not Greek is
    because, though it's formed from two Greek words, the word "octopus"
    (or "octopous") doesn't exist in Greek. The mollusk we call an
    octopus, the Greeks call a polypous (many feet).
    
    It should be noted that the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (the
    hardcover, not the abridged paperback *thing* that seems to be
    the DEC Standard Dictionary) lists the plurals for "octopus" in
    the order "octopusses", "octopodes" (pronounced ok-top'-a-deez),
    and "octopi".
    
    "Octopods" is not valid, as it is the plural of "octopod", which
    refers to any eight-armed mollusk. An octopus is also an octopod,
    but not all octopods are octopusses.
    
    --- jerry

    Oh no, cats again
    
    Why not call them Octo-rug-rats?
    
    That solves the problem
    
    dcb
    

    I think  .1  is correct: an oceanologist is more likely to call
    them "octopi" while the person-in-the-street is more likely to call
    them "octopussies", influenced no doubt by the James Bond movie
    "Octopussy"!
    
    RMM
    

    RE .6:
    
    Please, let's not make this another "common usage" debate.
    I know what the common usage is. 
    The question is: is that "technically correct"?
    
    But, it may be interesting to discuss why "octopi" is the common
    form of the word. Is it just ignorance of Latin vs. Greek derivations?
    Did it start as humor, then just propagate (as many computer jargon
    words seem to)?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    BTW, jerry, The DEC issue dictionary lists the plural as 
    	"octopuses", not "octopusses". (quibble, quibble)
               ^                ^^                       
    It also lists its etymology as:
    	               _
    		Gk 'oktopous', eight-footed
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    P.S. jerry, good analysis, though, regardless of my quibbles.

    As one octopus said to another, "I want to hold your hand, your
    hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your hand, your
    hand."
    
    -bs

    Re .7:
    
    Define "technically correct".
    
    
    				-- edp

Re .8 (!):

	I don't see why he's say all that.  I mean, do you say to
	a heart throb "I want to hold your hand, your hand." ?

Re .*:

	Well, we have the word "centipede", and "millipede", so why
	"octopus" instead of "octopede" ?

					           Here's a little diamond:    /Eric

    re .9:
    
    As I said, I do not want this to become a debate about common usage.
    
    "technically correct" is defined by its context (by its common usage)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .11:
    
    I asked that question to avoid introducing common usage.  In effect,
    you have asked why something is correct while denying a correct answer.
    
    To avoid that, please define what "technically correct" means.  I see
    no way to determine its meaning from context, and I am not aware of its
    common usage, at least not enough to determine exactly what you mean in
    this case.  Please explain what you meant.  If you want to avoid
    discussing common usage, then please explain what you meant without
    talking about common usage.  Under what circumstances is something
    "technically correct" or not? 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    re .12:
    
    .11 was facetious. The plain fact is that I cannot think of a good
    definition for "technically correct". I can only think of examples
    of the usage. 
    
    An example of the obverse, "technically incorrect", would be the
    use of "octopi". It is technically incorrect because of the Latin/Greek
    problem mentioned earlier. It is, however, correct because "octopi"
    is the common pluralization of "octopus".
    
    Usually, "technically correct" is embedded in a phrase such as:
    "Yes, that is technically correct, but {you'd be a fool to do it
    that way}."
    
    What I mean by "technically correct" is something like "apply the
    rules to the point of absurdity" (but not exactly).
    
    I'm sorry to be so fuzzy about this, but this note was intended
    to just have some fun with etymology. Not to convince anyone to use 
    "octopodes" instead of "octopuses" (I just can't bring myself to
    accept "octopi" anymore, though).
    
    Does that muddy things enough? 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Frankly, I don't understand why there's a loathing to mix Latin and
    Greek affixes. It never bothered the Romans. Might have bothered the
    Greeks, but they weren't really in a position to object. 
    
    I did a bit of research on the subject, and near as I can tell, the
    prohibition arose in the 18th century, when the Evil Lexicographers :-)
    were busy calcifying the English language and forbidding other things
    that didn't suit their fancy, like ending sentences with prepositions. 

    	Jon

    re .14:
    
    > Frankly, I don't understand why there's a loathing to mix Latin and
    > Greek affixes.
      
    "Loathing"? I think that's a little too strong of a word to use
    in this discussion. Remember we're talking "literal application
    of the rules almost to the point of absurdity" here.
    
    Is this the only word that has this 'problem'? (it's the only one
    I can think of)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .16, .17:
    
    I was asking for something like the octopus/octopi situation.
    Octopus/Octopi represents the application of a Latin rule to a 
    Greek word, not just a composite of Greek and Latin words.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Ah, but did not someone note that "octopus" is an English word,
    not a Greek word?
    

    When in doubt:
    
    "I saw an octopus.  Then I saw three more of them."  ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Please see 152.15./Eric

    I caught an octopus. Then I caught 3 more.
    
    I baked them for 30 minutes at 350 degrees, and we sat down and
    ate the octopie.
                    
    It tasted awful.
    
    -bs

    2 of them = Sextadecapus.
    3 of them = Tetravigipus.
    4 of them = Bitrigipus.

    What's 0 of them?

>>    What's 0 of them?

	An opus, of course

    re: .24
    
    No, no, no.  A nopus!
    
    --bonnie

Woe is me!  My life's work, my magnum nopus, doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    no, but it's got 8 legs to swim with.
    
    --bonnie

         <<< Note 248.28 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
                            -< strangling in nopi >-
    
    
    Really bonnie - that should be `nopera'.
    
    b

    I stand corrected.  
    
    I conclude that the correct plural of octopus is "octopera"?
    
    --bonnie

Oh, no, not another marathon contest.  What's this, to see who can last through
eight consecutive operas?

        Spell it octoptera and you have some kind of mutant fly?
        
        Dan

    And octopteradon is a flock of ancient flying dinosaurs.
    
    --bonnie

Octaria: part of an octopera.

Arie

    Arie, if you had studied more about how octopuses mate, you'd know
    which part.
    
    						Ann B.