Dividing and Multiplying Voltages

Its already been done with the polio virus so you are too late.

Yep. From

Q. What is the plural of virus? A. Viruses.

It is not viri, or (which is worse) virii. True, the word comes directly from Latin, but not all Latin words ending in -us have -i as their plural. Besides, viri is the Latin word for 'men' (plural of vir, man, the root the English virile). There is in fact no written attestation of a Latin plural of virus.

If you would like to pursue the subject further, see the excellent article "What's the Plural of 'Virus'?" *** If you have some knowledge of linguistics and Latin, you might be interested in the morphological analysis of the word from the Perseus Project. [

Those confused souls who write *virii are tacitly positing the existence of the non-word *virius, and declining it as though it were like filius. It's true that l/r are both linguals that sometimes get interchanged, and that f/v are just a change in voicing[2], but that's just reaching. *Virii is still completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie.

end quotes...

In article , Rich Grise wrote: [...]

They use things in their environment to make more copies of themselves.

Other reproducing things do so in a harder environment but they too use things from their environment. I say this is a matter of degree.

Since you didn't say "but not viruses", you owe the folks that did it a huge sum of money. They will be right over to collect and/or demostrate the lastest man made diseases for you. :)

There's another school of thought that says the plural is virus.

Ton E. van den Bogaard, University Maastricht, the Netherlands: "... according to my Latin grammar, the plural of the noun virus in Latin is, like the plural nowadays used for virus in Romance languages (e.g., Italian and French), also virus."

The it'd have to be viruses, right?

But they still don't "self-replicate" in any rational sense of the word.

Sort of in principle, but there is still a difference. Viruses are really only particles. The cant do anything on their own. The replicating machine is the host. The virus (code) simply instructs the host (computer) that it should copy it, rather than something else. Its the computer that does the copying.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

Err............ the correct term is "virii" (plural of "virus").

I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Baer wrote (in ) about 'Dividing and Multiplying Voltages', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

No. First, the plural of second declension masculine words in -us is -i, not -ii.

'Virii' would be the plural of a non-existent 'virius'.

In Latin, the word means 'slime' or 'poison', among other unattractive possibilities.

Second, 'virus' is a (rare) second declension neuter word in -us, and neuter plurals always end in -a. However, third, it is a collective noun, and those don't have a plural form at all.

All things considered, it's best to use the plural form supported by many dictionaries, i.e. 'viruses'.

Wow

How does one say that in Latin?

Apparantly not."Viruses" is in the dictionary, "virii" is not.

So, amazingly, KA has won a spelling contest. Wonders will never cease.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard The Troll wrote (in ) about 'Dividing and Multiplying Voltages', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

It's a Greek noun in -us, so the pedantic plural is octopodes. Rhinocerates, too.

Have mercy on odes (or ates?).

In article , Richard The Troll wrote: [...]

Two bills for live stock and one well fed octopus :>

I think octopuses is now accepted. It should be -podes, IIRC, but millions of people being wrong can make something right.

Thanks; i understand Latin only slightly better than Martian. I had always understood that the plural was "virii" and had been corrected to that spelling a number of times 20 or so years ago. So, by your description, either the plural is "vira" for a neuter plural "allways", *or* the plural is "virus" for a collective noun (ain't got no plural form). Therefore, that makes the dictionaries incorrect...

There is no classical Latin text that has a plural form at all. There is only one text, AIUI, that has a declined form 'viri' for the genitive, 'of slime'. 'Vira' doesn't actually exist in any known Latin text.

No, because they are *English* dictionaries, not Latin. In such cases, the question of 'correctness' can be formulated, 'Assuming that the word still retains its original plural form, what is that?' For virus, octopus, hippopotamus and rhinoceros, the original plural form ISN'T retained, and, for 'virus', seems never to have existed.

At present, we have the converse problem with 'criterion' and 'phenomenon', where the Greek plural form in -a (neuter plural, see?) IS retained, but is now used in error for the singular!

It would seem that only the chinese, learning english, truly appreciate the strangeness and wierdness of english.