Why is the plural of "status" "statuses" and not "stati"?
>>7400695
Why is the plural of 'walrus' 'walruses' and not 'walri'?
Some masculine Latinate words use the Latin plural, most don't. It's language evolution. There is no concerted logic behind it.
>>7400720
"walruses" sounds wrong too. The -ses ending always sounds wrong.
>>7400744
"datum" being the singular of "data" is wrong too.
>>7400753
"data" is like "information". it shouldn't have a singular.
>>7400759
>Data shouldn't have a singular
*tips fedora*
>>7400769
But datum and data is used to mean completely different things. "data" is never used as the plural of "datum" nowadays, and when people say "data" then they don't mean something that has an atom called "datum".
>>7400769
>use at least the right grammar
>says the guy using an accent mark as an apostrophe
How do you even do this? You have to go out of your way to make this mistake.
>>7400778
Yeah sure apopted words from foreign languages especially from dead ones often change their meaning and usage. So if you want to force the grammar of the orinigal language on a loanword, despite it is never used this way (like OP did), you only come across as a pretentious prick, even more so if you dont actually know the original grammar. I dont really see how your example has anything to do with this.
because it's a gerund you numpty
now for some real talk. not enough people know that platypodes is the plural of platypus. what are we going to do about this scandal?
Here I thought the plural of status is status.
>>7400779
Thats the saddest "But you´re spelling is wrong!"-argument I have ever seen.
>>7400813
It is.
>>7400720
>Why is the plural of 'walrus' 'walruses' and not 'walri'?
because it's dutch, which isn't latin
>>7400842
Yeah, there is; New Latin is more rigid than most language development because it's a constructed scientific language, while vernacular language amongst sailors tends to follow shipping routes. The logic behind it is just too much effort for you to grasp so you assume it's not present. Your point is that you're dumb.
mods are asleep post philology
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-OiNxknXdY
>>7400842
Yeah it´s totally the same thing to correct someones grammar in a thread about - surprise - grammar as to nitpick about the usage of some very simillar symbols that weren´t part of the discussion at all. Still let me explain why I use that little dash
>´ (accent)
instead of the (at least in standart german typography correct
>’ (apostroph)
or the evenly incorrect (which you probably think of as the correct one)
>' (single quotation mark)
I don´t have a key for the first one on my keyboard and I really don´t feel like typing alt+0146 everytime need an apostroph. How dare I to talk about latin grammar.
>>7400720
There is logic behind it. Only words descended from latin forms can have the 'i' plural ending. Status ain't latin
>>7400890
You're wrong on multiple accounts.
>'
is the unidirectional quotation mark
>’
is the right single quotation mark and the apostrophe
Indeed: The right single quotation mark and the apostrophe are the same character. If there is no right single quotation mark on your keyboard and you want to write an apostrophe, then you should choose the closely related unidirectional quotation mark instead.
The inverse ` is absolutely unrelated to the apostrophe.
>>7400966
>>7400966
Sorry but do you really want to keep sperging out about which "more cloesly related" symbol I should have used when posting on /lit/? Just because I pointed out you don´t know any Latin and have stupid opionions about language development? Keep it classy.
>>7401034
You, too, seem to be interested in continuing the sperging, otherwise you would not have bothered to reply.
