On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:36:03 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:21:08 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, "virus" is a very scientific term. It is the >> Linnaean taxonomical term derived from Latin and used for referring >> to a particular class of micro-organisms. In Latin "virii" would be >> the plural form. The scientific community has a fetish for >> conserving proper Latin constructs. If you were speaking with >> bio-medical scientists "virri" would be the most preferred and >> acceptable form of the plural. > Maybe you should ask your doctor! > Strictly speaking you are completely wrong. In Latin "virii" is the > plural of "vir" not of "virus". "Virus" is of a class of nouns that > do not have plural forms in Latin. > Please read about it here: http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html > "Virus" was adapted into the English language around the 12th > Century and the plural form as given by the Oxford English > Dictionary, the Cambridge University Encyclopedia of the English > Language, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and many other authoritative > sources is "viruses". > You can read all about it in detail at the website noted above. OK, I concede. Strictly speaking I am completely wrong. I have seen before the plural form incorrectly written and even published by supposedly very highly educated people as "virri" and as "virii". It has been well over 30 years since I last studied any Latin. A lot of us including myself need to brush up on it if we want to come out as winners at Caesar's Palace. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
