On 14-Dec-2001 tps12 wrote: > On 13 Dec 2001, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > >> Agreed, but the plural of virus is viruses. It's a common misconception >> that it's virii (I too thought it was). A quick search will reveal the >> reasons. > > My quick search didn't turn anything up, regarding the reason for this. Of > course, I can see it wouldn't be "virii," but why not "viri?" Also, while > "viruses" might be the most often seen English plural of "virus," I don't > think anyone can be faulted for pluralizing in the language of origin. > Though people who use two "i"s should be shot. > > ( tps12 )
in the original latin, 'virus' was a singular noun referring to a plural entity, think something like the phrase 'a school of fish'. It was second declension masculine so to make the form analogous to 'fishes' it would be as you said 'viri'. It seems the Romans never used it that way though.
