On Fri, Dec14,01 13:02, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 12:52, 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. > > Quick search for "virus plural" done on www.google.com. A few links: > > http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtplural.htm > http://www.dictionary.com/doctor/faq/v/virus.html >
As the second link notes, check out this article: http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html which is certainly an interesting discussion of languages. I think I walked away from reading that, more confused then when I began. Oh well... I'll just CVS my previous revision of understanding, and move on. > Note: I didn't really fault anyone, I simply corrected the statement. > And an excellent correction it is. This past august, while playing scrabble, I pondered why virii wasn't listed... I was a tool. :) DC -- Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All men by nature desire to know." -- Aristotle. Registered Linux User Number 195825
