[K12OSN] Plural of Virus (was Antivirus program for Linux)

[David H. Barr]

reply?mode=pedantic^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrofessional

:D

-dBarr.

k12osn-bounces at redhat.com wrote:
> Is all this in relation to Computer Related Viral Infections or
> Medical Related?
> Because DISC and DISK are quite different as well...
> 
> But...that's for another thread I suppose...
> --Huck

[snip]

>>> Both virus and viri are correct and will be understood. (despite my
>>> enormous respect for Rick Moen)
>>> 
>>> Viri may be better because its shorter.
>>> 
>>> Correct language usage is always determined by common usage and
>>> common usage is always, everchanging.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> While in time misspellings may come into common usage and become
>> "correct" I don't think we're there yet with viri.  Also, the source
>> of "common usage" may matter here.  If "common usage" were the only
>> criterion and if email and Usenet were a significant source of
>> "common usage" then the distinction between they're/their/there,
>> to/too, its/it's, etc. would have disappeared long ago.  They have
>> not.  The proper plural of virus is viruses.  Viri is not correct
>> and won't be for some time (if ever).  Understandable, yes. Correct,
>> no.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> One of my favorite quotes:
>>> "If anybody ever tells you that you're using the language
>>> incorrectly, just yell 'prescriptive grammarian!' at the top of
>>> your voice and all the linguists in the building will run over and
>>> surround the guy' and then they'll rough him up." 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Words matter.  What you say and how you say it will determine how
>> you are judged by others.  You don't have to like it but using words
>> correctly pays in the end.  In an old Dilbert (as best I can
>> remember) Dilbert is explaining how language changes and says that
>> if enough intellectuals use a word incorrectly long enough it
>> becomes common usage and then is considered correct.  Dogbert
>> replies that what we need is smarter intellectuals.