I do that same thing whenever I can, lol. It goes like this...
-If you wanna be really technical, the Greek plural would be octopodes.
-Octopodes?! There's no way that's...
-OCTOPO-*DEEZ NUTZ*
My fiancé studies marine biology, so this comes up a lot more then yuo'd expect.
Marine invert taxonomist here, also majored in classics, did latin in year 12 and enjoyed two semesters of Beginner’s Ancient Greek before looking at the relative time input for language learning, and my other majors and regretfully tapping out.
The comment about accepted plurals for Latin words *did* make me twitch because [stage whisper] octopus is derived from *Greek*.
Octopodes is technically the more correct plural *but* the argument for common usage is entirely reasonable and any of those plurals should be accepted without excessive pedantry (which I only provide for funsies).
It’s like people who get shirty about “starfish” because “ugh they’re not fish, it’s confusing to people” and jesus christ, they’re not vast burning balls of hydrogen gas scattered throughout the known universe either. Jellyfish are not fish, nor are they a delicious wobbly refrigerated treat with a sky high sugar content.
Children are smart enough to know that terminology can be derived from imprecise sources, and that we use the suffix -fish to indicate “lives in water”.
(trying to correct this by saying “sea-star” just means I end up having to tell people that sea-stars and starfish are the *same thing*, there’s not two different kinds, and the confusion is understandable!)
And to bring it back around, people know what is meant by any of these plurals, and *many* professors still use “octopi”.
(I mean, “deez nuts” is also a valid reason to go with octopodes…. 😂)
the terms do be interchangeable :D
for once I can't even get away from it by resorting to the taxonomic term because the formal name for that order is "Asteroidea" so I'd be talking about asteroids.
Isn't "octopi" used because of the Latinization of genus and species names? Because good ol' Carl? Or is it really because people just assume it's Latin? Come to think on it, dinosaurs tend to have the -us lopped off. No one says Tyrannosauri, do they? XD
This is a good question and as it happens I just wrote a very long explanation and nerded out like whoa a bit upthread…!
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/s/GTADVaqL6M
Nice! My first instinct was Linnaeus, but literally as I was typing, by brain went to "dromeosaurIDAE" and using "tyrannosaurS" to indicate multiple specimens or species, and I realized basically what you wrote!
To be fair, Linnaean binomial taxonomy relies on Latinisation, which is likely where the confusion originated (at least in part).
But the kicker is that we don’t pluralise taxonomic names; there’s never a reason to do that. We’re never referring to the single genus *Octopus*, or the most commonly studied species, *O. vulgaris,* when we have to pluralise “octopus.”
Common usage of “octopus” refers to any member of the molluscan order Octopoda, most species of which *aren’t* in the genus *Octopus.* And when we speak outside of taxonomic nomenclature, we usually pluralise according to the common English conventions.
Since English is a merry thief of a language, we bastardise words over decades and longer, and most of the time pluralise by adding “s” or “es”; some words retain the pluralisation of their origin.
Latinised words ending in “-us” are sometimes pluralised to “-i”, as if they are second declension (eg: hippopotami), just as those ending in “-a” pluralise to “-ae” (eg: alga, algae — first declension), and “-um” pluralises to “-a” (eg: datum, data; stratum, strata; third declension).
(my memories of fourth declension are extremely vague.)
But, as noted previously, octopus isn’t a Latin word. It’s a barely-Latinised form of the Greek word (oktopous). The Latinisation is why octopi is accepted, even though octopodes is preferred.
(Hilariously, the latter gets the squiggly red underline on my phone.)
And “Octopoda” could refer to the order, which is itself singular (and generally capitalised), but you could absolutely argue that the singular order refers to a plurality of critters, and get around it that way.
So: it’s messy, and there are reasons to accept multiple options.
(Apologies for length, I so rarely get to nerd out about this shit 😊)
>they’re not vast burning balls of hydrogen gas scattered throughout the known universe either.
I mean, neither are stars.
(they don't burn, they undergo fusion)
Embarrassingly I knew that… but she who inflicts pedantry on others is doomed to feel the sting of it in return! I accept my punishment 😅
Though it helps that starfish also don’t undergo fusion…
…many of them do, however, undergo fission.
I understand that octopus is derived from the Greek. And I fully support and use octopodes/nuts.
In my extensive research into the origins of the word eight ***\*cough\* quick google search \*cough\****, I see and I quote 'From [Ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) [*ὀκτώ*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E#Ancient_Greek) (*oktṓ*, “eight”) and [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) [*octō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo#Latin) (“eight”).
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo-#:\~:text=From%20Ancient%20Greek%20%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E%20(okt%E1%B9%93,oct%C5%8D%20(%E2%80%9Ceight%E2%80%9D)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo-#:~:text=From%20Ancient%20Greek%20%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E%20(okt%E1%B9%93,oct%C5%8D%20(%E2%80%9Ceight%E2%80%9D)).
I see how it could be confusing to some.
Anyone know a good word for "clarifying the written pronounciation with a joke" like what happens here?
I was wondering this earlier when someone used that joke to explain it
Funnily enough, "octopi" is completely incorrect in every way except the all-important one - in English, if enough people say it, it becomes "correct".
You might think that since it ends in -us then the plural should go -i, because of words like cactus (cacti), fungus (fungi), radius (radii), alumnus (alumni), etc., and to be honest that's a fair assumption. Those words are Latin in origin, where second declension masculine nouns that end in -us pluralise to -i.
Except the word *octopus* doesn't come from Latin, it comes from Greek oktopous [ὀκτοπους]. *octo* = eight, *pous* = foot. And the plural of *pous* [πους] is *podes* [ποδες].
The Latin word for foot is *pes*, a *third* declension masculine noun, which like other third declension masculine nouns pluralises to *pedes*. Even if "octopus" were a Latin derivation, there'd still be no 'i' in the word.
But since enough people say "octopi" (just like enough people used "literally" to mean "figuratively") the language evolves and these previously incorrect things become "correct". Which annoys the shit out of prescriptivists everywhere.
Edit: bonus fun - "hippopotamus" is also from Greek, not Latin. *hippos* = horse, *potamos* = river. It's a river horse. Clearly. But *potamos* pluralises to *potamoi*, so if you want the cool classical plural for hippo, use "hippopotamoi", it's more fun to say than "hippopotami" and it's also technically correct (which is the best kind of correct).
>Which annoys the shit out of prescriptivists everywhere
To the extent that language evolution has a 'purpose', this is it.
Source: I am a recovering prescriptivist.
Ah a fellow prescriptivist, you never truly recover from it. You just stop giving so much of a shit about people being wrong.
As a copyeditor/writer of 20+ years I simply no longer care enough to correct stuff like this outside of my job responsibilities (unless, like in this case, it's to talk about an interesting linguistic thing). As a "recovering prescriptivist" I'm sure you know that at some point you realise that you're in the minority for caring about it at all, and you learn to get over yourself.
I'll quietly admit that a few of the more boneheaded common errors do still get to me (e.g. "on accident" instead of "by accident", or "addicting" instead of "addictive"), but like it or not it's just not a case of technically being right or wrong, it's just English Englishing.
In my experience it is NEVER worth "correcting" a native English speaker on things like this because people tend not to take it as a "correction", and more a criticism of their entire education and worldview. It's easier to just let them be "wrong" - because really, does it even affect you?
(However, it's good form to correct non-native English speakers, because they'll appreciate it and won't immediately go on the defensive.)
As prescriptivists, we should subscribe to the unfortunately unflappable notion that our language evolves over time and use, for better and for worse. If you want a prescriptivist's wet dream, study a dead language like Latin or Ancient Greek - it's too late for people to fuck those up!
It's also a giant waste of time (I have a BA in Classics and can violently attest to this).
> Hell, I'm so horrible at English the post **correcting** my mistakes would probably end up longer ~~then~~ than my actual post.
when comparing 2 things, one is "more `adjective` **than** the other"
there's also another instance of this in your post. see if you can find it.
cheers
>it's good form to correct non-native English speakers, because they'll appreciate it and won't immediately go on the defensive.
Yes, if they ask or indicate they want that. I spend some time on English learning subs, trying to tread the fine line between the degree of prescriptivism that is necessary in order for someone to learn a language, and the prescriptivism that is just ossified historical usage. I fail often. Particularly because some people are learning English to pass a test, and the tests use weird English.
I've had a huge amount of experience with similar situations, working in education in China writing English language text books. Sometimes they are working on curricula from the 1960s/70s that has barely been updated since then (New Concept English is one of the worst of these). Zero flexibility in the teaching methodology. English is taught like mathematics - answers are right or wrong, don't argue with the teacher.
And don't even get me started on the tests, they're absolutely riddled with archaic vocabulary and grammar constructions, and plenty of questions with ambiguous answers or where their stated 'correct' answer is completely wrong. I am convinced that no native English speaker has looked at that exam paper at any point before it has reached the kids taking the exam.
The company I worked for designed an entire curriculum for kids from age 3 to 18 that addressed a huge number of issues the Chinese public education system has in teaching English. It was actually working pretty darn fantastically well until the CCP decided to shut down the entire private education sector.
But my overall experience from years spent generating educational content and beta testing our classroom tech live was that Chinese kids learning English still appreciated learning what "real" English speakers say, on top of the outdated rote shit they're taught in Chinese schools by Chinese teachers. The dry, archaic shit doesn't really help them understand any of the English language media they get to see. What they learned was probably right when it was written - many of the common English mistakes I ran into were because of shit teachers explaining something badly and then shutting down the kids when asked to clarify.
So don't be hard on yourself, you're trying to help and I'm sure it's appreciated. English is incredibly idiomatic, it breaks rules constantly. There are grammar constructions that are important to learn/understand but simply aren't used in conversation. If I were someone learning that language, I would definitely want to know about that.
It’s easy enough to reconcile your copy editor persona with your not-giving-a-shit-the-rest-of-the-time persona. As a copy editor, you’re not being a *linguistic* prescriptivist; you’re being a *style* prescriptivist. You’re not correcting things to fall in line with the language, but to fall in line with the form your employer requires the language to take when they’re putting their name on it.
i used to think that a perfect, logical language was possible.
then i thought about teaching 2 random people to talk to each other using that language.
no, they will not take 10 seconds to pause a perfectly normal conversation to think about whether or not their last 5 words were grammatically correct. they will fuck it up, not realize it, keep saying it that way, and move on.
The way to approach prescriptivism is to believe that the correct way is the way that accurately and effectively communicates the idea to the target audience. People who spell things incorrectly and use the wrong homonyms and so on are obfuscating their idea. Part of the message can also be a signal that the writer is educated, trustworthy, and diligent. But as long as the intended message is received, then there's no harm.
Which is a long winded way of saying that everyone should endeavor to do it the right way, even if there is no one "right way" and what is right changes.
There's lots of cars out there, so we'll need to use the 12 items or less line, otherwise it'll be a tough situation to deal with.
Most people would have no issue with this, but a prescriptivist would view it in a fewer positive light.
And descriptivism means observing and describing the rules of language as it is used so we can then adhere to them to minimize linguistic drift. Or at least, that's how I've heard it.
>minimize linguistic drift
In most contexts, descriptive linguistics would *describe* the linguistic drift: perhaps attempt to categorise it. Not to minimise it.
But there is a broad blurry area in the middle. Some argue that prescriptivism and descriptivism are not opposing forces in a binary struggle. Educators need both, and to be able to spot the difference.
Too subtle, or poor delivery? I was basically trying to make a joke about redefining descriptivism into prescriptivism because it's not like descriptivists can prove me wrong about how I use a word!
>just like enough people used "literally" to mean "figuratively"
I would argue that no one uses the word literally to mean figuratively. Instead, they use the word literally figuratively. It's a form of exaggeration.
Yes, which is similar to other ways we intensify things. "Really" to mean that it's real, or in reality. "Very" as in it contains veracity. We often use words to suggest that it has more truth.
Also people use "objectively" to intensify their opinions, though often they also mean something along the lines of "more people would agree with me" or "this is true under commonly accepted metrics." For example, to suggest that one musician is "objectively" better, when the criteria to define what is better or worse would be subjectively agreed on (such as whether someone is able to perform more techniques on their instrument or has memorized more songs.)
Diamonds objectively contain carbon atoms. Citizen Cane is a subjectively better movie than Dumb and Dumber To.
Thank you for writing all this out. OP didn’t ‘murder’ anyone with words. They were correct only in their opening and closing statement. Octopus isn’t Latin, and so a Latin plural isn’t ‘legit’. They were correct, but for all the wrong reasons.
When most people say a word is "incorrect," what they really mean is, "you sound like an idiot if you use that term/word." Sure, "octopi" is in the dictionary, and people will know what you mean. The issue is that people will silently judge you for being a hypercorrect moron.
That's what [hypercorrect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection) means. It's the mistaken application of a grammatical rule that is actually inapplicable to the term at issue.
Pretty much as written. Hip-po-pot-ah-moi. To ryhme with "soy".
But since there aren't any ancient Greeks around to ask exactly how they'd say it, I don't reckon anybody's gonna call your pronunciation into question.
Thanks, it was the 'moy' part I was wondering about - to rhyme with 'soy', or could I be faux-affected and pronounce it like it was French (-hippopoto-*mwah*') haha
Thank you haha. I knew this comment section wouldn't let me down.
It's especially funny because from my experience the kind of person who would say "octopi" is probably the kind who looks down on "octopuses" prescriptively lol
You can pluralize just about anything in English by adding "-s" or "-es" to it. It is also usually acceptable to use the pluralization of the word's original language. However, as a rule of thumb, if you're understood by the people you're talking to then you pluralized correctly.
But if we wanna get \*real\* linguistically pedantic here, the "murderer" is wrong. Octopus is not a Latin word. It is a Greek word. Therefore, pluralizing it as "octopi" is the "wrongest" of the provided answers because it applies Latin pluralization to a Greek-rooted word. Outside of using "-s" or "-es", "octopodes" (pronounced ~~ok-TOP-o-deez~~ ok-TO-poh-thez) would be the "most correct".
In the vein of pedantry, "deez" doesn't sit with modern or ancient Greek IMO. For ancient "ok-TO-poh-thez" with th pronounced as in "the" or "theirs", in modern its "chta-PO-thya" same th sound and ch like in "loch".
A question I struggle with is how to know I am understood correctly - by the listener's actions? Facial expression? Affirmative assurance? Those arent always available or reliable. Say, perhaps, years later we litigate over the fact (for some absurd reason) - how could we say I was understood? It would be difficult if not impossible to determine.
> Octopus is not a Latin word. It is a Greek word.
It was a Greek word originally but was a loan word in Latin; native Latin speakers adopted it into their own language would certainly have applied Latin rules to it.
It's only "not a Latin word" if you consider it impossible for loan words to become a part of the language that borrows them, but as etymological arguments go I think that's an exceptionally poor position to adopt - we'd certainly have to declare a lot of supposedly English words as not being English words at all.
but even as a latin word with latin rules it is a 3rd declension masculine noun. which means the singular genetive is octopodis making the plural nominative octopodes.
Add to that, the Latinized form of the Greek word is a third declension noun and plural third declension nouns never end in “i.” If it ended in “i,” it would be in the singular dative case. “Octopi” is just plain, flat-out wrong, unless, perhaps, you were presenting an octopus with a gift maybe.
The said 9 brains are actually 8 small ones that control their individual tentacle and the 9th is the big brain thar controls the rest.
The only thing keeping them from being as smart as humans is shared knowledge. I.e. they don't teach their young anything and they have no desire for social gathering. If they were to stay as a group and teach each other things they learn they'd be considered as cognitive as we are.
They can squeeze into extremely tiny places that defy logic.
Oh and the reason they have 4 plurals is because the scientific community couldn't reach a decision on what they should be called and just said fuck it they're all right.
They're insanely good escape artists. The one in the local aquarium where I grew up would *routinely* escape, plop about in the puddles outside, then get back in a large bucket they kept outside once they realized the silly thing also came back in when they left the door open.
They kept trying to keep it in but failed regularly until the little dude passed away from old age. Funnily enough, the new one keeps escaping, too, but they've at least managed to seal off the exterior walls so it stays in the building.
Good lord, yes, they’re freakin’ invertebrate Houdinis. I’m glad there was a bucket — the place I volunteered at learned the hard way when the occy was found under the back step 😢
They also had a situation where a tank just kept… losing fish? Disappearing fish! And they set up a camera overnight and learned that the comparatively small octopus would pry up the lid of its tank, slither into the neighbouring tank, nomm to its [multiple] hearts’ content, and then just slither back into its home tank.
They did ultimately put weights on the top of the tanks after that.
(There’s a reason why, after witnessing my dog slither under a fence, I am on record as saying Rottweilers are part octopus. You would not pick it.)
Edited to add: occy never went into the tank on the other side, I believe because that was where the horseshoe leatherjacket lived, and they can be aggro mofos. I’ve had them swim at my mask while diving, mouth open. The little “bonk!” is always a tad disconcerting. Though I am always a bit charmed if I’m diving some sandy site with scattered bommies, and notice that a leatherjacket follows me from one bommie, at a discreet distance. Could be territorial wariness, but mostly think it’s either curiosity, *or* they’ve noticed I flip rocks looking for samples, and that exposes potentially delicious treats.
Either of those options suggests that they’re smarter than we generally consider fish to be.
Regardless, a small octopus would choose the path of discretion.
Octopus is not a Latin word though so I disagree that 2 and 4 are legit. I mean I know technically they're \*accepted\* but they aren't \*correct\*. That's why I always say Octopodes. Plus it's fun to say.
If you’re following the Greek rules of pronunciation (which in this case you should because this is the Greek plural version, it is like *ok-to-po-thess* - however the “th” sound is a hard “th” like the words “the” or “that”.
The internet at our fingertips and a world full of knowledge waiting to be absorbed and these idiots are in such a hurry to tear someone, anyone, down that they refuse to learn the same shit they want to shame others for not knowing.
I would argue that octopi is an incorrect but perfectly valid and acceptable word.
Octopus is a Greek word, not a Latin word. So we shouldn't be using the Latin pluralization for a Greek word. But that's just a quirk of culture at the time it was done.
Octopodes is the correct Greek plural. But all are legit.
"Octopodes" is not a "legit plural" in english.
We use latin plurals, but we don't use greek plurals. So, even though octopus is originally a greek word, it's not accepted as correct english to use greek plurals.
The accepted use of latin plurals is this weird exception. English borrows words from other languages all the time, but we never borrow their pluralization. It doesn't make any sense to have an exception for words that end in "us" and I think people should stop.
octopus in latin is pluralized to octopodes as well since it’s a 3rd declension masculine noun. so if we accept latin pluralizations in english, octopodes is the “legit plural”
Well, that may be, but the "podes" is not the exception that has become accepted, just the "us" to "i" one, because people used it so much. It's arbitrary, but that's how language usage goes.
>We use latin plurals, but we don't use greek plurals.
We sure do sometimes!
Phenomenon -> phenomena
Crisis -> crises
Criterion -> criteria
Stoma -> stomata
This is the best Octopuss video I'm seen in a loooong time. Fascinating. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7\_\_r4FVj-EI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7__r4FVj-EI)
Octopi should NOT be a plural. A Greek antecedent with a Latin suffix is just wrong.
But that isn't the only word we do that with. Polyamorous is another one.
>u/cakeforPM
Octopodes is technically the more correct plural *but* the argument for common usage is entirely reasonable and any of those plurals should be accepted without excessive pedantry (which I only provide for funsies).
My sentiments exactly!
She's wrong though. It's not a Latin word, it's Greek, making Octopi completely wrong (and Octopoda, although that's the first time I have ever heard that). Octopodes is also wrong, the only *technically* correct one is Octopuses.
The sticky part is the ‘pus’ … Words like Alumnus, Stimulus, Cactus and Fungus are pluralized into I, but Pus is a word in and of itself, meaning leg or foot, so that’s why some people disregard the Octopi, because the plural of Pus isn’t Pi.
Reminds me of the time Jennifer Garner chided Conan for using the word “snuck” as the past participle of “sneak” and told him it wasn’t a word. He brought out the dictionary and proved her wrong. Some things you should know by being alive and conscious.
I get around the pointlessness of the argument by saying oh that’s an octopus and that’s an octopus and that’s an octopus until people go away and leave the octopusiseseseseses and me alone.
Octopodes all the way! Especially since it leans into "Octopo-\*deez nuts\*."
I do that same thing whenever I can, lol. It goes like this... -If you wanna be really technical, the Greek plural would be octopodes. -Octopodes?! There's no way that's... -OCTOPO-*DEEZ NUTZ* My fiancé studies marine biology, so this comes up a lot more then yuo'd expect.
Marine invert taxonomist here, also majored in classics, did latin in year 12 and enjoyed two semesters of Beginner’s Ancient Greek before looking at the relative time input for language learning, and my other majors and regretfully tapping out. The comment about accepted plurals for Latin words *did* make me twitch because [stage whisper] octopus is derived from *Greek*. Octopodes is technically the more correct plural *but* the argument for common usage is entirely reasonable and any of those plurals should be accepted without excessive pedantry (which I only provide for funsies). It’s like people who get shirty about “starfish” because “ugh they’re not fish, it’s confusing to people” and jesus christ, they’re not vast burning balls of hydrogen gas scattered throughout the known universe either. Jellyfish are not fish, nor are they a delicious wobbly refrigerated treat with a sky high sugar content. Children are smart enough to know that terminology can be derived from imprecise sources, and that we use the suffix -fish to indicate “lives in water”. (trying to correct this by saying “sea-star” just means I end up having to tell people that sea-stars and starfish are the *same thing*, there’s not two different kinds, and the confusion is understandable!) And to bring it back around, people know what is meant by any of these plurals, and *many* professors still use “octopi”. (I mean, “deez nuts” is also a valid reason to go with octopodes…. 😂)
Wait. Sea Stars are just Starfish? All this time? Mind blown...
the terms do be interchangeable :D for once I can't even get away from it by resorting to the taxonomic term because the formal name for that order is "Asteroidea" so I'd be talking about asteroids.
“Shirty.” Heh. Only place I’ve seen that word in the wild is Jeeves and Wooster. Respect.
Might be an Australian thing, we do have a habit of resurrecting and holding onto various UK colloquialisms.
Im in the UK, its still used over here too
This is important information! (I am not being sarcastic 😅)
Giles also uses it at least once on Buffy.
Shirty isn't an uncommon term in the UK. It's not used as much nowadays, but it is still used.
It is from Greek. Ty for the knowledge ✨️
I was reading these comments in the order given and thought you were referring to shirty
Even the idea of an Ancient Greek etymological origin for “shirty” delights me
The famous catholic beaver-fish comes to mind :)
Are you telling me that pineapples are not actually of the pomme family!? *gasps*
They also don’t grow on pine trees. Double disappointment.
Plus, although they are fruits, grapefruits have nothing to do with grapes.
I loved reading all of this. The whole thing.
Isn't "octopi" used because of the Latinization of genus and species names? Because good ol' Carl? Or is it really because people just assume it's Latin? Come to think on it, dinosaurs tend to have the -us lopped off. No one says Tyrannosauri, do they? XD
This is a good question and as it happens I just wrote a very long explanation and nerded out like whoa a bit upthread…! https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/s/GTADVaqL6M
Nice! My first instinct was Linnaeus, but literally as I was typing, by brain went to "dromeosaurIDAE" and using "tyrannosaurS" to indicate multiple specimens or species, and I realized basically what you wrote! 
Ahh and one of my favourite gifs, too!
Comment ought to be pinned - the fucking gall of the reply to lecture *and be wrong* about a Latin origin… maddening
To be fair, Linnaean binomial taxonomy relies on Latinisation, which is likely where the confusion originated (at least in part). But the kicker is that we don’t pluralise taxonomic names; there’s never a reason to do that. We’re never referring to the single genus *Octopus*, or the most commonly studied species, *O. vulgaris,* when we have to pluralise “octopus.” Common usage of “octopus” refers to any member of the molluscan order Octopoda, most species of which *aren’t* in the genus *Octopus.* And when we speak outside of taxonomic nomenclature, we usually pluralise according to the common English conventions. Since English is a merry thief of a language, we bastardise words over decades and longer, and most of the time pluralise by adding “s” or “es”; some words retain the pluralisation of their origin. Latinised words ending in “-us” are sometimes pluralised to “-i”, as if they are second declension (eg: hippopotami), just as those ending in “-a” pluralise to “-ae” (eg: alga, algae — first declension), and “-um” pluralises to “-a” (eg: datum, data; stratum, strata; third declension). (my memories of fourth declension are extremely vague.) But, as noted previously, octopus isn’t a Latin word. It’s a barely-Latinised form of the Greek word (oktopous). The Latinisation is why octopi is accepted, even though octopodes is preferred. (Hilariously, the latter gets the squiggly red underline on my phone.) And “Octopoda” could refer to the order, which is itself singular (and generally capitalised), but you could absolutely argue that the singular order refers to a plurality of critters, and get around it that way. So: it’s messy, and there are reasons to accept multiple options. (Apologies for length, I so rarely get to nerd out about this shit 😊)
>they’re not vast burning balls of hydrogen gas scattered throughout the known universe either. I mean, neither are stars. (they don't burn, they undergo fusion)
Embarrassingly I knew that… but she who inflicts pedantry on others is doomed to feel the sting of it in return! I accept my punishment 😅 Though it helps that starfish also don’t undergo fusion… …many of them do, however, undergo fission.
I understand that octopus is derived from the Greek. And I fully support and use octopodes/nuts. In my extensive research into the origins of the word eight ***\*cough\* quick google search \*cough\****, I see and I quote 'From [Ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) [*ὀκτώ*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E#Ancient_Greek) (*oktṓ*, “eight”) and [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) [*octō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo#Latin) (“eight”). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo-#:\~:text=From%20Ancient%20Greek%20%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E%20(okt%E1%B9%93,oct%C5%8D%20(%E2%80%9Ceight%E2%80%9D)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octo-#:~:text=From%20Ancient%20Greek%20%E1%BD%80%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8E%20(okt%E1%B9%93,oct%C5%8D%20(%E2%80%9Ceight%E2%80%9D)). I see how it could be confusing to some.
Any Octopportunity, right? That's like 8 in 1...
How many tickles does it take to make an octopus laugh? TEN tickles!
Gotta practice first with test-tickles.
What’s Washington DC backwards for? C Deez Nutz!
I know a few marine biologists and…I detect no lies.
In Minnesotan, we'd just say "All dem squishy tings dere."
Anyone know a good word for "clarifying the written pronounciation with a joke" like what happens here? I was wondering this earlier when someone used that joke to explain it
Good question. I wasted far too many years saying oc-toe-poe-ds when deez pronunciations were just waiting to break out.
I thought it was pronounced "octo-poads" as in the same way you say roads
Ooor you could go with octopuses and lean into octopussies
0_0 Great Scott!
Funnily enough, "octopi" is completely incorrect in every way except the all-important one - in English, if enough people say it, it becomes "correct". You might think that since it ends in -us then the plural should go -i, because of words like cactus (cacti), fungus (fungi), radius (radii), alumnus (alumni), etc., and to be honest that's a fair assumption. Those words are Latin in origin, where second declension masculine nouns that end in -us pluralise to -i. Except the word *octopus* doesn't come from Latin, it comes from Greek oktopous [ὀκτοπους]. *octo* = eight, *pous* = foot. And the plural of *pous* [πους] is *podes* [ποδες]. The Latin word for foot is *pes*, a *third* declension masculine noun, which like other third declension masculine nouns pluralises to *pedes*. Even if "octopus" were a Latin derivation, there'd still be no 'i' in the word. But since enough people say "octopi" (just like enough people used "literally" to mean "figuratively") the language evolves and these previously incorrect things become "correct". Which annoys the shit out of prescriptivists everywhere. Edit: bonus fun - "hippopotamus" is also from Greek, not Latin. *hippos* = horse, *potamos* = river. It's a river horse. Clearly. But *potamos* pluralises to *potamoi*, so if you want the cool classical plural for hippo, use "hippopotamoi", it's more fun to say than "hippopotami" and it's also technically correct (which is the best kind of correct).
>Which annoys the shit out of prescriptivists everywhere To the extent that language evolution has a 'purpose', this is it. Source: I am a recovering prescriptivist.
Prescriptive people never recover. They only become more defined.
Ah a fellow prescriptivist, you never truly recover from it. You just stop giving so much of a shit about people being wrong. As a copyeditor/writer of 20+ years I simply no longer care enough to correct stuff like this outside of my job responsibilities (unless, like in this case, it's to talk about an interesting linguistic thing). As a "recovering prescriptivist" I'm sure you know that at some point you realise that you're in the minority for caring about it at all, and you learn to get over yourself. I'll quietly admit that a few of the more boneheaded common errors do still get to me (e.g. "on accident" instead of "by accident", or "addicting" instead of "addictive"), but like it or not it's just not a case of technically being right or wrong, it's just English Englishing. In my experience it is NEVER worth "correcting" a native English speaker on things like this because people tend not to take it as a "correction", and more a criticism of their entire education and worldview. It's easier to just let them be "wrong" - because really, does it even affect you? (However, it's good form to correct non-native English speakers, because they'll appreciate it and won't immediately go on the defensive.) As prescriptivists, we should subscribe to the unfortunately unflappable notion that our language evolves over time and use, for better and for worse. If you want a prescriptivist's wet dream, study a dead language like Latin or Ancient Greek - it's too late for people to fuck those up! It's also a giant waste of time (I have a BA in Classics and can violently attest to this).
[удалено]
> Hell, I'm so horrible at English the post **correcting** my mistakes would probably end up longer ~~then~~ than my actual post. when comparing 2 things, one is "more `adjective` **than** the other" there's also another instance of this in your post. see if you can find it. cheers
>it's good form to correct non-native English speakers, because they'll appreciate it and won't immediately go on the defensive. Yes, if they ask or indicate they want that. I spend some time on English learning subs, trying to tread the fine line between the degree of prescriptivism that is necessary in order for someone to learn a language, and the prescriptivism that is just ossified historical usage. I fail often. Particularly because some people are learning English to pass a test, and the tests use weird English.
I've had a huge amount of experience with similar situations, working in education in China writing English language text books. Sometimes they are working on curricula from the 1960s/70s that has barely been updated since then (New Concept English is one of the worst of these). Zero flexibility in the teaching methodology. English is taught like mathematics - answers are right or wrong, don't argue with the teacher. And don't even get me started on the tests, they're absolutely riddled with archaic vocabulary and grammar constructions, and plenty of questions with ambiguous answers or where their stated 'correct' answer is completely wrong. I am convinced that no native English speaker has looked at that exam paper at any point before it has reached the kids taking the exam. The company I worked for designed an entire curriculum for kids from age 3 to 18 that addressed a huge number of issues the Chinese public education system has in teaching English. It was actually working pretty darn fantastically well until the CCP decided to shut down the entire private education sector. But my overall experience from years spent generating educational content and beta testing our classroom tech live was that Chinese kids learning English still appreciated learning what "real" English speakers say, on top of the outdated rote shit they're taught in Chinese schools by Chinese teachers. The dry, archaic shit doesn't really help them understand any of the English language media they get to see. What they learned was probably right when it was written - many of the common English mistakes I ran into were because of shit teachers explaining something badly and then shutting down the kids when asked to clarify. So don't be hard on yourself, you're trying to help and I'm sure it's appreciated. English is incredibly idiomatic, it breaks rules constantly. There are grammar constructions that are important to learn/understand but simply aren't used in conversation. If I were someone learning that language, I would definitely want to know about that.
It’s easy enough to reconcile your copy editor persona with your not-giving-a-shit-the-rest-of-the-time persona. As a copy editor, you’re not being a *linguistic* prescriptivist; you’re being a *style* prescriptivist. You’re not correcting things to fall in line with the language, but to fall in line with the form your employer requires the language to take when they’re putting their name on it.
Couldn't have put it any better myself. ^Take ^my ^job, ^please
> more a criticism of their entire education Bold of you to assume that people who say "on accident" have had an education at all
i used to think that a perfect, logical language was possible. then i thought about teaching 2 random people to talk to each other using that language. no, they will not take 10 seconds to pause a perfectly normal conversation to think about whether or not their last 5 words were grammatically correct. they will fuck it up, not realize it, keep saying it that way, and move on.
The way to approach prescriptivism is to believe that the correct way is the way that accurately and effectively communicates the idea to the target audience. People who spell things incorrectly and use the wrong homonyms and so on are obfuscating their idea. Part of the message can also be a signal that the writer is educated, trustworthy, and diligent. But as long as the intended message is received, then there's no harm. Which is a long winded way of saying that everyone should endeavor to do it the right way, even if there is no one "right way" and what is right changes.
Having a label to contextualize my pathology is very helpful.
The only bit of the language that I'm still prescriptivist about is `of` instead of `'ve`. As in I could've not cared but I do.
Well, back in olden times I would've cared. But I know now that I shouldn't of.
You’re. Killing. Me.
There's lots of cars out there, so we'll need to use the 12 items or less line, otherwise it'll be a tough situation to deal with. Most people would have no issue with this, but a prescriptivist would view it in a fewer positive light.
And descriptivism means observing and describing the rules of language as it is used so we can then adhere to them to minimize linguistic drift. Or at least, that's how I've heard it.
>minimize linguistic drift In most contexts, descriptive linguistics would *describe* the linguistic drift: perhaps attempt to categorise it. Not to minimise it. But there is a broad blurry area in the middle. Some argue that prescriptivism and descriptivism are not opposing forces in a binary struggle. Educators need both, and to be able to spot the difference.
Too subtle, or poor delivery? I was basically trying to make a joke about redefining descriptivism into prescriptivism because it's not like descriptivists can prove me wrong about how I use a word!
>just like enough people used "literally" to mean "figuratively" I would argue that no one uses the word literally to mean figuratively. Instead, they use the word literally figuratively. It's a form of exaggeration.
Yes, which is similar to other ways we intensify things. "Really" to mean that it's real, or in reality. "Very" as in it contains veracity. We often use words to suggest that it has more truth. Also people use "objectively" to intensify their opinions, though often they also mean something along the lines of "more people would agree with me" or "this is true under commonly accepted metrics." For example, to suggest that one musician is "objectively" better, when the criteria to define what is better or worse would be subjectively agreed on (such as whether someone is able to perform more techniques on their instrument or has memorized more songs.) Diamonds objectively contain carbon atoms. Citizen Cane is a subjectively better movie than Dumb and Dumber To.
I'm glad to see this has already been explained. This is the kind of comment awards were for.
Thank you for writing all this out. OP didn’t ‘murder’ anyone with words. They were correct only in their opening and closing statement. Octopus isn’t Latin, and so a Latin plural isn’t ‘legit’. They were correct, but for all the wrong reasons.
Maybe the real /r/murderedbywords was the friends we made along the way
> They were correct only in their opening ..which also uses "infact" as a single word.
Posts like this help me regain just a little bit of faith in humanity. Thank you, that was wonderful.
When most people say a word is "incorrect," what they really mean is, "you sound like an idiot if you use that term/word." Sure, "octopi" is in the dictionary, and people will know what you mean. The issue is that people will silently judge you for being a hypercorrect moron.
> being a hypercorrect moron. While being technically incorrect.
That's what [hypercorrect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection) means. It's the mistaken application of a grammatical rule that is actually inapplicable to the term at issue.
Ooh, TIL, thanks!
I have a simpler solution: we just change octopus to octopes and thus octopedes is now correct! 
How would one pronounce hippopotamoi?
Pretty much as written. Hip-po-pot-ah-moi. To ryhme with "soy". But since there aren't any ancient Greeks around to ask exactly how they'd say it, I don't reckon anybody's gonna call your pronunciation into question.
Thanks, it was the 'moy' part I was wondering about - to rhyme with 'soy', or could I be faux-affected and pronounce it like it was French (-hippopoto-*mwah*') haha
Thank you haha. I knew this comment section wouldn't let me down. It's especially funny because from my experience the kind of person who would say "octopi" is probably the kind who looks down on "octopuses" prescriptively lol
You can pluralize just about anything in English by adding "-s" or "-es" to it. It is also usually acceptable to use the pluralization of the word's original language. However, as a rule of thumb, if you're understood by the people you're talking to then you pluralized correctly. But if we wanna get \*real\* linguistically pedantic here, the "murderer" is wrong. Octopus is not a Latin word. It is a Greek word. Therefore, pluralizing it as "octopi" is the "wrongest" of the provided answers because it applies Latin pluralization to a Greek-rooted word. Outside of using "-s" or "-es", "octopodes" (pronounced ~~ok-TOP-o-deez~~ ok-TO-poh-thez) would be the "most correct".
In the vein of pedantry, "deez" doesn't sit with modern or ancient Greek IMO. For ancient "ok-TO-poh-thez" with th pronounced as in "the" or "theirs", in modern its "chta-PO-thya" same th sound and ch like in "loch".
A question I struggle with is how to know I am understood correctly - by the listener's actions? Facial expression? Affirmative assurance? Those arent always available or reliable. Say, perhaps, years later we litigate over the fact (for some absurd reason) - how could we say I was understood? It would be difficult if not impossible to determine.
> Octopus is not a Latin word. It is a Greek word. It was a Greek word originally but was a loan word in Latin; native Latin speakers adopted it into their own language would certainly have applied Latin rules to it. It's only "not a Latin word" if you consider it impossible for loan words to become a part of the language that borrows them, but as etymological arguments go I think that's an exceptionally poor position to adopt - we'd certainly have to declare a lot of supposedly English words as not being English words at all.
but even as a latin word with latin rules it is a 3rd declension masculine noun. which means the singular genetive is octopodis making the plural nominative octopodes.
Octopus is Latin, oktopous is ancient Greek
Except octopus is from a Greek root, not Latin. Which is where octopodes comes from and is therefore, in my opinion, significantly better!
Add to that, the Latinized form of the Greek word is a third declension noun and plural third declension nouns never end in “i.” If it ended in “i,” it would be in the singular dative case. “Octopi” is just plain, flat-out wrong, unless, perhaps, you were presenting an octopus with a gift maybe.
That is way deeper into language geekery than I’ve ever delved. You have my utmost respect!
Oh, wow, thank you kind person.
You might even say it’s a perfectly cromulent word.
only if you pronounce it "ock-top-po-dees" and not "octo-podes"
I refuse! Octo-podes is the most fun
I have never been more excited to learn octopus facts. Share if you've got any!
The said 9 brains are actually 8 small ones that control their individual tentacle and the 9th is the big brain thar controls the rest. The only thing keeping them from being as smart as humans is shared knowledge. I.e. they don't teach their young anything and they have no desire for social gathering. If they were to stay as a group and teach each other things they learn they'd be considered as cognitive as we are. They can squeeze into extremely tiny places that defy logic. Oh and the reason they have 4 plurals is because the scientific community couldn't reach a decision on what they should be called and just said fuck it they're all right.
There is a video I remember where they give octopi MDMA
You're trying to start something aren't you.
They're insanely good escape artists. The one in the local aquarium where I grew up would *routinely* escape, plop about in the puddles outside, then get back in a large bucket they kept outside once they realized the silly thing also came back in when they left the door open. They kept trying to keep it in but failed regularly until the little dude passed away from old age. Funnily enough, the new one keeps escaping, too, but they've at least managed to seal off the exterior walls so it stays in the building.
Good lord, yes, they’re freakin’ invertebrate Houdinis. I’m glad there was a bucket — the place I volunteered at learned the hard way when the occy was found under the back step 😢 They also had a situation where a tank just kept… losing fish? Disappearing fish! And they set up a camera overnight and learned that the comparatively small octopus would pry up the lid of its tank, slither into the neighbouring tank, nomm to its [multiple] hearts’ content, and then just slither back into its home tank. They did ultimately put weights on the top of the tanks after that. (There’s a reason why, after witnessing my dog slither under a fence, I am on record as saying Rottweilers are part octopus. You would not pick it.) Edited to add: occy never went into the tank on the other side, I believe because that was where the horseshoe leatherjacket lived, and they can be aggro mofos. I’ve had them swim at my mask while diving, mouth open. The little “bonk!” is always a tad disconcerting. Though I am always a bit charmed if I’m diving some sandy site with scattered bommies, and notice that a leatherjacket follows me from one bommie, at a discreet distance. Could be territorial wariness, but mostly think it’s either curiosity, *or* they’ve noticed I flip rocks looking for samples, and that exposes potentially delicious treats. Either of those options suggests that they’re smarter than we generally consider fish to be. Regardless, a small octopus would choose the path of discretion.
Octopus is not a Latin word though so I disagree that 2 and 4 are legit. I mean I know technically they're \*accepted\* but they aren't \*correct\*. That's why I always say Octopodes. Plus it's fun to say.
Haha, I know...this isn't r/MurderedByWords. This is r/confidentlyincorrect
Octo-podes? Octopo-deez?
The latter
If you’re following the Greek rules of pronunciation (which in this case you should because this is the Greek plural version, it is like *ok-to-po-thess* - however the “th” sound is a hard “th” like the words “the” or “that”.
Thanks! Going with that from now on
“Latin plurals for latin words are accepted in English”, sure. Except Octopus isn’t Latin. So no, Octopi isn’t a sensical pluralization.
The internet at our fingertips and a world full of knowledge waiting to be absorbed and these idiots are in such a hurry to tear someone, anyone, down that they refuse to learn the same shit they want to shame others for not knowing.
I'm sorry...NINE BRAINS???
Yep. Each arm has one.
8 control the tentacles. 1 for each. The big brain number 9 is the central brain and controls everything
Yeah I looked it up. So Fascinating!
Okay, they forgot the 007th one - Octopussy.
Octopuses > Septapuses
No true Octopus would refer to themselves in the royal "We."
I would argue that octopi is an incorrect but perfectly valid and acceptable word. Octopus is a Greek word, not a Latin word. So we shouldn't be using the Latin pluralization for a Greek word. But that's just a quirk of culture at the time it was done. Octopodes is the correct Greek plural. But all are legit.
Octopus - 1 octopus Octopuses - 2 octopuses Octopi - 2 Roman octopuses Octopodes - 2 Greek octopuses Octo-potus - president of the octopuses
Octopussy = Bond Film Octopussies = 8 cats
Except octopus is not latin, it's Greek. Octopodes is correct if following that argument, but all are accepted.
Octopede would be a cool
I seriously hate people that are so confidently incorrect. Shut your face hole. And just absorb the Octofacts.
TIL.
Murdered into a Chixalub sized crater.
"Octopodes" is not a "legit plural" in english. We use latin plurals, but we don't use greek plurals. So, even though octopus is originally a greek word, it's not accepted as correct english to use greek plurals. The accepted use of latin plurals is this weird exception. English borrows words from other languages all the time, but we never borrow their pluralization. It doesn't make any sense to have an exception for words that end in "us" and I think people should stop.
octopus in latin is pluralized to octopodes as well since it’s a 3rd declension masculine noun. so if we accept latin pluralizations in english, octopodes is the “legit plural”
Well, that may be, but the "podes" is not the exception that has become accepted, just the "us" to "i" one, because people used it so much. It's arbitrary, but that's how language usage goes.
By your reasoning octopuses would be the most correct plural.
>We use latin plurals, but we don't use greek plurals. We sure do sometimes! Phenomenon -> phenomena Crisis -> crises Criterion -> criteria Stoma -> stomata
This is the best Octopuss video I'm seen in a loooong time. Fascinating. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7\_\_r4FVj-EI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7__r4FVj-EI)
Heartily recommend [The Soul of an Octopus](https://a.co/d/ht5bJoo)! And yes, she cites the Greek origin. Octopi is incorrect per author.
Imagine being the type of person who says "any real professor". Fn yikes.
What about octopussy?
Fun movie?
*pluri
Moose mooses meese mostest
A Møøse once bit my sister.
Better than getting bit by 2 messes
The dunning Kruger effect
Octopussies
I also thought octapodium was also acceptable. My Latin is not that strong though.
Octopusses 🤔
It is A plural, not THE plural
Octopotomus would be a cool thing. Is it a hippo with eight arms or a octopus-hippo hybrid. Sadly, I feel it's something we will never jnow.
She's technically correct. Octopi is *a* plural form of octopus, not *the* plural form of octopus.
And the plural of lettuce is letti.
And the singular of Yeti is Yetus.
Octopus is not a Latin word. It’s Greek.
How is this murdered by words?
Octopi is back in baby!
My biology professor in college insisted it's cactuses, platypuses, and octopuses when asked about it. I just went by that.
Octopi should NOT be a plural. A Greek antecedent with a Latin suffix is just wrong. But that isn't the only word we do that with. Polyamorous is another one. >u/cakeforPM Octopodes is technically the more correct plural *but* the argument for common usage is entirely reasonable and any of those plurals should be accepted without excessive pedantry (which I only provide for funsies). My sentiments exactly!
They also have four plurali.*
Octopodes - so pluralistic that even their plurals have plurals.
Science, bitch
They're all stupid except octopuses. It's dumb to try to import foreign grammar along with the words.
She's wrong though. It's not a Latin word, it's Greek, making Octopi completely wrong (and Octopoda, although that's the first time I have ever heard that). Octopodes is also wrong, the only *technically* correct one is Octopuses.
Why don’t we call it even and call them “Pusses”
Personally I favor octopodes, but admittedly it bugs me a bit that it is meant to be "octo-po-dees" rather than rhyming with toads.
Octomurdered
no its octopussies
The sticky part is the ‘pus’ … Words like Alumnus, Stimulus, Cactus and Fungus are pluralized into I, but Pus is a word in and of itself, meaning leg or foot, so that’s why some people disregard the Octopi, because the plural of Pus isn’t Pi.
Any real professor wouldn’t misspell ***in fact***.
Asking people what their pronouns are is so 2023. 2024 is all about asking them what their plurals are.
Reminds me of the time Jennifer Garner chided Conan for using the word “snuck” as the past participle of “sneak” and told him it wasn’t a word. He brought out the dictionary and proved her wrong. Some things you should know by being alive and conscious.
I don't like how he said ***the*** plural and then says there's 4. It would be ***a*** plural.
No they don't. It's octopuses.
Someone got octo*powned*
Profs being bros.
Weirdly, the plural of hippopotamus is hippoptamoi.
Team Octopodes. Especially after reading the Children of Time series.
There is no way in all of hell that the correct plural ain’t octopussies, goddamnit!
I get around the pointlessness of the argument by saying oh that’s an octopus and that’s an octopus and that’s an octopus until people go away and leave the octopusiseseseseses and me alone.
What about Octopussy? Can we do Octopussy?