Apparatuses and Apparatus are both correct for plurals, why no Apparati? Does it come from a 4th declension noun in Latin, not a 2nd declension? Or just because?
- Yes, it comes form a fourth-declension noun in Latin. —Muke Tever 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, apparatus is the Latin plural, and apparatuses is the English one. —Muke Tever 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This was what was there, and was further down in the list. It makes sense to move the oldest and most general defintion to the top. Yes?
I went through this as a first iteration of revising the older usage:
I comment here because, well, the word is almost never used this way and I don't have a lot of experience with it.
--kop 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccurate "rare" notation on pronunciation?
Hey, I had a look at the IPA pronunciations given for English, and the "rare" pronunciation /æ.pəˈɹæ.təs/ is actually the only one that I've heard. Perhaps more convincingly, it's also the closest match to the US recording given, where the vowels are clearly low-front, schwa, low-front, schwa. Seems to me like that pronunciation should have the "rare" notation removed from it, since it seems to be the prevalent one in the US. Anyone else? - 126.96.36.199 05:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Since one of the plural forms of the word is the same as the singular, I think this should be added to the Invariant Nouns category here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_invariant_nouns . I don't know how to do this though, editing Wikis is not something I know how to do.