Talk:rhinoceros

As far as I know, rhinoceroticus doesn't exist in English, so I've deleted it. rhinocerotic does exist 213.208.107.91 27 June 2005 17:50 (UTC) Archaic texts should be easier to find than current texts, but it seems this plural form has simply never in history, been used in running text. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited. It was never very common, but it's definitely been used plenty. Widsith 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The one citation may not be enough though. Are you certain it is "archaic" and not "obsolete?" --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the duplicate listing. This is being discussed at length in WT:RFC. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the classicizing plural 'rhinocerotes' belongs with the naturalized singular 'rhinocerot'. Highly unlikely given the vowel change involved. The ordinary singular 'rhinocerots' seems well-enough attested, but not the use of rhinocerot sg. with rhinocerotes pl. —Muke Tever 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's right as per the OED. The Shorter OED has a usage note which explains that it is a convention to regard rhinocerotes as a plural of rhinocerot rather than of rhinoceros. We seem to be talking about this in every forum at the moment... Widsith 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because the longer OED has a usage note saying that they have rhinocerotes as a plural for both rhinoceros and rhinocerotes, with an additional note saying that it only has it as a plural of rhinocerot from c. 1550 to 1700 (which, incidentally, is nearly the same range that they assert the spelling rhinocerote is attested...). —Muke Tever 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, change it if you like Widsith 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed Andrew massyn 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)}}

Talk from tea room:

One of the plural forms of rhinoceros is labelled as "etymologically correct" but is not in any of my dictionaries. Is it valid? What does "etymologically correct" mean? (we are a descriptive rather than a prescriptive dictionary aren't we?) SemperBlotto 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in a sense rhinocerotes is indeed "more correct" than the common one, as derived from Latin. The usage in English is at least archaic, I believe. — Vildricianus 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From Google Books: rhinoceri and the rarer rhinoceroi. Are these sufficient? Doremítzwr 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

rhinocerotes has been used in English – there are plenty of nice cites on Google Books. But we shouldn't label it ‘etymologically correct’: that is not a useful, or even very meaningful, comment. Widsith 11:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, what phrase do you suggest as an alternative? I take “etymologically correct” to mean ‘correct in the language from which (the word) was borrowed’; if you can think of a succint phrase which better embodies this definition, then I will be happy to use it in place of “etymologically correct”. Doremítzwr 11:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally I use 'classical plural' or—I think more correctly now—'classicizing plural' for Latin/Greek words (ex. at epiglottis), contrasted to English or (better) Anglicized plural. This similar to practice in other languages (e.g. Japanese kitsune). (I say 'classicizing' as I don't really think 'Latin plural' would be appropriate, it being originally Greek, and neither is 'Greek plural' appropriate, as the Greek plural is actually ῥινοκέρωτες.) —Muke Tever 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I would just mark it (archaic). Although, checking my sOED, I see they have done things differently. They give rhinoceros and rhinoceroses as the only plural forms, but note that ‘plural forms in Latin plural -otes have been regarded as belonging to next’, the next entry being rhinocerot, a rare (singular) variant and synonym of rhinoceros. So maybe we should adopt that solution. Widsith 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s fine with me, but we still need an alternative term to “etymologically correct” for all the other plurals of that nature which don’t go away as easily as rhinocerotes. Doremítzwr 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Etymologically constructed plural" or "Etyomologically derived" perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

“Etymologically derived” would be my choice. Is this term satisfactory for everyone else? Doremítzwr 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it personally. We have an =Etymology= section to explain where words came from. Widsith 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To distinguish between plurals that are erroneous or add the ubiquitous ~s morpheme and those that remain faithful to the plural form from the language from which the word in question was borrowed. This is often unclear from the etymology (unless one has background knowledge of the language in question). It is my belief that we should include the “etymologically derived” plural(s) of every word (noting if they are rarely or never used), as there are many people (like me) who have a somewhat obscurantist tendency to be ultra-correct, and only ever use plurals from the words’ languages of derivation, and would thus appreciate being able to find the original form in an accessible resource like Wiktionary, and not having to search for ages through obscure academic writs. For example, to pluralise imprimatur, platypus and saga, I would use imprimantur, platypodes and sögur. Including these forms could only improve Wiktionary as an online resource, and would not detract from its claim to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. What does everyone else think? Doremítzwr 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is not ‘ultra-correct’ to to use plurals from a word's language of origin; in fact usually it's just wrong. Since no English dictionaries list these forms, and they are virtually unattested in English, you really have no authority to claim that they are correct. The grammatical rules of other languages are just not relevant. Most English words are from Old English, which formed plurals by adding not -s but -as; are you going to adopt that as well? One dog, two doggas? Anyway, how far back do you go? And why stop with plural inflections; why not adopt subjunctive cases as well when the mood requires it? Or resurrect the dual form when talking about two things? These attempts to be ‘correct’ are misguided. They ignore the fact that English has a grammar of its own which is more than capable of forming plurals in its own regular way without being in any way ‘wrong’. Yes, sometimes people use these forms out of error rather than choice, but that doesn't mean that there is some ‘pure’ form of inflections for every word that can be found if you just go back a language or two. I agree that the information should be available on Wiktionary, but the proper place for it is usually within the relevant source-language section rather than in the English (unless it has been attested in English). Quite apart from anything else, there is also the consideration of register: platypodes really sounds very pretentious. I'm sorry to rant at you....this is a subject that gets me going! Widsith 08:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be entertaining, though, to see the logical conclusion of *ultra-correction, i.e. text with all words honoring the tenses, moods, declensions, conjugations, and orthography of the source words so far as they can be traced. Works written in *ultra-correct English would have to be updated every time an earlier root of a word is discovered. Rod (A. Smith) 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be entertaining at all. That line of thought is what has led to "proto" forms gaining an air of legitimacy, when in fact, they are a measure of a particular "researcher's" imagination. --Connel MacKenzie 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)