Most dictionaries list octopi and octopuses as the correct plural of octopus, but some English Usage Dictionaries say that octopi is incorrect. Fowler's Modern English Usage says the following:

A note on the plural form: Fowler's Modern English Usage states that "the only acceptable plural in English is octopuses", and that octopi is misconceived and octopodes pedantic. Octopi derives from the mistaken notion that octopus is Latin. It is not. It is (Latinized) Greek, from oktopous (????????), gender masculine, whose plural is oktopodes (?????????). If the word were Latin, it would be octopes ('eight-foot') and the plural octopedes, analogous to centipedes and millipedes, as the plural form of pes ('foot') is pedes. In modern, informal Greek, it is called khtapodi (???????), gender neuter, with plural form khtapodia (????????).


What do you say?

I say that Fowler's is :thumbsup:. I hurt people who say 'octopi'. But I am, of course, a dork, so nobody needs to pay much attention to me.

Here is the last discussion on this:

http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3079&highlight=plural

Fowler's is a very reputable source for grammar and usage information! On Ceph Care we've been using "octopuses" as the plural and in my reading I almost never come across "octopi".

:octopus: :octopus: :octopus: :octopus: = octopuses

Nancy

Oh dear I go 1:octopus: 2:octopus: many octopus
then i don't have to remember greek, latin, latinized greek...'tis all double dutch to me!!!!! :lol:

J

The correct plural is Octopuses or Octopodes. Octopi is informal and incorrect.

English, particularly modern American English, is a mix-and-match mongrel tongue that is constantly changing with new foreign influences, however distressing that may seem. In one hundred years it will be officially a bit different than it is now, so incorrectly mixing latin and greek together seems altogether in keeping with the ongoing bastardization process. That said, and much as I enjoy the sound of "octopi" from an aesthetic standpoint, I've generally ceased using this word to avoid the corrective lectures of :grad: and other language-purity sticklers.

Unlike French, which has an Academy that makes prononucements on words (approves new words each year, for instance), English is a language determined by usage.

I've avoided the words "correct" and "incorrect" - we can say that "octopuses" :octopus: :octopus: :octopus: is preferred because it's more widely used than any other versions of the plural.

English has a long history of changes - but so do other languages. That's how we got French and Spanish from Latin!

Nancy

no it is definitly octopeses

Considering that The Brits consider the correct pronunciation of Don Quixote to be "Don Quickset" I don't think we need consider any British source the be-all and end-all of discussions about grammar, pronunciation, or whatever. Sorry Brits, I like you , just not crazy about that particular mindset. Have you ever heard them mangle Italian cites????

Or the 'kephalopod' version of 'sephalopod'...

(I know, I'm asking for :tomato: )

Considering that The Brits consider the correct pronunciation of Don Quixote to be "Don Quickset" I don't think we need consider any British source the be-all and end-all of discussions about grammar, pronunciation, or whatever. Sorry Brits, I like you , just not crazy about that particular mindset. Have you ever heard them mangle Italian cites????


Awwwww booooooo! I've never heard anyone in Britain say any other pronunciation than Key-oh-tay, which is probably wrong but better than Quickset! You probably think we all walk around in bowler hats and drink tea all the time. :hmm:

Alright... we do drink a lot of tea.

Anyway you should hear US citizens saying 'Salisbury' which is where I live. Touche! (drat, where's the accent on this thing? Oh it's ruined my witty riposte.)

Hey, I'm Welsh, you should hear any english speaker trying to say Bwlch, or Blaenau Ffestiniog. (Sudden realisation that Welsh people make great Cthulhu cultists because we can pronounce the words)

Ahem, Anyhoo, English is a funny ol' mix of Saxon, Norman, Norse and just about anything else we can get our hands on, so I've no problem with mangling the language and it changing. For example the word Awful originally meant something completely different. Even the word 'Thing' is a Norse word for a type of meeting. As for 'Quaint ' (which English people think Americans say a lot, I've never heard any Americans use it), check out Chaucer's The Millers Tale for it's original use :oops:

BUT, it is nice to be able to smugly say "heh heh, it's a common mistake, but I think you'll find the plural of octopus is ACTUALLY octopuses"

I was told that the correct plural form was octopods....

Hey, I'm Welsh, you should hear any english speaker trying to say Bwlch, or Blaenau Ffestiniog. (Sudden realisation that Welsh people make great Cthulhu cultists because we can pronounce the words)



Scots are pretty good at it too! Just have to listen to sassenachs pronouce Auchenshuggle (correctly pronounced Ochenshoogle), Kirkcudbright (correctly pronounced Kirkcoobray),Wemyss (correctly pronounced Weems) and my personal favourite Milngavie (correctly pronounced Mill-guy). What fun!!!!


J

I thought "octopi" was what you use to determine the circumference of an octopus' arm span? LOL

get around it by saying i have an octopus and another octopus and so on...
what if i have like 200 you may ask, well what kind of octo-obsessed person would have that many... so its impractical to need a plural form (unless youre steve o'shea)


thats my logic for idiots

Scots are pretty good at it too! Just have to listen to sassenachs pronouce Auchenshuggle (correctly pronounced Ochenshoogle), Kirkcudbright (correctly pronounced Kirkcoobray),Wemyss (correctly pronounced Weems) and my personal favourite Milngavie (correctly pronounced Mill-guy). What fun!!!!


J


Hey, how come you know all these crackers we use to laugh at the english when they visit here? Mind you, most americans heard on TV can barely pronounce Glasgow LOL

Here's a couple more for you then...

Kilncadzow - Kill kaygie
Ravenstruther - Renstry

Nancy - remember me trying to teach you 'Glenfiddich'? :wink:

Hey, how come you know all these crackers we use to laugh at the english when they visit here? Mind you, most americans heard on TV can barely pronounce Glasgow LOL

Here's a couple more for you then...

Kilncadzow - Kill kaygie
Ravenstruther - Renstry

Nancy - remember me trying to teach you 'Glenfiddich'? :wink:

Was born in Glasgow and lived in Kirkintilloch till 7 yo

Have spent all my life listening to my parents and their friends pronounce them properly (quite a laugh if you get 2 Glaswegians, 1 Geordie, and 1 Manxman give them a few :beer: then sit back and watch the Kiwis try to translate the dialect...............it happened at our place once!!!). :twisted:

J

Yo peeps, it's octopuses. Octopi sounds like a phat word but it ain't kosher or pukka

Keef

Happisburgh = Hays burrah
must go kick my butler

The New Oxford American Dictionary agrees with Chet. I always thought it was octxen. (Ouch. I promise never to post again.)

I'm pretty sure it is...

check the signature

why does it say something about wikipedia not being an appropriate reference?

I'm assuming you meant NOT a correct source, so you asked for it :grin::

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/plurals

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/plural-octopus.html

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424902/octopus - not directly stated, however the only plural they use is octopuses

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_plural_for_octopus

http://www.everythingyouknowisalie.co.uk/language/files/65ba0ca9f2f9bee02e7fe2303d8c3669-10.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/octopus

http://rmjacobsen.squarespace.com/notebook/whats-the-plural-of-octopus.html

No, I meant what I said, it is not an appropriate as a reference. It is a good tool to use for general information and as a starting point.

why does it say something about wikipedia not being an appropriate reference?

You said why does it say something about wikipedia being an incorrect reference, however my signature says nothing about it being an incorrect reference, so I assumed that you meant why does it NOT say something about wikipedia being an incorrect reference because otherwise I don't see how it makes sense...

And I agree with you if my implied meaning was correct, wikipedia is not a relevant reference source, however, it is the easiest to link to and understand, AND, you can't find any sane site online that will argue with the statement wikipedia provided...