Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:09 pm
To those Latin scholars/pedants
I have to ask, who was the original berk who decided that virii was the plural for virus, as it is almost certainly not.
There is no Latin word as yet discovered for virius (which is what virii MUST decline from).
virus is officially second declension so it would be viri. Of course it's entirely possible that virus is 4th declension where the plural is virus. And yet it could also be that it follows another pattern (this is where the fun starts). Perhaps, seeing as it is described as neuter it could be vira, or if it stemmed like similar(?!) words, virora, but this is unlikely owing to the horrid compilation of wi-raw-rah sounds which speakers don't like.
But I have no idea, does anyone know the answer to this 'mystery'?
Edited by - The Evil Thing on 4/8/2005 1:09:48 PM
There is no Latin word as yet discovered for virius (which is what virii MUST decline from).
virus is officially second declension so it would be viri. Of course it's entirely possible that virus is 4th declension where the plural is virus. And yet it could also be that it follows another pattern (this is where the fun starts). Perhaps, seeing as it is described as neuter it could be vira, or if it stemmed like similar(?!) words, virora, but this is unlikely owing to the horrid compilation of wi-raw-rah sounds which speakers don't like.
But I have no idea, does anyone know the answer to this 'mystery'?
Edited by - The Evil Thing on 4/8/2005 1:09:48 PM
