Eh. It’s a mannered debate about the plural of “octopus”. Honestly, I think fretting about whether the root is Latin or Greek and the ending of the plural form matches is a waste of time—we’re speaking English. What matters is that it is understood, and what the convention is. So let’s ask the scientists who study octo-whatsises!
Searching PubMed for the various forms of “octopus” gives the following numbers of references:
| Octopus: | 1,608 |
| Octopuses: | 592 |
| Octopods: | 16 |
| Octopi: | 6 |
| Octopodes: | 0 |
| Octopedes: | 0 |
I’m sticking with octopuses, the form hallowed by informed usage. I won’t spit in your eye if you call them octopi. I suspect the only people who would call them octopedes are skulking about on the humanities side of campus.
I’m sticking with Octopi. It’s shorter.
Whichever spelling you use, the main point is that Sean Connery was much better than Roger Moore.
I guess I should have added this entry:
Octopussies: 0
Well, there’s no excuse for octopi – it’s not a Latin word. Octopodes is the Greek, but except for antipodes would anyone know that was a plural? Scratch that – does anyone actually know that antipoldes is a plural?
We might as well use octopuses (though I’d like octopusses, myself; the other looks like it has a long U in it) – it’s an English word now, after all.
Though octopus as an indeclinable, like fish, could work…
ee-yike! Where did that L in “antipoldes” come from?
Quoth PZ:
Shouldn’t that be octo-whatses?
In speech, I would lean towards “octopedes” but similar in pronunciation to millipedes etc. Saying octopodes along the lines of antipodes just sounds so awkward…
Barry:
Especially since were we to use proper Classical Greek pronunciation, the stress in “octopodes” would be on the second syllable.
I don’t know about you metazoan people, but in microbiology we have Hans Truper. Dog have mercy on you if you name a bacterial species with a grammatically incorrect Greek or Latin derived name — Hans will bring up your linguistic ignorance in an editorial in IJSEM (the standard systematics journal for microbiology).
I blogged this, but about the plural of ‘Jesus’.
The upshot:
Or any borrowed words at all.
“Have you ever had octopi ala mode?”
-Jack Benny
“octopedes” sounds like what you ride around the humanities side of campus on.
You could use hexadecapod for a pair. Or perhaps not.
There were a couple of other forms listed in “Kingdom of the Octopus” by Frank Lane. “Octopussies” was one of them.
(I’m not going to look it up: it’s in box B-0181, which my spreadsheet tells me is in the cellar.)
I suspect the only people who would call them octopedes are skulking about on the humanities side of campus.
Oh, come on, don’t say that like it’s a bad thing! You have a possibly unseemly fetish for cephalopods; some of us have a possibly unseemly fetish for strange words and stranger (hackish) plurals. Personally, my favourite spurious plural is “Kleeneces.” :)
Further to the point of hackish plurals, a vast number of people who’d also say things like “octopodes” and “Kleeneces” would be found in the Computer Science department, which, on many campuses with which I am familiar, is a subset of Mathematics, and therefore not in the Humanities at all. :)
Uh, I hate to outpedant PZ, but, um…
Doesn’t “pod” mean “foot”?
They are really zeropods. They have 8 legs, not 8 feet.
Oh wait. Those aren’t really legs, are they? They’re tentacles. What’s Latin for tentacles?
I like “octopods.”
I had a professor who claimed that “octopus” is fifth-declension Latin, and therefore the plural is “octopÅ«s”.
I have always said octopodes, and I have a degree in astrophysics. The humanities side of the campus, forsooth.
My father once brought a couple of octo-“pie” to a potluck: Pie shells with a lacy crust on top, octowhatises under the crust, with tentacles discreetly dangling over an edge here or there.
Am I unscientific if I tell my son my favorite kind of pie is octo-pie?
Octo-sigh.
This reminds me of the old joke about the zookeeper who wanted more than one mongoose. He finally decided to write, “Send me a mongoose – while you’re at it, send me another one”.
The Oxford English Dictionary offers “Octopuses” first and “Octopodes” second, for what it’s worth. It also suggests “mongooses”.
I am informed by contemptible people that the plural of mongoose is “polygoose”.
OK, now that made me laugh.
Gah, Barry Kelly beat me to it. Given a free choice, I’m for Octopedes as well.
As a steadfast proponent of “octopodes”, I must admit, I always considered “octopi” to be an abomination on the order of using “alumni” or “phenomena” as if they were singular. Take that to mean what you will.
Mongeese, surely?
does anyone actually know that antipodes is a plural?
Yeah, I did, but what’s the singular?
Oh, this is one of my favorite topics! (I am a Latin-language nut.) The idea that because the word octopus is derived from Greek it can’t and doesn’t get Latin grammatical endings is specious. The Roman writers and grammarians themselves Latinized Greek words and gave them Latin endings so that those words were treated as if they were Latin. Some of those words are tripus (a tripod), polypus (a polyp), and lagopus (hare’s-foot herb). (Like octopus, those three words end in the Greek-derived element -pus that means “foot.”) On a related note, Octopus is nowadays used as a genus name, and scientific names are treated as Latin words (even if they are derived from Greek).
It is true that the etymologically-correct, Latinized Greek (nominative) plural forms of octopus are octopodes (if the word is masculine or feminine) and octopoda (if the word is neuter). The related words tripus and lagopus behave similarly: tripodes and lagopodes. However, there is classical (and pre-classical) Latin precedent for changing the -pus (“foot”) of a Latinized Greek word to -pi to make a plural form (by treating the word as a second-declension Latin word): (nominative) singular polypus and (nominative) plural polypi. Those who use octopi can cite polypi as an analogue. Sure, that method is not strictly etymological, but octopi is not quite indefensible, either. (Even so, I would avoid using octopi.)
The scientific Latin of today uses the Octopodes method (like tripodes and lagopodes) rather than the Octopi method (like polypi). The Superorder name is Octopodiformes (notice the Octopod-) instead of Octopiformes (notice the Octop-).
“does anyone actually know that antipodes is a plural?”
“Yeah, I did, but what’s the singular?”
It would be antipus in Latin (Greek: á¼Î½Ïá½·ÏÎ¿Ï Ï).
If so see octo-thingies, you can always avoid the dilemma by saying “Oh look, there’s an octopus… and there’s another.”
It works for me every time.
Octopeaux. Sheesh, do you people know nothing?
The plural of mongoose isn’t mongeese? Then we could have flocks of mongeese. Yeah, that might fly!
And since were speaking “ENGLISH” shouldn’t an octopus be an “eightfoot”? Hmm that sounds gramatically incorrect. Maybe it should be an “eightfeet”. Then we could have singular: “one eightfeet” and plural: one unholy mess of slithering inky tentacles. You say pus I say 3.14159 so you would get 8 * Pi = 25.13272 = plural of octopus. Now how simple is that? On second thought it’s all Greek to me.
“ee-yike! Where did that L in “antipoldes” come from?”
Obviously, it came from the ” atin”…. :-)
Did any Latin authors ever write about octop-you-know? Can’t we just grab the original plural and borrow that? The poseurs among us should also record the reference to throw back at the wanna-be pedants.
I love this blog and read it every day but…
I don’t get why scientists who expect everyone else to be exact and precise about their own topics/issues/disciplines think its OK to mock other non-scientist scholars who want to be precise about their own disciplines. How about some parity PZ?
Further to the point of hackish plurals, a vast number of people who’d also say things like “octopodes” and “Kleeneces” would be found in the Computer Science department
While we’re at it, I’d like to have a little discussion with those folks about “viri”…
Yeah, but this is English, which despite borrowing heavily from latin roots is not a latin language, and while one does endeaver to be precise we are not necessarily bound by latinate forms. The rule of thumb on pronounciations tends towards what sounds ‘better’ in any given language. My problem with ‘octopuses’ is it puts a lot of sybilants at the end of the word. Sorry, but it sounds like Sylvester the Cat, though he’d probably render it ‘octopuseseses’. Octopi probably works better, though I really don’t (gasp!) have a problem with the plural of octupus as ‘octupus’. One octopus, two octopus, a whole bunch of octopus hanging around that rock over there. Try that sentence with ‘octopuses’ and it bogs down quick.
Or we could switch to spanish and call them ‘pulpo’, but then we’d argue if it was ‘pulpos’ or ‘los pulpo’.
Octopus? Octopi? Surely you jest.
As anyone knows, the plural of opus is opera. Therefore, the correct plural of octopus is octopera.
I mean, come on, people.
PubMed citations for “octopuseseses”: 0.
Octopuses is the standard plural in both American English and British English. See Garner’s Modern American Usage, p. 566 (2003).
“I had a professor who claimed that “octopus” is fifth-declension Latin, and therefore the plural is “octopÅ«s”.”
But no one ever listens to Zathras…
I prefer octopod for getting rid of all of those extra “s” sounds too. This thread made me wonder about something. Platypeese? Platypuses? Platypods? Ah, anything to avoid the joys of finite mathematics today! ;^)
If I ever get a cat you know what ‘m gonna name it…
It was only until I started writing my dissertation on them that I found out that Octopi was incorrect. I went for Octopods, what with squid and cuttlefish being Decapods.
I suspect the only people who would call them octopedes are skulking about on the humanities side of campus.
I think you’re forgetting that with the exception of Classics, few humanities students learn Greek or Latin anymore. (There’s more material in languages we already speak now than there used to be (in, er, the 1600s). My guess is that you’re more likely to find people with vague-to-decent latin or greek skills in mathematics and the sciences these days (especially when it comes to Latin and the sciences).
I’ve always thought that since language has been around for far longer than the dictionaries and scholars that describe it, that it’s popular usage that defines the proper way to use language (or else we’re all guilty of butchering Old English). So, a quick search on Google gives:
Octopus: 20,300,000
Octopuses: 571,000
Octopusses: 24,500
Octopods: 32,300
Octopi: 437,000
Octopodes: 36,400
Octopedes: 1,100
So, “octopuses” edges out “octopi,” but not by a whole lot.
I would vote for Octopodes, or failing that, Octopi.
does anyone actually know that antipodes is a plural?
I do! I didn’t know the singular, though.
While we’re at it, I’d like to have a little discussion with those folks about “viri”…
I think viri is perfectly cromulent. Yes, I am in Computer Science.
polygoose
The plural of mongoose is not polygoose or mongeese. It is clearly polygeese :-)
Steve_C… hemioctopuss? quadropi?
Octopus is an unsuccessful pidgin Greek concoction, as many English words. Why suffer the uncertainty of how it is pronounced, what is its plural, how to differentiate males from females, and so on? The solution is to adopt the SpanishPULPO pl. PULPOS adj. PULPOSO (how do you say in English “like an octopus”? you have no word for it.) And PULPABLE – guilty as an octopus (I just made up this last one). It would also be politically correct, as a welcome gesture to Latin immigrants.
aiabx: On the other hand, my degrees are in philosophy (more or less) and I say “octopuses”. We cancel out. :)
As for why – well, it isn’t a Greek word only any more, and since it is an English word, English conventions should apply. Does anyone say “aviatrix” any more?
John C.: Do you insist on the correct etymology for “phenomena” too? People use the word to mean “fact”, when it “should” mean “appearance”.
Dr Pretorius: There are also us philosophers who have a fair number of people who have at least some Greek. (I do, but extremely little, and vocabulary only, no grammar.)
I think Walt Kelley settled the mongoose plural question. He said that the mongoose is a singular animal, because no one can say two of them.
Noooo….
Octo-Pusseeeee!
Pogo gets it right: the correct form is “octopockles is done got me!”
(from when an octopus in the swamp clamps onto his head)
they then degenerate into a discussion about the past parthunkible of is done got…
how do you say in English “like an octopus”? you have no word for it.
Of course we do. Several of them. “Octopean”, “octopian”, “octopic”, “octopine”. They’re not commonly used words, admittedly, but they’re all in the Oxford English Dictionary. Just because you don’t know a word doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Do those Latin pedants who haven’t noticed that we’re speaking English also insist on using the case system as well.
The correct plural form of any Latin noun is contingent on how the word is used in that sentence. Depending on which declension octopus belongs to, correct endings could be:
octop – us/uum/ibus or i/orum/is/os.
Quite why anyone would want to use Latin endings in English sentences I don’t know.
Do Greek enthusiasts want to use the Greek alphabet as well?
Octopice
Octopeeses
Octopussies
But wherever you come down on the question of the “proper plural,” it is obvious that such a term should apply only to groups larger than two, and a pair of these creatures should be called a hexadecipus.
I think you’re forgetting that with the exception of Classics, few humanities students learn Greek or Latin anymore…….My guess is that you’re more likely to find people with vague-to-decent latin or greek skills in mathematics and the sciences these days (especially when it comes to Latin and the sciences).” – Dr. Pretorius
let’s not forget the historians, my friend. We medievalists have been learning Latin (albeit in an even more bastardized form than that being discussed here) for years. Just be glad that our many-legged friends never had to encounter the ministrations of a French notary or two.
..There are also us philosophers who have a fair number of people who have at least some Greek. (I do, but extremely little, and vocabulary only, no grammar.)
You’re right – we philosophers do often know little bits of Greek, and like historians those who specialize in the area (or related ones) generally know Latin or Greek. But I didn’t say that there weren’t any, just that there were few, and I specifically excepted people who study Classics, which constitute to my knowledge the only large discipline in the humanities where most of the students know them. Also, unless you’re talking about something more specific there than knowing the technical terms (akrasia; eudaimonia; ergon; etc (yes, all the examples on the tip of my tongue are from the Nicomachean Ethics)) I don’t think it really counts.
Octopus-y, of course.
I’ve always spelled the plural of Kleenex® “Kleenices.”
And finally, my recollection of Pogo tells me that Albert Alligator, when firmly grosped by a cephalopod, would cry “Octopots done got me!” Apparently I am not alone in this recollection
While we’re on the subject of octopi (octopuses?) again, here’s another
video of the “When Invertebrates Attack” variety…….
Sharks “disappear” in Seattle aquarium when an octopus is introduced..
http://addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=12093&title=Giant%20squid%20eating%20a%20shark
The page says squid eating shark but obviously the poster wasn’t paying
attention…….enjoy!!!
There is no reason not treat it as an English word. I ownder how many pedants freak out about ‘raviolis”?
In college, a friend and I had a long discussion about this very question. We both knew enough about Greek noun endings to agree on “octopodes” over “octopi.” But I see no reason not to say “octopuses,” and I rather like “octopods” as an alternative.
Sorry to dredge this thread up long after everyone else has gone home, but I won’t be able to sleep until I get an answer to this burning question; what’s the collective noun for octopodes?
Even Google doesn’t know.