![]() ![]() ![]() In Latin, most second declension masculine nouns ending in -us form their plural in -i. Still others may use either: corpus ( corpora or corpuses), formula ( formulae in technical contexts, formulas otherwise), index ( indices mostly in technical contexts, indexes otherwise). Some English words of Latin origin do not commonly take the Latin plural, but rather the regular English plurals in -(e)s: campus, bonus, and anus while others regularly use the Latin forms: radius ( radii) and alumnus ( alumni). Prescriptivists consider these forms incorrect, but descriptivists may simply describe them as a natural evolution of language. Conversely, some non-Latin words ending in -us and Latin words that did not have their Latin plurals with -i form their English plurals with -i, e.g., octopi is sometimes used as a plural for octopus (the standard English plural is octopuses). ![]() There are many exceptions, some because the word does not derive from Latin, and others due to custom ( e.g., campus, plural campuses). If we decide that the possessive of “artist” is singular in the case of multiple proofs by a single engraver and plural in the case of multiple engravers, we are still left with the unclear case when the number of engravers is not specified, i.e., when just using the term “artist’s proofs.” An analogous situation might arise with a term like “baker’s dozen” but not with normal possessives like “manufacturers’ coupons.In English, the plural form of words ending in -us, especially those derived from Latin, often replaces -us with -i. I think we would also say “artist’s proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” (referring to several proofs by each engraver), because we are using the plural of the term of art or unit “artist’s proof,” which is shorthand for “a proof of an engraving by an artist.” Stated differently, adding an “s” to proofs is sufficient to make the term of art “artist’s proofs” plural, and we don’t need to use the plural of the first term as well when two different engravers are involved, since we are still just referring to multiple examples of the term of art “artist’s proof.” We should distinguish this case from the use of “artist” as a normal possessive and not as part of a term of art, in which case we would need to use the plural of the possessive (artists’) when referring to proofs by several artists, but I don’t think we would say “artists’ proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” when using “artist’s proofs” as a term of art. How would you handle the plural of a term of art like “artist’s proof,” which itself contains a possessive as the first word, when referring to proofs of multiple artists? It seems clear that we would say “artist’s proofs by the engraver Combet” to refer to several proofs by the single engraver Combet. Some styles allow it, so it’s a legitimate choice, but Chicago prefers the alternatives shown above (see also CMOS 7.13). Switching to regular text for the s is analogous to putting the “s” after a closing quotation mark-as in “yeah”s. But don’t put the s in italics (see CMOS 7.12)-and keep the apostrophe in we’s:Ī chorus of got its, yeahs, and way too enthusiastic woos followed. Another option would be to use italics instead of quotation marks. Though apostrophes normally signal possession or contraction, they’re also good at clarifying the occasional plural that might otherwise be hard to read (as with letters: e.g., two w’s). “You’re using a whole lot of ‘we’s’ here.” ![]() For that plural, either rephrase or use an apostrophe (as you’ve done in your question): That would work for your last set of examples:Ī chorus of “got its,” “yeahs,” and way too enthusiastic “woos” followed.īut it works less well for “we” (mostly because “wes” looks too much like the name Wes). Often you can form the plural of a word used as a word simply by adding an s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |