Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | Whose Bubbles? »

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Science Is Awesome!

posted by on July 8 at 11:00 AM

Octopuses given Rubik’s Cubes for some reason or another.

Octopi.jpg

Shouldn’t it be “octopi”, though? And are they going to give them eight waterproof typewriters next? Frankly, I’d trust an octopus to write Hamlet before a monkey. A monkey might be able to pull off Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but I think that octopi really understand tragedy in a way that monkeys don’t.

RSS icon Comments

1

Octopus is Greek, not Latin. So the plural would be octopodes, were you to have a need to use a non-English plural. Which you don't.

Posted by elenchos | July 8, 2008 11:03 AM
2

Read about this on http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
"some reason or another" is they were testing handedness of octopus, seeing what tentacles were dominant.

Posted by Sean | July 8, 2008 11:10 AM
3

elenchos @1:

were you to have a need to use a non-English plural. Which you don't.

The need is that "octopuses" is jarringly awkward.  "Octopi," though perhaps not technically historically correct, is easy on both tongue and ear and is readily understood by nearly any modern English speaker, accustomed as we all are to the "-i" pluralization of nouns ending in "us."

But nevermind all that.  Where is Golob's comment on the original post?

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 11:10 AM
4

Yeah, sure. Stick Latin plural endings on Chinese words too, why don't you?

Posted by elenchos | July 8, 2008 11:16 AM
5

If it were octopi, then we would have formulae.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 8, 2008 11:16 AM
6

I'm with Elenchos on this one. "Octopi" is just illiterate. It's worse than "octupussies". And no, lostboy, we don't use Latin plurals on English words that just happen to be Latin-derived. Octopus is an English word. So are "stadium" and "campus".

Posted by Fnarf | July 8, 2008 11:23 AM
7

We do have formulae. At least, that's how I learned it at school.

Posted by David | July 8, 2008 11:28 AM
8

We wnt through this a while back with Platypus...Platypodes was the verdict for a correct plural. Same thing holds here, Greek word, Greek plural.

Posted by Gabe | July 8, 2008 11:30 AM
9
The need is that "octopuses" is jarringly awkward.
No, it isn't. Sorry.
"Octopi," though perhaps not technically historically correct, is easy on both tongue and ear
Actually, it's jarringly awkward. See what I did there?
and is readily understood by nearly any modern English speaker, accustomed as we all are to the "-i" pluralization of nouns ending in "us."
Go ahead, then, say "bi" the next time you mean "buses." Preferably on video, so we can all appreciate the universality of your understandablenesses.

 

Admit it, the reason you want to use that uneducated pluralization has nothing to do with vocal aesthetic or clarity, and everything to do with wanting to sound a little bit funny, and, you are hoping, a little bit bookish, too.

What is the word for revealing one's ignorance precisely when one thinks one is being clever?

I'm sure you and your fellow ignorami can come up with it in between the usual flati from your esophagi.

Posted by robotslave | July 8, 2008 11:36 AM
10

Hypercorrection is awesome.

Posted by rtw | July 8, 2008 11:36 AM
11

@ Elenchos/Fnarf -
"Octopi" is in the Webster's dictionary, along with "octopuses" as plurals for "octopus".

Personally, I think the plural for "octopus" should be "octopus". Like fish. Or moose. As in, "I took a bath with three octopus".

So, I wouldn't call it illiterate. Maybe improper, but superceded by actual usage.

Posted by Mahtli69 | July 8, 2008 11:48 AM
12

Very small children love Rubik's cubes. I think it's the colors.

They're also always amazed to find a new plane to rotate.

Posted by V | July 8, 2008 11:48 AM
13

It's not a fucking Greek word. It's an ENGLISH word of Greek origin. The distinction is fundamental to what English IS. The plural is "octopuses".

Posted by Fnarf | July 8, 2008 11:48 AM
14

They are also giving them lego bricks. They don't actually expect the octopuses to solve the Rubik's cube, but I think it would be funny as hell if the octopuses did solve it.

Posted by PopTart | July 8, 2008 11:53 AM
15

It can be in usage and still be illiterate.

Posted by Fnarf | July 8, 2008 11:59 AM
16

Wow, I had no idea that my support for "octopi" would provoke such heated response.  O_O

But far be it from me to disappoint those eager to tangle.  A few of the retorts ignore my first point, that "octopusses" is awkward enough to create demand for an alternative.  "Formulas," "stadiums," "campuses," and "buses" are all comfortable to pronounce and have a familiar ring.  (Otoh, "platypusses" is even worse than "octopusses," which is exactly why there was a discussion as Gabe @8 points out.)

Fnarf @6, sure we use Latin plurals on words that happen to Latin derived.  For starters, both "stadiums" and "stadia" are given as plural forms for stadium in English dictionaries, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone writing "alumnusses" or "datums."

robotslave @9 and I will just have to disagree on whether "octopi" or "octopusses" is more awkward.  Seriously, though, "bi" for "bus"?  Don't make me rebut that; you won't like the result.

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 12:03 PM
17

OMG robotslave!

Posted by elenchos | July 8, 2008 12:07 PM
18

Mahtli69:

Argumentum ad lexicon? Are you kidding me?


All you've done is show that Webster's takes the descriptive approach rather than the prescriptive. Congrats.


You know what word appears immediately after "octopus" in Webster's third unabridged?


"octaroon."


Have fun defending the use of that one, skippy.

Posted by robotslave | July 8, 2008 12:08 PM
19

Scientists say "octopuses"; that's good enough for me.

Posted by Levislade | July 8, 2008 12:10 PM
20

Also, it appears Brits say "handiness" rather than "handedness," which is adorable.

Posted by Levislade | July 8, 2008 12:12 PM
21

How long did it take him to solve it?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | July 8, 2008 12:13 PM
22

Fnarf @13:

It's not a fucking Greek word. It's an ENGLISH word of Greek origin. The distinction is fundamental to what English IS. The plural is "octopuses".

So it's an English word.  Why does it follow that we must exclusively pluralize it with the standard English "-es"?

English is full of irregular plurals, derived naturally from other languages for borrowed vocabulary that doesn't readily conform to standard English grammar.  (Off the top of my head, "sushi," "otaku," and other Japanese words borrowed into English are often their own plurals like "fish" or "sheep," because Japanese lacks an explicitly plural declination.)

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 12:15 PM
23

Wasn't there an xkcd about this very comments thread?

Love it.


I, for one, think it's mean to mock the octopuses. "Hey, here's an abacus, see if you can invent calculus! Har har!"

Posted by violet_dagrinder | July 8, 2008 12:16 PM
24

@11&13: From what I remember from the old Platypuses/Platypi/Platypodes discussion, ALL THREE are acceptable through usage. Octopi is incorrect, Octopodes is correct, Octopuses is most commonly used in English. When I looked up the Platypus plural, the word Octopus was given as another example of the usage.

Scientifically correct, Octopodes. Most common, Octopuses. Wrong, but still acceptable, Octopi.

Posted by Gabe | July 8, 2008 12:17 PM
25

I'm just surprised Paul actually asked that question (sincerely?). Really, Paul?

Posted by Gloria | July 8, 2008 12:18 PM
26

Let's just call them sushi!

Don't octupues/-pi/-podes have arms not tentacles? Mr. Science?

Posted by CommonKnowledge | July 8, 2008 12:29 PM
27

violet @23, do you mean this one?

Oh yeah, robotslave @9 again:

Admit it, the reason you want to use that uneducated pluralization has nothing to do with vocal aesthetic or clarity, and everything to do with wanting to sound a little bit funny, and, you are hoping, a little bit bookish, too.

I was going to ignore this, but I can't resist the irony that my effort to defend an inoffensive colloquialism against grammar nazism would provoke an accusation of vanity and snobbery on my part.

For the record, I'm motivated in general by effective communication*, a simple-sounding idea that is really a deep alchemic mix of clarity, aesthetic, humor, accuracy, precision, accessibility, and tailoring to the audience without pandering or condescending.

So even though robotslave's wrong about me, what's wrong with trying to sound a little bit funny?




* (Obviously, I have issues with wordiness.  It's hard to be concise at the pace that comments move.)

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 12:37 PM
28

Paul Constant asked "Shouldn’t it be 'octopi', though?" He asked the question because he wanted an answer, I presume. Nobody is a grammar nazi for answering him.

Posted by elenchos | July 8, 2008 12:45 PM
29

elenchos @28, I concede grammar nazism is overstating the case, but look at your comment @1.  Can you honestly tell me it wasn't served with two spoons of snide on top?

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 12:54 PM
30

I'm being twice as nice today as usual. At least twice, maybe nicer.

Posted by elenchos | July 8, 2008 12:58 PM
31
Let's just call them sushi!
No, thank you.

1) "sushi" is a generic term, and since it is the particular animal we're arguing about, the appropriate borrowed food-word would be "tako."

2) "sushi" refers to the vinegared rice, not the fish, so "sushi" is wrong even as a generic. The correct generic borrowed food-word would be "sashimi."

3) Even if we accept the ignorant but common American interpretation of the word "sushi" to mean "Japanese food made with raw fish," then "sushi" is still wrong, because octopus is always cooked when served as sushi or sashimi.

Posted by robotslave | July 8, 2008 1:01 PM
32

robotslave @31, every single point you make is correct.

Now turn around and wave at the joke @26 that flew over your head.

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 1:08 PM
33

@28: Yeah, I understand the concept of questions. I was surprised:

(1) he didn't know better than to wonder in the first place,
(2) he hadn't already encountered this debate considering his literacy and internet savvy, and
(3) he didn't just quietly look it up rather than agitating a can of nerdy worms.

I was sure he was baiting.

Posted by Gloria | July 8, 2008 1:10 PM
34

@18
Wow, Webster's 3rd doesn't alphabetize its entries??

Posted by David | July 8, 2008 1:14 PM
35

Gloria @33, agitating a can of nerdy worms is fun!  How we wiggle and squirm!

Anyway, elenchos wasn't busting on you; it was a rebuttal of me @27.



(No, I'm not obsessively refreshing the page while I should be working.  What makes you ask?)

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 1:16 PM
36

What's with everybody being a bunch of penii here today?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | July 8, 2008 1:21 PM
37

@34,


Yep, you're right, I spelled it wrong. My bad.


@32,


lostboy, I find this "joke flying over the head" metaphor of yours rather difficult. I'll have to research it.

Posted by robotslave | July 8, 2008 1:33 PM
38

robotslave @37:

lostboy, I find this "joke flying over the head" metaphor of yours rather difficult. I'll have to research it.

Yeah, ok, I knew when I wrote it that I shouldn't, because it was entirely possible you had noticed the joke but just missed its point.  I was beguiled by the opportunity for snark.  My bad.

I was also too hasty to say all your points were correct.

2) "sushi" refers to the vinegared rice, not the fish, so "sushi" is wrong even as a generic.

True, it's the vinegared (and sugared) rice that makes sushi sushi, but "sushi" refers (in English especially) to the complete food of sushi rice + octopus, roe, scrambled egg, or whatever topping or roll filling.

So for CommonKnowledge's point @26 that we should avoid the plural of octopus problem by regarding--and thus referring to--them as tasty food-to-be, "sushi" is perfectly correct.

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 2:07 PM
39

lostboy, I do appreciate your conceding my points (even if you did forget the Kombu), but could you please explain the mechanics of this "joke flying over the head" business?

I've got the gist of the thing, I think, but it would help if you could elucidate the particulars. My preliminary internet research indicates that a joke is most likely to "fly over one's head" when the joke is at one's own expense, but I'm having trouble seeing exactly why that might be so. An explanation of a concrete example would be most helpful; do you think you could take the time to walk me through it?

Posted by robotslave | July 8, 2008 2:17 PM
40

@22: But what about ninjas?

Posted by Greg | July 8, 2008 4:03 PM
41

Greg @40:

@22: But what about ninjas?

Or Toyotas?  Or tsunamis?  Or kimonos?

My point @22 is true of many Japanese loan words in English, but granted not nearly all, (probably not even most).

Posted by lostboy | July 8, 2008 4:27 PM
42

William Safire Orders Two Whoppers Junior
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31525

Posted by CP | July 8, 2008 6:24 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.