Re: virii
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 13:40, Ivo Wever wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Ivo Wever wrote:
> >>
> >>Even more offtopic: the plural of virus isn't virii. It isn't viri either.
> >>Virus in Latin doesn't have the same meaning as it has in English: it
> >>already is a sort of plural (like rice or sand) and 'virii' simply doesn't
> >>exist in Latin.
> >
> > I think that Nate was quoting me there, and I know that virii isn't
> > a real word (and gnome-spell reminds me in squiggly red lines!).
> > It's mock-latin (just like, apparently, some like to write in
> > mock-german).
> >
> Ah, OK, I didn't understand that. Is the Latin plural of museum:
> musea, accepted in English BTW?
Hey, good point!!!
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: