The Word Cloud

I mentioned this as an appendix to an old thread, long disappeared in the undergrowth, and thought it sufficiently interesting (to me), to warrant an airing of its own:

Did you know, that all can be valid? Hippopotamuses, hippopotami, octopuses and octopi are all respectable; it depends on the meaning you intend.
Hippopotamuses and octopuses imply a specific group of the creatures, whereas hippopotami and octopi refer to hippopotami and octopi in general.
So you would say, for instance:
The Spotty Family of hippopotamuses were shunned by the other hippopotami in the river.
Oscar and Lucinda were octopuses with long graceful necks, whereas all the other octopi were up to their ears in shoulders.

See? Told you it was interesting!
Whisks

Those observations about the tentacled creatures... as reported by a couple of passing fishes to the rest of the fish when they got back. Same principle with the English word. Very interesting, Whisks.

It doesn't work with sheep, though - quite apart from the fact that they would be unlikely to have the opportunity to remark upon the elegance of an octopus's non-existent neck. (See how I worked in the use of appostrophes and hyphens, too? )

"People" and "persons" make another interesting quandary.

"People" comes from the Latin "populus", whereas "person" comes from the Latin term "persona", as in human being or representation thereof (e.g. in a play). All four words are actually used in English (with their anglicised spellings, as in populace), along with population.

It's all really a bit muddled, thanks to Chaucer and then an attempt at creating a pseudo-rule in the Victorian age; but basically it goes something like this:
Modern usage seems to agree that, in most cases, the two terms are interchangeable. However, "persons" is usually the plural used in formal or legal contexts.
"People" has developed a life of its own. It is common to see it in a sentence like "People are always looking for an angle", referring to anyone in general and no one or group specifically.
The sticky bit is that "people", a plural form in itself, can also be pluralised as "peoples", when referring to multiple groups of ethnic or historic people, as in "the peoples of the Congo".

Good on ya, Tony!

Tony,
I had this out with Barb, on the other prehistoric thread, about fish/fishes; while I said what you said, she disputed it and cited a reference from the Australian fisheries, to the effect that "fishes" means a collection of different species, whereas "fish" means, well, fish in general - of the same or irrelevant species. Or was it the other way round? The reference was compelling and I was forced to eat my hat at the time. Now where's Barb when you need her?
Persia,
I hadn't thought of people/persons before, but it feels that the same thing applies - "persons" refers to particular people (as in legal documents) while "people" the general term for a lot of us.

Ho hum.
Whisks

Ooh-er, Missus. Before I incur the wrath of Barb, I should point out that the fishes in my little story were a salmon and a herring - they'd been swimming around together since they were fry. Oh no, another one. Since they were both fries? No, both fry, surely. But what happens when you have a mixed fry (so to speak) of diferent species of fish(es?)? Come on - get out of that one, Barb.

One fish, lots of fish. Except the little twist in the tail. If you're talking about all the same type of fish then its fish and fish, but if you have different types of fishes then its fish and fishes. One mackerel is a fish, lots of mackerel is fish, but a mixed creel of mackerel, snapper and, let's say a coral trout for variety, are fishes.

No wonder some people write books in Elvish.

Sheep. They're to blame really. Don't be fooled by the vacant stares. Okay, if you've got a paddock full, they are sheep. If you've got one, it's a sheep. Surely one should be a shep? I have a sneaky suspicion that it used to be, back in the day when we had a lot more shepherds.

Shep's the sheepdog, Barb. Come on, keep up. (Nothing to say about fry, then?)

Small fry / small fries - whether talking about little fish, children or problems.

I can't help you about the fry, Tony, and I don't know any sheep so I can't ask them about the origin of their name, Barb. But I will now have to consult the online OED to see what it says about fish and fishes.

Fries aren't chips, then? I thought they were.

Am interested in the shep/sheep angle. Are you proposing that if the ending of a word is -p, then the plural is -ep?
I'll have to think about that. One pep, two peep?

Hmm.

Spangles, now there's an interesting thing.
I heard tell that the name "America" derives from an Irishman called "Merrick", a cartographer who produced the first map used by the first settlers. Merrick's Map => America.
I wonder.

Not Amerigo Vespucii, then Whisks?
Not sure I can agree with you Barb, unless fries is equally correct. I've heard a shoal of tiddlers referred to as fry. And a number of seperate shoals also just as fry: Look at all the fry; three or four shoals of them.
And the word for an Americanophile, Spangles - misguided.

Each to their own, Tony. Here's my source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/small+fries

Thanks for your source, Barb. It says:
small fry
 –noun

1.	children: a treat for the small fry.

2.	unimportant persons or objects: Her parties were closed to the small fry.

n.
anything or anyone small or unimportant. (Fry are juvenile fish.)

Well all these definitions from your source show 'fry' used as a plural.
Only this last one, which seems more of a slang term (do the same rules apply for slang?) uses 'fries':
n.
small children. : The small fries have eaten and are getting ready for bed.
So perhaps both are correct. But are they, in relation to fish?

Oh no! My cutting and pasting has mucked up the page - sorry, peoples!

Hi everyone! Interesting discussions going on!

Americaphile - yes, possible (anything's possible in English - just tack on the suffix - phile). This may be more information than you all actually wanted, but 'here goes: The word America was the Latinised form of Amerigo Vespucci (Amerigo being easier to pronounce than Vespucci - otherwise your uncle would be a Vespucciphile, Spangles... ), who'd made 2 voyages to the Novus Mundus (New World) as a navigator, and claimed to have discovered it, rightly recognising it as a new continent.

Fry vs. fries: Fry as in fish and/or fishes are fry and fry. Fry as in potatoes are fry and fries. You can toss kids into either category. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 bits.

Just a tangent thought: How long will it be until emoticons are accepted, and then expected, in serious writing?... Heaven forbid.

Somewhere in my school books in the basement I have a book I'll dig out tomorrow, called "Ship or Sheep", about such common questions as these... but the last time I talked to a sheep, all sheep agreed that they were too simple-minded to use more than one word for single and plural forms, and as they are rarely handled as a single sheep anyway (except in the sheering shoot and on the butcher block), and their lives are as short as they are, the prefer not to mutton the issue...

If anyone is having difficulty reading the words that spill over into the brown on the right, let me just remind you of the easy solution. Select the para you want to read and it all appears in white text on a blue background, perfectly legible.

Octopi is wrong. Octopodes is valid but has been superseded by the popular use of octupuses. I myself have found a myriad of uses for them. Not really.

As to America being named after (for) Amerigo Vespucci - wrong. Richard Ameryk was the man who gave his name being chief patron of Cabot, the first recorded European to set foot on American soil. Vespucci never reached North America.

"New countries or continents were never named after a person's first name, but always after the second." So says the 'QI Book of General Ignorance'.

Hi Lennich!
I'd be interested to know where you got the info re. Richard Ameryk; from what I've read on the subject, the acount of Richard Ameryk as the source of the name is actually a 20th century invention recently revived.
http://www.fammed.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html is an interesting article, especially if one is interested in history and names. Ameryk and Vespucci are both mentioned in this article. It's a bit of a long read, but well worth it!

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the full one, I mean, that runs to zillions of entries and lists the etymology of each word):

Well that's all really very enlightening everybody. Thanks to one and all.
I still hope I never meet up with more than one octopus at a time - that way it won't be a problem. Oh and - what are these eight-legged creature's young called? Octokittens?

Spangles hits me with a big dictionary. Ouch!

As far as America is concerned, my info is from the 'QI Book of General Ignorance' (mentioned above). Richard Ameryk is not definitely where the name came from, but the likeliest candidate. Vespucci is merely another candidate. There is no proof that America was named after Vespucci that I've even seen claimed. Does the OED cite a source for its theory? As the QI book points out, and I mentioned above, countries and continents named by explorers were named after a person's surname. If Vespucci were the exception he would be a unique one.

As to Octopi, clearly we're back to something I mentioned elsewhere: the development of language through misuse. So Octopi is now acceptable, apparently. Whatever they're called, I like 'em.

Well thanks - I understand now. No I don't.
As for America, I never saw the map chap's name spelled, so Ameryk could be the johnnie I heard of - an association with Cabot also rings a dull bell. Have no other opinion either way.
As for octopuses and octopus pie, is it right or wrong? The OED, he say yes, while t'other one, he say no.
Octokittens, Tone? Octopittens, shurely - Ed
Ah - I see from an email notice that Monsieur Lennich has posted while I've been creating this. Qu'est-que il dit?
The snot thickens.