In message , Custos Custodum
writes



Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

I recall 'shewn' in my primary school arithmetic books, Mind you, it was
some time ago.

As for Latin plurals, I feel that in cases where the Romans would never
have used that word for something (either because the thing did not
exist, or if it did exist, we now use the word for something somewhat
different), the Anglicised ending is usually preferable. I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.
--
Ian

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes



Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

I recall 'shewn' in my primary school arithmetic books, Mind you, it was
some time ago.

As for Latin plurals, I feel that in cases where the Romans would never
have used that word for something (either because the thing did not
exist, or if it did exist, we now use the word for something somewhat
different), the Anglicised ending is usually preferable.

Absolutely! All foreign borrowings should be naturalised and given a
regular English plural wherever possible. I haven't had much success
with 'criterions' yet, however. :-)

I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes



Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

I recall 'shewn' in my primary school arithmetic books, Mind you, it was
some time ago.

As for Latin plurals, I feel that in cases where the Romans would never
have used that word for something (either because the thing did not
exist, or if it did exist, we now use the word for something somewhat
different), the Anglicised ending is usually preferable.

Absolutely! All foreign borrowings should be naturalised and given a
regular English plural wherever possible. I haven't had much success
with 'criterions' yet, however. :-)

I'm surprised. It's actually 'criterion' which seems to have
disappeared. These days, both plural AND singular seem to be 'criteria'
(even by those-who-should-know-better).

The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.

--
Ian

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:31:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

Speaking of bacteria, one of my pet peeves is when all those
Oxbridge-educated meedja types pronounce Clostridium Difficile as if
it were French. Well, it ain't; it's Latin, where all vowels are
sounded and all C's are (well) hard.

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:31:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

Speaking of bacteria, one of my pet peeves is when all those
Oxbridge-educated meedja types pronounce Clostridium Difficile as if
it were French. Well, it ain't; it's Latin, where all vowels are
sounded and all C's are (well) hard.

Even though the soft C before I and E was adopted in the middle ages,
does anyone really know for certain that all Ancient Roman C's were
hard? It's just as probable that they were, as in modern Latin-based
words, soft before I's and E's. They might also have been a bit like the
Italian ch or the Spanish th. On the other hand, if the C's were like
Esses, why didn't they simply use a Esses?

--
Ian