> Quoting Shayne Lebrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> I like virii - it sounds important and like something > >> that can be on the ER equivalent for geeks... > > > > Perhaps, but if you were to actually pluralize it using Latin rules, the > > result would be 'viri.' > > > > > > Wouldnt that be plural of man? > > Jim
Err, damn, what am I thinking. You're correct. "Virii" simply isn't a word, 'viri' is the plural of vir, vir being 'man'; aka 'men', and Latin doesn't have a plural form of Virus, which means we fall back to the standard English method of pluralizing, which is, in this case, to add 'es.' Hence, viruses. That having been said, yes, common usage, and yes, English likes to make up new words, which is fine, but to claim 'virii' as a legitimate, pre-existing word, or a natural extention of an existing word, is incorrect. It's slang, which may very well enter the standard lexicon eventually. But if it does, I'm sure we'll find a new word for the same concept; group principles at work. :-) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
