Pluralising Latin "-um" words

evercloserunion

I grew up using words like "millennia" and "stadia" as the plural forms of words like "millennium" and "stadium" which I thought was the most correct way to pluralise such words. When I studied constitutional law in college, and particularly when we came to study the referendum-related provisions, I was surprised to find that, although there are occasional references to referenda, it was in fact more common to pluralise the word as "referendums". By contrast, the word "dictum", when used in the Latin phrase obiter dictum, is always pluralised as dicta.

I rationalised this to myself on the basis that, although the word "referendum" is Latin in origin, we are using it as an English word and, therefore, pluralising the word according to standard English rules of pluralisation is okay. On that basis, I have since started to drift back towards using words like "millenniums" and "stadiums" as plural forms. I'm unsure whether this is really correct. I notice, however, that OED tends to list both "-ums" and "-a" forms as acceptable plurals for relevant nouns. The indication seems to be that it's a matter of style and that there is no hard-and-fast rule either way.

Any thoughts on this? How would you pluralise words like "referendum", "millenium", "stadium", etc? Are there generally accepted rules or is it, as I have said, a matter of style?

FlutterinBantam

Would always use the 'a' ending, I feel it's more correct.

Either is acceptable though, in my opinion.

Earthhorse

Yeah, I agree, though sometimes my preference would be for adding an 's'. It depends on how the word sounds to my ear but it wouldn't bother me either way.

fricatus

evercloserunion wrote: »

Any thoughts on this? How would you pluralise words like "referendum", "millenium", "stadium", etc? Are there generally accepted rules or is it, as I have said, a matter of style?

One explanation that I've heard is that most words ending in "-endum" are not nouns but gerund/present participle forms of verbs (like the English word "referring"). There are cognates for this form in the modern Romance languages, like Spanish viendo, Italian scendendo or French semblant.

As I understand it, these nouns don't have plurals in Latin because they are abstract gerunditive nouns, as opposed to substantive (countable) nouns like "millennium" and "stadium", which of course have "millennia" and "stadia" as their plural forms.

Purists therefore will argue that while "millennia" and "stadia" are correct, and "millenniums" and "stadiums" are borderline acceptable as regular English plural formations, it is not acceptable to use "referenda" as that plural never existed in Latin, and therefore "referendums" should be used instead.

Expect this subject to be raised in the letters page of the Irish Times the next time we have a referendum, whatever the topic!

evercloserunion

fricatus wrote: »

One explanation that I've heard is that most words ending in "-endum" are not nouns but gerund/present participle forms of verbs (like the English word "referring"). There are cognates for this form in the modern Romance languages, like Spanish viendo, Italian scendendo or French semblant.

As I understand it, these nouns don't have plurals in Latin because they are abstract gerunditive nouns, as opposed to substantive (countable) nouns like "millennium" and "stadium", which of course have "millennia" and "stadia" as their plural forms.

Purists therefore will argue that while "millennia" and "stadia" are correct, and "millenniums" and "stadiums" are borderline acceptable as regular English plural formations, it is not acceptable to use "referenda" as that plural never existed in Latin, and therefore "referendums" should be used instead.

Expect this subject to be raised in the letters page of the Irish Times the next time we have a referendum, whatever the topic!

That's a very interesting explanation, thank you.

I've been thinking about this a little more. Curiously, I have found that "stadiums" seems to be more accepted a term than "stadia". In the (online) OED entry for "stadium" under the relevant entry ("place for athletic exercises"), it says "[t]he pl. stadiums is usual in this sense." Googling "stadiums" returns about 12,400,000 results, while "stadia" returns only about 3,760,000. By contrast, "millenniums" returns only about 519,000 results while "millennia" returns about 8,280,000 results. But both of these are substantive nouns right?

I am being led to the conclusion that, while "referenda" is incorrect and "referendums" should be used, in other matters it is a matter of style/personal preference which form should be used. Still, I find it strange that the popular tendency is to use one form of plural for "millenium" but another for "stadium". I wonder is it just, as Earthhorse said, down to how it sounds to the ear.

looksee

On Boards people use forums or fora, I tend to use fora until I have said it a couple of times, then I get bored/irritated by it and say forums.

FlutterinBantam

looksee wrote: »

On Boards people use forums or fora, I tend to use fora until I have said it a couple of times, then I get bored/irritated by it and say forums.

Never be ashamed of your knowledge pal, that's how language usage slips into the reprehensible colloquialisms and lazy stuff so prominent in today's environment.

Make no mistake, it's insidiously seeping it's odious tentacles into the more mainstream media outlets, and even has become acceptable in advertisement copy and national public radio.

The 'done and 'seen' merchants

The 'Tescoes' clowns,the 'averted' instead of 'averred' jerks are gaining traction my friend,make no mistake about that.

Do not lie down and surrender to popular misconceptions, hold your head up, be proud of your knowledge of your language and don't let the baxtards wear you down.

Go 'wan otuta dat:D

Donkey Oaty

evercloserunion wrote: »

Curiously, I have found that "stadiums" seems to be more accepted a term than "stadia". In the (online) OED entry for "stadium" under the relevant entry ("place for athletic exercises"), it says "[t]he pl. stadiums is usual in this sense." Googling "stadiums" returns about 12,400,000 results, while "stadia" returns only about 3,760,000. By contrast, "millenniums" returns only about 519,000 results while "millennia" returns about 8,280,000 results.

Interesting datums.

evercloserunion

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interesting datums.

I had considered data and datum, and it seems to point towards the "use -a" approach. But surely data is a special case, since that word has in fact evolved into a singular noun.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Make no mistake, it's insidiously seeping it's odious tentacles into the more mainstream media outlets, and even has become acceptable in advertisement copy and national public radio.

I know, shocking isn't it :eek:

FlutterinBantam

evercloserunion wrote: »

I had considered data and datum, and it seems to point towards the "use -a" approach. But surely data is a special case, since that word has in fact evolved into a singular noun.


I know, shocking isn't it :eek:

Cheap shot buddy, hope it makes you feel better and a more rounded individual.

FlutterinBantam

evercloserunion wrote: »

That's a very interesting explanation, thank you.

I've been thinking about this a little more. Curiously, I have found that "stadiums" seems to be more accepted a term than "stadia". In the (online) OED entry for "stadium" under the relevant entry ("place for athletic exercises"), it says "[t]he pl. stadiums is usual in this sense." Googling "stadiums" returns about 12,400,000 results, while "stadia" returns only about 3,760,000. By contrast, "millenniums" returns only about 519,000 results while "millennia" returns about 8,280,000 results. But both of these are substantive nouns right?

I am being led to the conclusion that, while "referenda" is incorrect and "referendums" should be used, in other matters it is a matter of style/personal preference which form should be used. Still, I find it strange that the popular tendency is to use one form of plural for "millenium" but another for "stadium". I wonder is it just, as Earthhorse said, down to how it sounds to the ear.

Sounds like spelled wrongly to me;)

evercloserunion

Cheap shot buddy, hope it etc. etc.



(I knew at some point I would spell that wrong)

Donkey Oaty

evercloserunion wrote: »

I had considered data and datum, and it seems to point towards the "use -a" approach. But surely data is a special case, since that word has in fact evolved into a singular noun.

I agree, but there are still some people in the "data is plural" camp.

Interesting discussion here, which I would recommend to anyone who likes that sort of thing.

Dunjohn

Right, so it's definitely "fora?" Good. I knew that, but never in my entire internet life had I seen it used over "forums" so I'd slipped into using that myself. I'll need to readjust my brain then.

Yakuza

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Never be ashamed of your knowledge pal, that's how language usage slips into the reprehensible colloquialisms and lazy stuff so prominent in today's environment.

Make no mistake, it's insidiously seeping it's odious tentacles into the more mainstream media outlets, and even has become acceptable in advertisement copy and national public radio.

The 'done and 'seen' merchants

The 'Tescoes' clowns,the 'averted' instead of 'averred' jerks are gaining traction my friend,make no mistake about that.

Do not lie down and surrender to popular misconceptions, hold your head up, be proud of your knowledge of your language and don't let the baxtards wear you down.

Go 'wan otuta dat:D

Post of the month there, FB. I'll let the "it's" slide

Illegitimi non carborundum, as they say in mock Latin

FlutterinBantam

Yakuza wrote: »

Post of the month there, FB. I'll let the "it's" slide

Illegitimi non carborundum, as they say in mock Latin

Thanks for that man, I had a bit of a cargo of Stella on board when composing that.


Very upset about the 'it's' ,blew a fairly weighty post, but I hate with a passion the 'done' and 'seen' brigade ,so I hope my passion outweighs that bad mistake.

ahem.... cough... checks time post was written...can't blame Stella.... sorry.

Dunjohn

It's a serious intellect who blames a stray apostrophe on an inebriated mind. I'm impressed.

MathsManiac

fricatus wrote: »

One explanation that I've heard is that most words ending in "-endum" are not nouns but gerund/present participle forms of verbs (like the English word "referring"). There are cognates for this form in the modern Romance languages, like Spanish viendo, Italian scendendo or French semblant.

As I understand it, these nouns don't have plurals in Latin because they are abstract gerunditive nouns, as opposed to substantive (countable) nouns like "millennium" and "stadium", which of course have "millennia" and "stadia" as their plural forms.

Purists therefore will argue that while "millennia" and "stadia" are correct, and "millenniums" and "stadiums" are borderline acceptable as regular English plural formations, it is not acceptable to use "referenda" as that plural never existed in Latin, and therefore "referendums" should be used instead.

Expect this subject to be raised in the letters page of the Irish Times the next time we have a referendum, whatever the topic!

While it seems plausible, I don't think this is correct. "Referendum" is a gerundive rather than a gerund, coming from the verb referre, meaning "to bring back". Referendum means "a thing to be brought back [to the people]" Gerundives capture the idea that something must be done to something else, (as in "Delenda est Carthago" - Carthage must be destroyed). Gerundives agree, in both gender and number, with their object, even where it is unstated or understood. Hence, just as a referendum is "a thing to be brought back", so referenda would be "things to be brought back". Consider this typical conversation among delivery boys in a truck:

"Hey, Anto, wharrabout da' yolk in da' back?"
"Referendum est." [= we've to bring it back to the depot, ya git.]
"And wharrabout dose yolks over there?"
"Referenda sunt." [= we've to bring them back.]

The grammatical construction is the same as in "agenda", which means "things to be discussed", so it is clear that it does go into the plural form in Latin when relevant. (In this latter case, the Latin word is already plural, even though we use it to mean a list of things to be discussed, as opposed to the original meaning. This is why there is no doubt that, in English, the plural of "agenda" is "agendas" and not - heaven forbid - agendae!:eek: )

Anyway, OP might find the attached to be of interest on this topic. They are two extracts from R.W.Burchfield "Fowler's Modern English Usage" - revised third edition. (Yes, I know it's not really Fowler, but, in my view, it's a very good reference work for someone writing today.) They are about latin plurals in general, and -um words in particular.

Mods: if you think my uploading the attached is a breach of copyright, please delete. I'm assuming these are short enough extracts not to be of concern, but I may be wrong.

evercloserunion

Very interesting post, especially those attachments. Thank you for that!