Starship Asterisk*

jisles wrote:It's Rho Ophiuchi, not Rho Ophiuchus. Use the genitive of the constellation name.

Chris Peterson wrote:

jisles wrote:
It's Rho Ophiuchi, not Rho Ophiuchus. Use the genitive of the constellation name.

That's certainly a common convention. Personally, I choose not to use dead language genitives in most cases. Rho Ophiuchus makes more sense, and is clearer to more people. I consider it the preferred usage. I encourage others to modernize our astronomical terminology by their usage, as well.

• So then is the closest star system Alpha Centaurus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us wrote:
<<Even if the Latin plural were known, English speakers would not be obliged to use it. Examples of Latin loanwords into English which have regular English plurals in -(e)s include campus, bonus, anus and cancer. These stand beside counterexamples such as radius (radii) and alumnus (alumni). Still other words are commonly used with either one: corpus (corpora, or sometimes corpuses), formula (formulae in technical contexts, formulas in non-technical usage).

As a word in Botanical Latin, cactus follows standard Latin rules for pluralization and becomes cacti, which has become the prevalent usage in English. Regardless, cactus is popularly used as both singular and plural, and is cited as both singular and plural. Cactuses is also an acceptable plural in English.

There are three plural forms of octopus: octopuses, octopi, and octopodes. Currently, octopuses is the most common form in the UK as well as the US; octopodes is rare, and octopi is often objectionable. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that octopi derives from the mistaken assumption that octōpūs is a second declension Latin noun, which it is not. Rather, it is (Latinized) Ancient Greek, from oktṓpous (ὀκτώπους), gender masculine, whose plural is oktṓpodes (ὀκτώποδες). If the word were native to Latin, it would be octōpēs ('eight-foot') and the plural octōpedēs, analogous to centipedes and mīllipedēs, as the plural form of pēs ('foot') is pedēs.

The situation with the word platypus is similar to that of octopus; the word is etymologically Greek despite its Latinized ending, and so pluralizing it as if it were Latin (i.e. as platypi) is ill-considered. As with octopus, importing Greek morphology into English would have platypodes as the plural, but in practice this form is not well-attested. In scientific contexts biologists often use platypus as both the singular and plural form of the word, in the tradition of sheep or fish, but laypersons and scientists alike often use the simple English plural platypuses. There is no consensus on which of these two is correct, with different dictionaries making different recommendations.

The English plural of virus is viruses. This is non-controversial and speakers would not attempt to use the non-standard plural in -i. The Latin word vīrus (the ī indicates a long i) means "1. slimy liquid, slime; 2. poison, venom", denoting the venom of a snake. Since vīrus in antiquity denoted something uncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns—such as air, rice, and helpfulness in English—pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the non-existence of plural forms in the texts. It is unclear how a plural might have been formed under Latin grammar in ancient times if the word had acquired a meaning requiring a plural form. If vīrus were a masculine second declension term like alumnus, it would be correct to use vīrī as its plural. However, it is not a masculine second declension term, as was explained. There does exist a Latin word virī, meaning "men" (the plural of vir, a second declension masculine noun), but it has a short i in the first syllable.

Facetious mock-erudite plurals in -i or even -ii are sometimes found for words ending with a sound (vaguely) similar to -us. Examples are stewardi (supposed plural of stewardess) and Elvii (as a plural for Elvis imitators). The Toyota corporation has determined that their Prius model should have the plural form Prii, even though the Latin word prius has a plural priora, the Lada Priora having prior claim to that name—though the common plural is "Priuses". The Winklevoss twins are sometimes collectively referred to as "the Winklevii".>>

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

jisles wrote:
It's Rho Ophiuchi, not Rho Ophiuchus. Use the genitive of the constellation name.

That's certainly a common convention. Personally, I choose not to use dead language genitives in most cases. Rho Ophiuchus makes more sense, and is clearer to more people. I consider it the preferred usage. I encourage others to modernize our astronomical terminology by their usage, as well.

• So then is the closest star system Alpha Centaurus :?:

othermoons wrote:
How sure are we of the location of our galactic center based on observations?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

neufer wrote:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

"Sgr A* contains a cluster of dark stellar objects or a mass of degenerate fermions"

jisles wrote:The International Astronomical Union says...

I'm not sure who copied whom here, but the IAU is the official body for star designations. Sorry, but forms such as "Alpha Centaurus" and "Rho Ophiuchus" are incorrect. You should use the genitive.

heehaw wrote:Gosh, I got so confused reading this profound discussion of Latin endings, that I decided to find out who was right, and who was wrong, by clicking on "Rho Ophiuchus" in today's caption - hey, I thought, that ought to take me to a definitive source! And it took me to .... Astronomy Picture of the Day! There can't be any source more authoritative than THAT! And ... guess what!!!!

geckzilla wrote:I Anglicized annuli to annuluses the other day. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Some things like nebulas I have no problem with at this point but for some reason annuluses didn't sound right, probably because I almost never see it written that way.

geckzilla wrote:There are times when I might favor a Latin plural because it sounds better. Maybe. I'm not a big fan of things that end in s having a subsequent es added on, even though it's correct. In the end I think I prefer to be consistent rather than to subjectively pick and choose what I like, though I think the nature of language is possibly closer to the latter. Why did we choose to fully Anglicize the word galaxies while many stick with the Latin nebulae? That's usually what I ask someone who is stuck on the idea that nebulas is wrong.

Ann wrote:You guys taught me to write nebulas. My spellcheck still protests.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:You guys taught me to write nebulas. My spellcheck still protests.

Just curious... when you post in a forum like this, do you switch your browser or computer to English, along with the spellcheck dictionary, or do you have a sort of hybrid dictionary with English and Swedish all mixed together (which might lead to många fel, nej?)

Ann wrote: You guys taught me to write nebulas. My spellcheck still protests.

Ann wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:You guys taught me to write nebulas. My spellcheck still protests.

Just curious... when you post in a forum like this, do you switch your browser or computer to English, along with the spellcheck dictionary, or do you have a sort of hybrid dictionary with English and Swedish all mixed together (which might lead to många fel, nej?)

The expression många fel, nej would be a dead giveaway that you are not a native Swedish speaker. It is the "nej" that gives you away. I think you can say "mange fejl, ikke" in Danish, but you shouldn't ask me about that.

Chris Peterson wrote:
Most of my experience with Swedish is watching Bergman movies,