re: Can I Use 'Stati' As The Plural Of Status? Statuses Sounds Horrible!? page 2

It's all very well postulating which is right or wrong, but the verdict should come from an English scholar. Are any of the people who have replied to this thread scholars? Do you have the credentials to give an opinion that adds any value?

I am not an English scholar, but for what it's worth, I would use 'stati'. 'Statuses' sounds like the sort of manufactured garbage that would be spoken by George Bush.

There is no reference to the plural of status in either the Oxford or Cambridge English Dictionaries. The Oxford one states thus:

status

noun 1 relative social or professional standing. 2 high rank or social standing. 3 the position of affairs at a particular time. 4 official classification.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘standing’.

Source: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/status?view=uk

Anon, why do you come to a thread that is old to do nothing but essentially insult people?

The people who post here are volunteers. Some of us are teachers of English as a second language, some of us are professional writers. Our "credentials" are not advanced degrees (although some have them), but the fact that we do this work, day in and day out, and know how language can be used most effectively.

By all means, if you want to use "stati," go ahead. Apparently, the Romans would not have, and none of the writers here would, but you feel free to do what you want.

I am not an English scholar, but for what it's worth, I would use 'stati'. 'Statuses' sounds like the sort of manufactured garbage that would be spoken by George Bush.

There is no reference to the plural of status in either the Oxford or Cambridge English Dictionaries. The Oxford one states thus:
status

noun 1 relative social or professional standing. 2 high rank or social standing. 3 the position of affairs at a particular time. 4 official classification.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘standing’.

That's because that dictionary does not identify the plurals when the plural is formed according to the regular rule for forming plurals in English, i.e., the addition of "s" or "es". Look up "rose" or "cup" in the same dictionary and there, too, you will see no indication of what the plural is. But look up "knife" and you will see "knives". Look up "ox" and you will see "oxen". It's obvious that only irregular plurals are mentioned. I think most people are smart enough to figure out from that information that the plural of "status" is "statuses".

CJ

AnonymousI am not an English scholar, but for what it's worth, I would use 'stati'. 'Statuses' sounds like the sort of manufactured garbage that would be spoken by George Bush.

Of course anyone can use any word they like, but if a person uses a plural that exists in no language he runs the risk of being considered ignorant of both Latin and English.

Cheers
CB

Anonymous...... have the credentials to give an opinion that adds any value?

Not only credentials, but also magnanimities they have to give reasonable replies.

AnonymousI am not an English scholar, but for what it's worth, I would use 'stati'. 'Statuses' sounds like the sort of manufactured garbage that would be spoken by George Bush.

There is no reference to the plural of status in either the Oxford or Cambridge English Dictionaries. The Oxford one states thus:

status

noun 1 relative social or professional standing. 2 high rank or social standing. 3 the position of affairs at a particular time. 4 official classification.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘standing’.

Source: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/status?view=uk

Hello Anon

My Oxford dictionary gives "status" as the plural of "status". Merriam-Webster on the other hand gives "statuses" (see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/status ).

Fourth declension Latin nouns that end in "-us" have the plural "-us", not "-i"; you're probably thinking of "-us" nouns of the first declension¹, most of which do form their nominative plural with "-i".

"Status" is a fourth declension noun; so "stati" would be incorrect.

I doubt very much whether anyone would notice, though, if you said "stati". (It would be something of an achievement to find a context for it.)

MrP

_______

¹ Correction: second declension. See Jim's note below.

you're probably thinking of "-us" nouns of the first declension

I think you meant to say second declension, Mr. P.

CJ

You're right, Jim. I did.

I suppose now I'd better write it out a hundred times in front of the whole class...

AnonymousThere is no reference to the plural of status in either the Oxford or Cambridge English Dictionaries.

You have a reference here:
-----
Main Entry: sta·tus

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es

Merriam-Webster Unabridged
------

Same in the two-volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
Plural: statuses or (rare) same
(which I guess it's status!!)