1 2  4 5 6 7 8 15
Agendum, obviously.

How is that obvious? It's not in my dictionary.

Lissen, here, fella Is ya gonna take instruction from some book or from UC? Seems to me the answer's obvoius. Or maybe you need a better dictionary. Try this:
.

I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks there's only one media and one criteria. For shame!

Bob Lieblich
Immersed in Soprano reruns
(snip)
For example, the conversion to English plurals for naturalized Latin and Greek words is not only inevitable but probably, on balance, a Good Thing.

I STRONGLY agree. (See, it's in asterisks and in caps. Wow!)

I would convert to using the regular English plural for all of those Greek and Latin derived nouns overnight if we didn't have the rather unfortunate legacy of being judged as illiterate and uneducated because we don't express our knowledge of Latin and Greek in our English sentences.
Don't get the wrong idea about my view on this, though. I taught myself Latin and I could rattle off all the declensions in my sleep, blindfolded with my hands tied behind my back, so it's not some inverse snobbery at work here.
But that's Latin (or Greek) inflectional morphology, and it should have no influence on English morphology.

johnF
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
(snip)

Stephen Calder wrote Then whichever one you're using, ditch it and invest in a better one. (It's certainly in Collins.)

Which Collins would that be? Not that I'm doubting you; quite the opposite, in fact! I'm just wondering if you have the edition that also lists "agendas" and "agendums". (They're in, at least, the 2005 Desktop Collins.)

"Complete/Unabridged", 6th ed., 2003 (which does indeed include "agendas" and "agendums").

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
On 04 Oct 2006, Stephen Calder wrote

How is that obvious? It's not in my dictionary.

Then whichever one you're using, ditch it and invest in a better one. (It's certainly in Collins.)

agenda n.pl., also used as sing. Less commonly in sing. agendum. I guess I've led a sheltered life because agendum has never crossed my path until this thread.

Les
On 04 Oct 2006, Stephen Calder wrote Then whichever one you're using, ditch it and invest in a better one. (It's certainly in Collins.)

agenda n.pl., also used as sing. Less commonly in sing. agendum. I guess I've led a sheltered life because agendum has never crossed my path until this thread.

Collins does the same that is, it lists "agendum" under "agenda", rather than as separate entries. (But "agendum", "agendas", and "agendums" are all certainly fully recorded in there.)

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
(snip)
I'm happy to accept "an agenda" (singular) as a term meaning a list of "agenda" (plural). For some reason that doesn't feel (to me, entirely subjectively) as unnatural as "this data".

Let's suppose you're the Secretary on two committees and you have to type up the agenda for each of the committees' next meetings.

How would explain that you need to type not only one agenda, but two agendas before the weekend?
Yeah, yeah, rephrase that particular case, but the underlying question is: Would you ever pluralize "agenda" if the situation needed it? Or would you do linguistic contortions to avoid it? If so, isn't that a restriction on your language?

johnF
On 04 Oct 2006, Stephen Calder wrote

How is that obvious? It's not in my dictionary.

Then whichever one you're using, ditch it and invest in a better one. (It's certainly in Collins.)

I only checked the Concise Oxford because if it's not in there, the "obvious" singular is not obvious.

Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
On 04 Oct 2006, Stephen Calder wrote Then whichever one you're using, ditch it and invest in a better one. (It's certainly in Collins.)

I only checked the Concise Oxford because if it's not in there, the "obvious" singular is not obvious.

So what derivation did the Concise Oxford give?
BW
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
How is that obvious? It's not in my dictionary.

Lissen, here, fella Is ya gonna take instruction from some book or from UC? Seems to me the answer's ... this: . I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks there's only one media and one criteria. For shame!

You should know me better than that by now.
Just for the record, media is still a plural but there's some difficulty when it comes to the singular. We talk about the media in contexts where we used to say the press, but we don't usually desribe a newspaper as a medium. Media in that sense has become a collective.

For artists, watercolour is a medium and charcoal is a medium.

For me, a laughing psychic is a happy medium.
I was using the lack of an entry in the Concise Oxford to decide whether I agreed that the singular of agenda was "obvious" as claimed. I think that's a reasonable criterion.

Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Show more