> Octopi is not the correct plural.

Octopi is not the most common plural, true.

> Octopus is of greek origin, not latin.

Octopus entered English from scientific Latin. In which the Greek plural was not used. (Lots of words in English fron languages other than their language of origin and have irregular English forms from their immediate source rather than their remote origin.)

“Octopi” appears to be the earliest English plural of octopus.

> Thus, its greek plural is octopodes.

“Thus” is incorrect there, but, yes, that is its Greek plural.

> And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english

But we do. Just not, until comparatively recently and never dominantly, in the case of “octopodes”.

> the other proper plural is octopuses.

That is the most common English plural, and you don't really need a (false) historical narrative to support that it is “proper” except coming from a broken prescriptivist framework.

> Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection

Since its the oldest attested English plural, its not a hypercorrection, just (arguably) dated. Though its probably the most common incorrect example of hypercorrection.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-many-plura...

> Octopus entered English from scientific Latin. In which the Greek plural was not used

The Latin (nominative) plural is octōpodēs, the Greek (nominative non-neuter) plural is ὀκτώποδες. Almost identical. octopi is not used in Latin, it only appears to occur in English texts.

Most Romance languages get their primary word for "octopus" from an alternative Latin word for it, polypus (plural polypī), which comes from Greek πολύπους (plural πολύποδα). polypus is also an alternative word for octopus in English, albeit it is rather archaic. The English plural polypi cannot be accused of being a hypercorrection, but (for octopuses) polypuses is much more common. polypus is also medical terminology for a type of blood clot, and the polypi plural is often preferred when the word is used in that medical sense.

The usual Dutch word for "octopus", octopus, is pluralised by the standard Dutch rules, octopussen. English appears to be the only language in which this hypercorrect pseudo-Latin plural has any popularity.

This is fascinating and instead of replying I've been reading about this and looking up words like cacti. For what it's worth, both plural forms for Octopus are in my phone's autocomplete dictionary.

The only real solution here is to make the official plural term be Octopises.

Seems to be missing the third plural, perhaps Octopodises

"Octopissies" doesn't exactly sound the best when said out loud...

What about "octopussies"?

> phone's autocomplete dictionary.

Snicker ... The new Webster or Oxfords ...

Is the American pronunciation of “processes” (as in, rhymes with bees) also a hypercorrection?

I’m not sure if it is real hypercorrection (or even attempted correction) or a conscious adoption of an available model pronunciation of plural nouns with similar spelling as a tool to distinguish the plural noun from the verb.

Though, in either case, it has the danger of suggesting the plural form of the hypothetical word “processee” (from processor, and by analogy to pairs like lessor/lessee), so, “things that are processed”.

The “hypercorrection” being to use the same long plural e from axis/axes with process/processes?

> American pronunciation

..since when? I don't think I've ever heard "processees" before...

I hear it maybe 20% of the time.

listen to the sentence Psaki utters at about 66s in: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1448740969726156800

I've heard both used in the US.

What about octopus as both singular and plural?

This is English, not Latin or Greek. There’s no such thing as “correct” in language as long as you can be understood, especially for silly details like how to make a plural. You’ll find octopi in the dictionary because it is commonly used. Remember all words are made up anyway.

If you’re not the editor of a publication making local standards for how you want to use language, it’s better not to correct people when they’re perfectly well understood.

Personally I don’t believe in “plural”. If there’s more than one of something I just say it: “I went to the aquarium and saw octopus octopus octopus. I’d tell you what I saw around the anthill outside, but I’m not sure you have the time.” :)

I know this is a joke, but this is an actual thing in linguistics called reduplication. For example, hito (人) in Japanese means person, and hitobito (人人) means people, more or less. Japanese isn't the best example since they don't have "real" plurals but I think it's a fascinating phenomenon.

Same in Thai. “Child” is “dek”, children is “dek dek”.

Yes. A dictionary doesn't tell you how to use words, it tells you how words are used.

dic·tion·ar·y /ˈdikSHəˌnerē/ noun a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

Many dictionaries aim to be descriptive, not prescriptive, as doctor_eval said. That definition doesn't change that:

OED: "The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage 'dos' and 'don'ts'. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as 'incorrect'."[1]

Merriam-Webster: "Merriam-Webster is a descriptive dictionary in that it aims to describe and indicate how words are actually used by English speakers and writers. Generally, the descriptive approach to lexicography does not dictate how words should be used or set forth rules of "correctness," unlike the prescriptive approach."[2]

OUP: "All of Oxford Languages' content aims to describe, rather than prescribe, the way languages are used by people around the world."[3]

I believe your definition comes from one of the Oxford dictionaries - iOS lists it as coming from the Oxford Dictionary of English, and Lexico (a partnership with Oxford, whose About page links to [3]) includes it[4].

[1] https://www.oed.com/public/oed3guide/guide-to-the-third-edit...

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...

[3] https://languages.oup.com/about-us/how-we-create-language-co...

[4] https://www.lexico.com/definition/dictionary

This is what it comes down to in the end. Words are memes, and the best replicating meme wins.

May the dankest words prevail

I wonder if the trend of using the 'Latinx' term falls under the hypercorrection definition or there's something else to describe it. I'm not passing judgement on the inclusiveness intention, but the English word for Latino and Latina is just Latin, which doesn't have gender. There's no need to mix linguistics with algebra and add a gender variable to the latin word.

Coming from gendered languages, most Hispanics either don’t know about Latinx at all and the ones that do, most of them think it’s inappropriate. It is a bit strange to try to remove gender from a word for people who mostly speak a gendered language. It seems mostly to be a virtue signaling thing among a rather small almost exclusively American, english as first language subculture.

A bit like the bathroom I saw in a coffee shop that listed all the different kinds of people that were acceptable to use the single occupancy one toilet one sink room. Trying too hard to be inclusive can be an insult to the actual issues at hand.

There is a Swedish expression: nobody is named, and nobody is forgotten.

Usually you hear it in a workplace setting when people (often, a subset of the correct group) are being acknowleged for an acheivement of some kind.

As soon as you try to enumerate all of those groups you will undoubtedly forget someone, who will then take offense at the omission. So the saying is a reminder to not single out anyone.

cool expression. how does it go in swedish?

ingen nämnd, ingen glömd

“something else to describe it”

The best summing-up I’ve seen is: linguistic colonialism.

“Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection” might also be overcorrection (meta-hypercorrection?) now that octopi is an understood plural with enough usage that it’s in some dictionaries.

Like sulfur becoming an accepted spelling of sulphur from frequent misspelling? “Okay no one can get it right so just make it that too”.

Yes. That's called language.

I have a friend who says using the word “octopi” displays ignorance of three languages at once - English, Latin, and (ancient) Greek.

Eric Weinstein says some crazy stuff, but I remember hearing him once say that the best debate strategy for Republicans would be to mention the "noo-kyoo-lar" family, and let them correct you to "nuclear". Then you win because the other side looks like pedants and elitists. This "octopi" is definitely such a word.

Side note: all this off-topic pedantry about octopi vs octopuses is an old discussion already resolved. It is clouding discussion about what the full implications of what it actually means to treat octopus (ha!) as sentient.

I don't think the Democrats have cornered the market on pedantry just yet.

I realize they are being cheeky but the ironic thing is "ignorance of N languages" is one of the primary drivers of linguistic cross-pollenation and drift. Taking loanwords, shoehorning them into your phonology, writing, and grammar is just how these things work.

Octopi is certainly questionable, but Octopedes isn't as obviously correct as we'd think.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/270/what-is-the-...

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1zx411e7VG/ (deleted from yt)

A great example of

Grays law:

"Any online discussion that mentions the word 'octopi' - regardless how tangentially - will eventually turn into a discussion on linguistics"

For that to render _"octopi"_ incorrect, you'll also have to convincingly argue that a centuries-old etymology mishap supersedes its common usage since then— the far more common measure to define correctness in English grammar. Sociolinguists aim to study and describe the effect of society and culture on the formation of grammar. They don't present their findings as rules, and we shouldn't interpret them that way.

Octopuses or octopodes are regarded as the correct pluralizations, for those who remember the HQ trivia scandal of 2017.

All three pluralizations are wrong in some ways, but acceptable. [1]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-many-plura...

I asked an octopus and he said he prefers "octopi".

Perhaps so, but fortunately the plural of applepus is applepi. If you are lucky, it has a scoop of vanilla ice cream on top.

Language is not about correct or incorrect, just about what people use. Please don’t obsess about it.

all 3 are correct

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2voh0q (Octopus - Merriam-Webster Ask the Editor)

See also the alt text for this comic: https://xkcd.com/928/

Spoiler for the bit referenced in the alt text: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/928:_Mimic_Octopu...

Today I learned about the wunderpus.

I call them octopuppers.

Winner. This is one way to cut through the Gordion knot of this endless debate. I'll be calling them octopuppers henceforth.

I've always preferred octopice...