Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th May 2009 22:48 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption The past few years, it seemed as if virus writers had moved away from doing actual damage to systems to instead focus on stealth, so that infected machines can silently, and unknowingly, be used for all sorts of malicious practices. Sadly, there are still those crackers out there that prefer the old-fashioned approach to these matters. The result: 100000 ruined Windows machines.
Thread beginning with comment 362566
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Perversely
by weorthe on Sat 9th May 2009 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Perversely"
weorthe
Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no plural for "virus" in classical Latin. In modern Latin, it would be "vira."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us

Edited 2009-05-09 07:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Perversely
by Hypnos on Sat 9th May 2009 07:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

I stand corrected -- thanks!

I did look up the word in the Latin dictionary, and I declined it as a masculine noun. But as the Wiki page explains, that is not recommended because there are no recorded examples of pluralizing neuter nouns ending in "-us".

Edited 2009-05-09 07:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Perversely
by wanker90210 on Sat 9th May 2009 10:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Perversely"
wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

Anyone else thinking or a particular scene in "Life of Brian"?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Perversely
by sbergman27 on Sat 9th May 2009 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Personally, I think it would be much better for us to drop all the pedantic anal-retention regarding pluralization and other silliness, and standardize this stuff. It is the pedants who are responsible for much of the mess that the English language has become. Pluralization should involve adding an 's' (or 'es' if the word already ends in s). What's the point in maintaining all the cruft regarding where the word originally came from and how pluralization was done in that, possibly even dead, language? It makes no sense other than possibly to give certain people a smug sense of being educated because they say indices instead of indexes, or radii instead of radiuses. This is English, not Latin, or French, or German, or freaking Dutch. And in English these are now English words and should be pluralized in the way English normally handled pluralization. (And don't even get me started on "words" like 'boxen'!)

Of course, I'm also in favor of complete reform regarding our rampant irregular verb problem, and a proponent of phonetic spelling. I suspect that much of this will happen over time. As English has spread around the world, and is brought into heavier daily use by the popularity of the Internet, more users of English are naturally using the forms which seem most logical and sensible, eschewing the ridiculous old cruft that 'educated' people cling to. And the pedants are loosing some of their influence.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Perversely
by EvilPixieMan on Sun 10th May 2009 00:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Perversely"
EvilPixieMan Member since:
2009-01-27

You're from the US, aren't you?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Perversely
by EvilPixieMan on Tue 12th May 2009 20:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Perversely"
EvilPixieMan Member since:
2009-01-27

Steve,
The language we share has a rich and varied history, with words of many origins. It is complex, but at the same time that is what gives it the richness it has.
My comment about your origin (since you ask) was because it is just SO seppo to want to reform the entire thing into a bland broth of phonetics.
Its been done once already. Further bastardisation will only widen the gulf between "US English" and the English spoken by the rest of the world. Will that really simplify things?
Besides, the last attempt at changing spelling to match pronunciation has only further skewed the pronunciation of many words. You buggers speak funny as it is ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Perversely
by unclefester on Sun 10th May 2009 12:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Virus is a actually a created 20th century English word with a Latin stem meaning alive. The original scientific term is filterable virus. The correct plural is viruses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Perversely
by weorthe on Sun 10th May 2009 15:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Perversely"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06

I was only talking about the Latin terms. The English plural is viruses of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2