Etymology of "virii"

  • Thread starter Thread starter kwr84g
  • Start date Start date
K

kwr84g

Not to get into a discussion of the merits of either, but would anyone
know sources to find info on the first uses of the word "virii" (as
opposed to "viruses"). As a relatively recent invention I imagined this
might be easy but I'm coming up blank.

A look through google groups over the last 23 years finds a bloom in the
usage of the word after 1988, based around an Amiga virus scare, and
only one use of it before then in 1985. I realise newsgroups aren't a
good indicator of what I'm looking for but so far it's all I have to go on.

Thanks.
 
kwr84g said:
Not to get into a discussion of the merits of either, but would anyone
know sources to find info on the first uses of the word "virii" (as
opposed to "viruses"). As a relatively recent invention I imagined
this might be easy but I'm coming up blank.

A look through google groups over the last 23 years finds a bloom in
the usage of the word after 1988, based around an Amiga virus scare,
and only one use of it before then in 1985. I realise newsgroups
aren't a
good indicator of what I'm looking for but so far it's all I have to
go on.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

http://snipurl.com/8w5r
http://snipurl.com/8w5s

"virii" is *jargon*, and it is incorrectly derived jargon.
 
Not to get into a discussion of the merits of either, but would anyone
know sources to find info on the first uses of the word "virii" (as
opposed to "viruses"). As a relatively recent invention I imagined this
might be easy but I'm coming up blank.

A look through google groups over the last 23 years finds a bloom in the
usage of the word after 1988, based around an Amiga virus scare, and
only one use of it before then in 1985. I realise newsgroups aren't a
good indicator of what I'm looking for but so far it's all I have to go on.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's a term coined by the early coderz of such programs, and shouldn't
be confused with the plural for the biological entities they mimic.
....but there are some folk so blessed with leisure time, that they will
indulge a misguided pedantic urge ad infinitum.
 
Bart said:
....but there are some folk so blessed with leisure time, that they will
indulge a misguided pedantic urge ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

It's such a ghastly miscarriage of a word and a sign of complete
cluelessness that the temptation is just too immense to resist... ;-)
 
Who says it's 'virii' and not viri? I can't see why it should be 'virii'.
Where's the first i (after the r) come from?

Rob Graham
 
Who says it's 'virii' and not viri? I can't see why it should be 'virii'.
Where's the first i (after the r) come from?
Click to expand...

It is a counting sequence...
viri
virii
viriii
viriv [1]
virv
virvi
virvii

....and so forth.

[1] There are some who would write this as 'viriiii'.
 
NormanM said:
Who says it's 'virii' and not viri? I can't see why it should be 'virii'.
Where's the first i (after the r) come from?
Click to expand...

It is a counting sequence...
viri
virii
viriii
viriv [1]
virv
virvi
virvii

...and so forth.

[1] There are some who would write this as 'viriiii'.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
Click to expand...

Ah! Now I understand. BTW shouldn't you have said 'so fourth'?

Rob
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin Graham wrote:

| Who says it's 'virii' and not viri? I can't see why it should be 'virii'.
| Where's the first i (after the r) come from?
|
| Rob Graham
|
|
Ancient Roman families were known as the -ii (as in Vespasian who was
one of the flavii for example)

So while the plural of virus could be viri (which is actually the plural
of 'vir' = man) the whole family of viruses could be called the 'virii'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBPY03qmlxlf41jHgRAt2bAJ9OJEzEjtp2raD6KZmqwwSNNjXa/gCgkNWV
Jy9tTyk6iCYLVIVlOtYmeaQ=
=EvOX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Ancient Roman families were known as the -ii (as in Vespasian who was
one of the flavii for example)
Click to expand...

Yes but the singular word is flavius. So to pluralise it you would knock off
the 'us' and substitute an 'i'.

Rob
 
andy smart said:
Ancient Roman families were known as the -ii (as in Vespasian who was
one of the flavii for example)
Click to expand...

You neglected to mention that the family of which you speak was called
Flavius, NOT Flavus and NOT Flavi. Note that Flavius ends with "ius" so
the use of "ii" to pluralize "ius" is correct. It was NOT the "Flavus"
family. It was the "FlavIus" family: Flavius Augustus Honorious,
Flavius Victor, Titus Flavius, Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Flavius
Arrianus Xenophon, Flavius Aetius, Flavius Arcadius, Flavius Theodosis,
Flavius Stilicho, and some more
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=Flavius). By the way, what
years define "ancient" Rome? All these guys were around somwhere from
90 to 450 AD. To me, "ancient" meant BC, not AD, before Spartakus
(uprising circa 73 BC), possibly including when Rome was founded in 753
BC (which is not the start of the gradual Roman Empire), or even earlier
so it seems that discussing folks that lived around 100 - 450 AD isn't
"ancient" when you are skipping almost a thousand years, or a lot more.

Oh, and for the Vespasian "example" you cited incorrectly, it was Titus
Flavius Vespasianus (AD 69-79). Note "ius" is used in Flavius. It
wasn't "Flavus" or "Flavi".
So while the plural of virus could be viri (which is actually the
plural of 'vir' = man) the whole family of viruses could be called
the 'virii'
Click to expand...

Except the root of "virus" is, ta-da, still "virus"! It is NOT "vir",
"viri", or "viro"! That's why replacing "i" for "us" is invalid because
"virus" is not a counting form. In Latin, there is no plural for virus.
Virus"es" is the English counting form. "ii" supplants "ius", and
obviously the word in question is not "virius". Other than my other
post, have a read at
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/plural of virus. The
idiots that think "viri" or "virii" are plurals for "virus" must also be
the idiots raised on "lite" as correct spelling for "light". That's
what happens when you have jargon (in its meaning of "Nonsensical,
incoherent, or meaningless talk" or as "pejorative term applied to
speech or writing that is considered meaningless, unintelligible, or
ugly") around long enough to pollute the young or foolish.

The nicest but inaccurate answer is probably Norman's post in this
thread although that is altering the historical screwup of not
understanding how to pluralize "virus". It makes a better story to
belie its history as the use of jargon by appending Roman numerals (onto
the root of "vir" which is NOT the root of "virus" which has not root
other than itself) rather than someone screwed up and other ignorants
latched onto it. The pluralization of "virus" to "viri" or "virii" is
used by folks trying to make themselves look smarter but who actually
just expose their ignorance. They think they're wearing a badge of
intellectual honor when the rest of us see its a dried turd on a pin.
 
This came up up several years ago on a predecessor list to a.c.v.

At that time somebody who identified himself as a Proffesor of
Comparitive Linguistics stated that the root of virus, as used
in biology, was not the Latin "man" but the Anglo-Saxon "slime"
or "mold".

From this he concluded that the correct plural of virus was viruses.

tom
 
I agree with everything you say other than the spelling of 'honor' which
should be 'honour'.

Rob
 
Robin Graham said:
I agree with everything you say other than the spelling of 'honor'
which should be 'honour'.

Rob
Click to expand...

honour: chiefly British; Old English.

honor: American English (seems to follow the Latin spelling rather than
Old/Middle English or French form).

"Dictionaries have a great impact on usage. Webster preferred to spell
words like "colour" and "honour" without the "u," which he considered to
be superfluous. As a result, we still spell them "color" and "honor" in
this country, as opposed to the old British spellings."
(http://www.uta.edu/english/tim/courses/4301w99/dic.html)

"The first American dictionary of significance was that of Noah Webster,
a New England lawyer and teacher, interested in spelling reform. In 1828
Webster produced An American Dictionary of the English Language. The
uniqueness of this 70,000 compilation was its abandonment of British
spelling for "simpler" American variations, e.g., waggon became wagon,
centre-center, musick-music, and honour-honor. It's interesting to note,
however, that not all of Webster's reforms took hold. Example of his
failure include tung for tongue and wimmen for women."
(http://www.webguru.com/history-dictionary.htm)

See what happens when we don't verify the authorities we trust? See
what happens when we overuse marketing crap, like "lite" for "light", or
misspelled technical jargon rolls into our language for too long and
supplants it, like "viri" or "virii" for "viruses"? However, I'm not
sure that Webster really used simpler forms or if he decided to derive
them from their Latin forms.

I can't afford to buy a subscription to http://www.oed.com/ ($30/month
or $295/year) so I cannot look up its claimed etymology of "honour".
According to http://www.etymonline.com/, it was derived from "honorem",
so why did the "u" get added? The Latin form is "honor", doesn't have a
"u", so why did it show up in "honour" (and I've seen "honourary" used,
too)?
 
And while we are talking of American usage, can you explain why Americans
say 'alternate' for 'alternative'? They are totally different words,
although they look alike. The former, in my book, means 'every other' like
1,3,5,7,9, whereas the latter refers to a choice between two things. There
are many places in Windows and Word where the user is given the option of
doing one thing or doing it the alternate way, instead of the alternative
way.

Rob
 
Robin Graham said:
And while we are talking of American usage, can you explain why
Americans say 'alternate' for 'alternative'? They are totally
different words, although they look alike. The former, in my book,
means 'every other' like 1,3,5,7,9, whereas the latter refers to a
choice between two things. There are many places in Windows and Word
where the user is given the option of doing one thing or doing it the
alternate way, instead of the alternative way.

Rob
Click to expand...

My guesses are:

If used as an adjective then "alternative" is probably the preferred
usage, as in "You have 4 alternative ways." It can also be used as a
noun so "You have 4 alternatives" is also correct.

If used as verb then "alternate" is correct, as in "You must alternate
between the input fields."

Since "alternate" can be used as a noun, as in "You have 4 alternates",
then it can also be used as an adjective hence we are back to the above
where "You have 4 alternate ways" is correct (see
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/noun-as-adjective.html).
 
The nicest but inaccurate answer is probably Norman's post in this
thread although that is altering the historical screwup of not
understanding how to pluralize "virus"...
Click to expand...

It was intended to be a humorous look at a bit of ignorant vanity. I am not
a Latin scholar by any means; English troubles me enough, and I have
undertaken to try an learn Japanese on top of that. I had to rely on various
resources to sort out the concept of 'viri/virii'. I expect that those
things are related to "eight pie" ('octopi'). Even when a proper plural can
be attested, the norm for bringing a non-English word into English usage is
to "Anglicize" it. Thus, using the standard English method to pluralize a
word is appropriate.
 
I agree with everything you say other than the spelling of 'honor' which
should be 'honour'.
Click to expand...

We don't put 'tyres' on our 'lorries', either. And the luggage doesn't go in
the 'boot'. And our 'sleepers' run on the rails, they don't lie under them.

;)
 
If used as an adjective then "alternative" is probably the preferred
usage, as in "You have 4 alternative ways." It can also be used as a
noun so "You have 4 alternatives" is also correct.
Click to expand...

Strictly, you can never have more than two alternatives.
If used as verb then "alternate" is correct, as in "You must alternate
between the input fields."
Agreed


Since "alternate" can be used as a noun, as in "You have 4 alternates",
then it can also be used as an adjective hence we are back to the above
where "You have 4 alternate ways" is correct
Click to expand...

But this is my point. I can't agree that 'alternate' is a noun or that it
can be an adjective with the meaning 'alternative'. They are just
different - though similar - words.

Rob
 
NormanM said:
... Even when a proper plural can
be attested, the norm for bringing a non-English word into English usage is
to "Anglicize" it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's entirely so. I have the impression it is something
of a modern trend to Anglicize such plurals.
... Thus, using the standard English method to pluralize a
word is appropriate.
Click to expand...

However, here I entirely agree. The word has been entirely "Anglicized"
by being put to use in a way sufficiently different from the original
Latin root that it really is a "new word". As such, I cannot see any
intelligent reason to question that English language pluralization rules
might not apply.
 
Back
Top