Slashdot Mirror
20 Years of Virii
DenOfEarth writes "News.com has an article outlining that it was around twenty years ago that a computer security reasearcher coined the term 'virus', and how the things have been running amok. Interestingly enough, when said researcher applyed for research funding to look into a blanket solution to this possible 'virus' problem, he was turned down."
From dictonary.com:
Q. What is the plural of virus?
A. Viruses.
It is not viri, or (which is worse) virii. True, the word comes directly from Latin, but not all Latin words ending in -us have -i as their plural. Besides, viri is the Latin word for 'men' (plural of vir, man, the root the English virile). There is in fact no written attestation of a Latin plural of virus.
If you would like to pursue the subject further, see the excellent article What's the Plural of `Virus'? at Perl.com. If you have some knowledge of linguistics and Latin, you might be interested in the morphological analysis of the word from the Perseus Project.
Read How to 0wn the Internet in Your Spare Time. It shows how someone with real knowledge of computer science and sufficient determination could create a virus far more destructive than anything seen to date.
Perhaps the reason it has not happened yet is that those with the necessary skill and knowledge would rather spend the effort on something more fulfilling and/or profitable instead of annoying others while risking legal consequences.
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
There is no way there is a double in the plural of virus, even in latin the plural nominative would probably either be viri, or viruses. In english though it is definitely viruses see what the dictionary has to say
Virii is a word. It is the plural of virus. 'Viruses' is just bad spelling.
The Oxford English Dictionary says it's viruses.
"Virii" is a term used neither in biology nor computer science, unless you include adolescents who submit articles to 2600.
> So, what is the nominative plural of virus? I agree it's not virii, but we do need and answer so that the editors and others know what to do. I believe 'viruses' is OK in English, but what is the Latin plural?
There isn't any recorded Latin plural for it. It is thought to be a non-count noun like "furniture". (FWIW, we also only have a couple of recorded uses other than in the nom. or acc.)
It can be translated as "pestilence", which usually isn't pluralized in English either (though you can set up awkward usages that would be pluralized).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Agenda", on the hand, is singular. "Agendae" is the plural. (1st declension feminine)
And people say Latin is useless...
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
> "Agenda", on the hand, is singular. "Agendae" is the plural. (1st declension feminine)
What you say is true of 'propaganda' [adopted from "faith (fem. sing.) to-be-propagated"], but not, according to my dictionary, for 'agenda' [adopted from "things (neut.pl.) to-be-done"].
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I believe you meant to say "nip it in the bud", which is a saying that has its roots in gardening.
..wayne..
Actually, no, viri is an acceptable plural of virus. The word virus is used in Vergil's Georgics; if you look it up in Lewis and Short (and I assume in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which I don't have immediate access to), the plural in Latin is indeed viri. Yes, it's the same word as the plural of the word for man, vir.
> Actually, no, viri is an acceptable plural of virus. The word virus is used in Vergil's Georgics; if you look it up in Lewis and Short (and I assume in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which I don't have immediate access to), the plural in Latin is indeed viri.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary says that it always appears in the nom. sing. or acc. sing., with only two exceptions: once in the gen. sing. and once in the abl. sing., both in Lucretius. It also cites the use in Vergil's "Georgics" as malum ~us, "bad poison", i.e. not a plural. The Oxford Classical Text of the "Georgics" also shows malum uirus (line I.129).
Possibly L&S were right and the OLD & OCT are wrong, but I doubt it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade