Camillus wrote:

Throughout the book the term [i]virii[/i] is used as the plural for virus. This is incorrect the plural for virus is viruses.

Camillus wrote:

Decivre wrote:

Camillus wrote:

Throughout the book the term [i]virii[/i] is used as the plural for virus. This is incorrect the plural for virus is viruses.

This is an arguable issue, since virii is very common in usage. English has many words that do not necessarily follow strict rules of classical lexicon, such as the word "ain't", or "you" as a singular 2nd-person noun (it used to be a plural exclusively). Then there are the words where there are multiple correct terms. "Fish" and "fishes" can both refer to multiple fish. "Octopi", "octopodes" and "octopuses" are all also equally used. Let's not even get into aluminum.

There's nothing arguable about it. Virii is not an accepted plural form for virus and I have never seen it used in any other professional publication. I've only ever encountered it previously on the internet, and I don't think that that makes it acceptable (shocking I know ;) ) or even demonstates it is in common use. The fact that people make mistakes with words in casual use doesn't make that error OK for someone writing to publication standards. Would you accept "loose" instead of "lose" in a book, or one of the myriad other common errors people make writing on the internet?

Quote:

Near the beginning, in the "what is a RPG?" section, I think the word "spaceship" should be turned into "spaceships".

Decivre wrote:

Camillus wrote:

There's nothing arguable about it. Virii is not an accepted plural form for virus and I have never seen it used in any other professional publication. I've only ever encountered it previously on the internet, and I don't think that that makes it acceptable (shocking I know ;) ) or even demonstates it is in common use. The fact that people make mistakes with words in casual use doesn't make that error OK for someone writing to publication standards. Would you accept "loose" instead of "lose" in a book, or one of the myriad other common errors people make writing on the internet?

You're right that casual mistakes don't necessarily make an error okay, yet it's often those errors that define our language. Do a quick census on how many people still use the word "thou", or use "you" properly as a plural the way it was originally used. See how many people know that "inflammable" means the same thing as "flammable". Find me a modern dictionary without the word "ain't". That's how a living language changes. Besides, English does not have a central authority on proper pronunciation or spelling. Before 1755, there was no actual definitive way to spell English words, and even after that, groups of people still deviate from what is "acceptable English" (Quiz question: is it "aluminium" or "aluminum"? "Defence" or "defense"? "Armour" or "armor"?). "Viruses" is just the most common pluralization for a word we stole from another language.

nick012000 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=virii+or+viruses&meta=&aq=0&... It's not common, and probably not correct in Latin, but people still use it.

Yes, "viruses" is more correct when compared to it's Latin root (although it may not be as correct as using "virus" as a mass word, like "fish"). Yet, there are plenty of words that don't follow those rules ("campus", "cancer" and "anus" should be "campi", "cancri" and "ani" according to Latin rules; "bonus" should be its own plural). "Viruses" only fits if we're going to say "fuck it" to the rules of Latin anyways and go with standard English pluralization. Not necessarily wrong, mind you, but I don't see why it's the only option in a language where multiple options is a standard ("cactus", "cacti" and "cactuses", I'm looking at all three of you)

Decivre wrote:

Congzilla wrote:

Virii defines a category of software that is comprised of viruses, worms and trojans. The general usage of the word is to describe a collection of software. Virii itself is a plural word as there is no need for a singluar form because the more descriptive singular form of {virus, worm, or trojan} could be used. Virii is not the plural form of virus (which is viruses). Virii has nothing to do with biological viruses. Correct: I have a huge collection of virii! Incorrect: I got a virii on my computer.

While that was the term back in the 90s, it has actually given way to the new term, "malware". It is true that the others are somewhat right by way of straight etymology that the word "virus", in Latin, does not have two i's in plural form. However, it should be noted that the word was its own plural; virus was an uncountable term in classic Latin. Even the word "viruses" doesn't really follow the rules. All in all, there's no particular reason you shouldn't be able to use virii. Unlike some other languages, there is no central authority on the English language, and people add to the lexicon all the time.

Decivre wrote:

Congzilla wrote:

Malware falls under this. Virii itself is a plural word as there is no need for a singluar form because the more descriptive singular form of {virus, worm, or trojan} could be used. That is what it is, the word isn't out of use, that is it's meaning. No need to redefine words that already have definitions.

Except you are redefining a word here. A computer virus is different from a worm (the former being malware that attaches itself to other executable data, the latter being independent code), and the term virii does not refer to them as a supercategory. The term malware also includes many forms of malicious software that your use of the word virii seems to leave out... crimeware, spyware, aggressive adware, rootkits, backdoors, dialers, botnets, and other such things. Moreover, not all trojan horses are viruses (or even a "virii" as you use it), only those that are self-replicating. Using this supercategory in this way is quite wrong, even if we ignore the Latin-English semantics.

Decivre wrote:

Congzilla wrote:

That is the definition of the word no matter how you want to argue it. Malware falls under Virii as a category the same way worm or Trojan does.

Please do show us where you find this definition of the word. I've seen it used as a synonym of malware, but never as some magical supercategory that supercedes malware. It would be difficult considering that malware is the term we use to reference every single form of malicious software that exists. What else could virii reference? Shareware? DRM? Porn? Besides, it's a nonstandard definition of the term, and not something I've seen in heavy usage since the 90s. It has, for all intents and purposes, been replaced with the term "malware".

Decivre wrote:

Do we really want to use Urban Dictionary as a standard for our lexicon? Look at definition #1: "Virii is in fact an INCORRECT pluralization of 'virus', however, some retard keeps resubmitting it as the plural form." Is this the standard we're going to hold the language to? Are you also going to define "molest" as "Michael Jackson's profession." (definition #1), and AIDS as "A point-based MMIRL game. Several players compete to get the most points by having unprotected sex and other stuff. The more points you have, the higher chance you have of winning various diseases." (#10)?