English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Why is walri not the correct pluralization of walrus?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, FumbleFingers, Drew, Chenmunka, tchrist Feb 27 '15 at 23:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Why could the plural not be 'walrus', as in, one sheep many sheep? – user71636 Apr 10 '14 at 14:00
I suppose it could be (in some alternative universe) but it isn't (in the real world). – Andreas Blass Apr 10 '14 at 14:04

Only some words of Latin extraction ending in -us, which were second declension nouns in Latin, take -i as plural.

Walrus comes from Dutch, and is akin to Danish and Norwegian hvalros. It is not a Latin second declension noun, so there is no reason it would be pluralized with -i.

The plural of walrus is walruses.

Edit: I just want add an additional note to clarify that even in cases where an English word does come from a Latin second declension noun, its plural might not necessarily end in -i. For example, the plural of campus is campuses not campi, and the plural of bonus is bonuses not boni.

share|improve this answer
Exactly. Similar situation with octopus (which is of Greek origin), pluralised to octopodes if you're being 'proper'. – Noldorin Oct 7 '10 at 19:05
Aren't there also lots of Latin-derived words that don't use the Latin pluralization? I mean, we're not speaking Latin here. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 7 '10 at 19:45
@Mr. Shiny and New yes, you are exactly right—that’s why I said “Only some words of Latin extraction.” – nohat Oct 7 '10 at 19:52
aha, I didn't interpret your sentence that way actually; I thought you meant "Only some words - those which were second declension nouns - take i as plural". I guess on re-reading your statement it also (subtly, IMO) covers the point that even if Walrus WAS one of the -i nouns that doesn't mean it still IS. :) – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 7 '10 at 20:00
So arguably the "correct" plural (if you're a prescriptivist who likes importing plurals) is "walrussen" or "walrusser". – Jon Purdy Oct 8 '10 at 23:50

protected by tchrist Feb 26 '15 at 6:16

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.