Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

When talking in linguistics topics about the word "to be" and its foreign language equivalents like Spanish "ser" and "estar", the name of this kind of special verb is "copula".

But copula has two plural forms:

In a formal context as linguists might use, which sounds more "professional"? Does the Latin irregular seem "more correct and erudite" or "too pompous"?

Please note I'm not asking for prescriptive vs descriptive debate or plain vanilla "most frequent" as a simple Google Ngram would provide. As far as I'm concerned both are correct, I just want to narrow it down to how professionals use it in the given context.

share|improve this question
    
This question strikes me as odd: I don't understand how the choice of a plural can sound "professional". If someone said "sheeps" or "cactuses", I certainly wouldn't think they were unprofessional. –  Billy Nov 25 '11 at 3:57
    
@Billy: That might depend if you wanted to sound like you were a professional in the area of sheep or cacti. "Sheeps" would make you sound like a learner of English since this word doesn't exist at all. The reactions to "cactuses" would probably vary in very similar ways to "copulas" since "cactus" and "copula" both have two plural forms, but who accepts one or the other is open to question. –  hippietrail Nov 25 '11 at 11:21
    
Yes, exactly. Being a learner of English doesn't mean you're not an expert in sheep, it simply means you've done your study in another language. In either case, "copulas" and "copulae" are both accepted, and I would hope that linguists (of all people) would turn a blind eye to your using their less favourite plural. Both exist and will be understood and are fine. If you want to ask the question "which is most accepted?", then a Google search is what you want, surely? –  Billy Nov 27 '11 at 17:17
    
Well I'm only an armchair linguist so I won't presume to guess how real linguists write in practice or what they expect from their peers, and it would be hard to come up with a Google search I expect that could be restricted to that domain, but I might be wrong on that. –  hippietrail Nov 27 '11 at 18:20
    
Search on Google Scholar? Or Google Books? –  Billy Dec 7 '11 at 23:02

2 Answers 2

As a native British English speaker, to my eye "copulae" would be the most professional-looking.

share|improve this answer
2  
I like it too, but I'm not sure if it's just because I'm a word geek (-: –  hippietrail Nov 22 '11 at 10:03

It’s not a common word, so it’s unsurprising that searches in the OED, COCA and BNC are inconclusive, with two records of copulas in the OED and one in COCA and none at all for copulae. My own preference is always for the English over the Latin plural, unless there are compelling reasons to use the latter. In practice, the plural will seldom be required at all, and, when it is, there's always the alternative copular verbs.

share|improve this answer
2  
I'm not sure that the reason needs to be more compelling than that it looks and reads more elegantly. There's no compelling reason to use "media" over "mediums" or "appendices" over "appendixes" other than that they look more elegant (to some). As you say, it is a stylistic choice, but I'd suggest that the use of latin plurals would be more prevalent in formal/academic writing –  Matt Nov 22 '11 at 10:51
    
My context is making a tag for the new Spanish Language & Usage. Spanish has two copula[es] (ser and estar) and when to use one or the other is a prominent topic. Japanese Language & Usage just goes with "copula" though that languages also has more than one copula, not all of which are verbs. –  hippietrail Nov 22 '11 at 10:54
    
@Matt: I totally agree but one funny aspect of linguistics I'm wondering about is whether since most linguists are descriptivist that this discipline might buck the trend (-: –  hippietrail Nov 22 '11 at 10:55
2  
@Matt: There's a compelling reason for using 'media' over 'mediums' to describe means of mass communication rather than clairvoyants and there may be a compelling reason to use 'appendices' over 'appendixes' in talking about additions to the main part of a publication rather than superfluous organs. As for academic writing, it depends on the academic. –  Barrie England Nov 22 '11 at 11:14
1  
@Barrie: I stand corrected. Although some people do insist on having "apendixes" to documents - I now have the medical argument to fall back on :) –  Matt Nov 22 '11 at 12:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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