- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. The standard word for the Romans and Greeks to refer to the animal was polypus/polypous. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s18th century, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky. (I would also suggest that some educated English speakers and writers in the late 1700s and early 1800s who encountered octopus for the first time could have known that the Latin word for the animal was polypus, and they may have assumed octopus would form octopi as a plural as well.)
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. In addition to polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. In addition to polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. The standard word for the Romans and Greeks to refer to the animal was polypus/polypous. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the 18th century, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky. (I would also suggest that some educated English speakers and writers in the late 1700s and early 1800s who encountered octopus for the first time could have known that the Latin word for the animal was polypus, and they may have assumed octopus would form octopi as a plural as well.)
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. In addition to polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. Rather than In addition to polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. Rather than polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. In addition to polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. Rather than polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic.
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. Rather than polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
- The word octopus did not actually exist in either ancient Greek or ancient Latin, so appeal to a "native" plural is problematic. (There was a very rare adjective in Greek oktapous, also incredibly rare in Latin form as octipes, but it merely meant "eight-footed" and did not refer to the creature we now call an octopus. It's exceedingly unlikely that our modern word came from these roots, as the etymology is explained below.)
- While the root octopod- is suggested by English words like octopod and the biological order Octopoda, there are also English words drawn from the root octop-, such as octopean, octopine, and octopic. All of these suggest that there is a significant history of educated folks who would accept octopi as a reasonable plural.
- The word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the mid-1800s, based on a Latinized Greek word polypus. Linnaeus did use the plural octopodes in his modern Latin and the root octopod- for example in the taxonomic order Octopoda. On the other hand, almost as soon as the word entered the English language, the plural octopi begins to be seen. The OED has a sample quotation from 1834 with octopi (only the second English-language quotation in their list), but a cursory search in Google books shows that octopi occurred well before that in the early 1800s. Essentially, there has really never been a period in the English language where octopi didn't co-exist with octopodes. Most sources from before 1850 or so in English are specialized texts listing off Linnaeus's classifications, but once we begin to see the word octopus come into everyday use, octopi seems to become a common, if not dominant plural.
- "Yes," comes the objection, "but it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the English language. The word comes from Greek, not Latin." First off, the word comes from Latin -- if it were Greek, it would be oktopous (or maybe octopous, if we allow a little fudging in the transliteration). Yes, octopus ultimately comes from Greek roots, but it comes through Latinized Greek. What matters is not how we would decline the word in Greek, but how we would decline the word in Latin. The argument goes that it would be a third declension noun in Latin, with stem octopod-, rather than a second declension noun, with stem octop-. Hence, octopodes over octopi. A difficulty with this argument is that the Latin predecessors, such as polypus, from which octopus was coined, actually used the second-declension plural form polypi. Latinized Greek plurals were often not consistent in their declensions, even for the ancient Romans. Even Linnaeus inconsistently used polypi alongside octopodes, since he knew his Latin well, and the Romans used polypi, not polypodes. Educated ancient Romans, who knew their Greek well, still preferred polypi. Would they object to octopi? I don't know, but when your plural form is actually inconsistent with the plural of the original word used as a basis, the historical argument gets more murky.
- "Okay," comes a final objection, "but Linnaeus knew his Greek, and we do too. If the word ultimately came from Greek, we should use the 'proper' way to pluralize the Latin version, even if the ancient Romans didn't know any better." Ah, but there's a further problem. The ancient Greeks weren't consistent in choosing a declension for polypous. Rather than polypodes, one can easily find examples of polypoi, which would probably be the reason the Romans used polypi.
Loading
Loading