1

In all of the descriptive dictionary definitions of “emoji” I've encountered thus far (e.g. Merriam-Webster entry), the plural of emoji is given an optional “s.”

plural emoji or emo·jis

In the responses to When was “emoji” first used?, the term is described as a Latinized version of its Japanese progenitor.

Though it doesn't follow the Latin pattern exactly (there is no emojus of which I am aware), does its Latinization lend any credence to an argument in favor of using emoji for both the singular and plural form of the noun (i.e. as a defective/invariant noun)?

  • 2
    I think "Latinized" there is a slip of the pen for "Romanized", that is transliterated into the Roman alphabet. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 6 '16 at 16:10
  • 1
    The dictionary formerly known as 'Google' gives: <<Latinise 1. give a Latin or Latinate form to (a word). "his name was Latinized into Confucius" >>. It says nothing about how the new form inflects. New words / senses, even when obviously related to older ones, are often standardised in their inflections (mouse / mouses; fly out / flied out – see ... – Edwin Ashworth Mar 6 '16 at 16:28
  • 2
    Mark Libermann {Systematic Irregularization} at LanguageLog ). If one is not careful, one falls into the etymological fallacy trap. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 6 '16 at 16:32
  • 1
    As StoneyB has pointed out, the word was not borrowed into English from Latin, so no, there is no credence to any argument that involves Latin. (Whether or not it actually got Latinized, I don't know, as I don't speak Latin. Many words have indeed been borrowed into Latin long after it expired. From what I hear there are international committees that agree on what new Latin words should look and behave like. It might well be that emoji is among those words, or about to join them. However, since English has borrowed the word straight from Japanese, all of that is irrelevant.) – RegDwigнt Mar 6 '16 at 17:33

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.