253

submitted 5 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/196

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 39 points 5 months ago

Wugs, if its an Anglo root, unless it's derived from Latin "Wug*, wugīs" in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye). Unless its one of the random Latin words where we don't do that and it's still "wugs." Unless it's a loanword from germanic then we might anglicise it or we might say "wugar." Because eNgLIsH iS EaSY...

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 18 points 5 months ago

Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”

[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 5 months ago

The correct plural is actually wug, or dialect weg.

[-] Stamau123@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

There is no 'correct' wug plural, but the most common is 'wugs'

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

unless it’s derived from Latin “Wug*, wugīs” in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye).

Wouldn't a wug, wugis group noun be wuges plural?

[-] eldain@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago

Wouldn't that be Wux, Wuges? It would need to be Wug, Wugines for the ol romans to not condense the word base into ending with x before English gets invented.

[-] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Correct! Thank you for catching that, I accidentally put it in third declension. So yes Wuges. I was referencing when second declension nouns borrowed into English sometimes remain -i for the plural (as in radii, stimuli etc.) So Wugus, Wugi.

Oh yeah and sometimes it's actually Greek causing irregulars (looking at you, criteria)...