Re: A true touch of insanity?

Wildepad wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:13:07 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> Wildepad wrote:
>>
>>> The OED and Webster's Instant Word Guide both list virii (I'm too lazy
>>> to check the dictionaries in the other room), but those are
>>> authoritative texts, rather than Internet pseudoinfo, so you probably
>>> wouldn't know anything about them.
>> Miriam-Webster Online is "Internet pseudoinfo"?  Tell us another one.
> 
> I was referring to your dependence on Wikipedia, which contains as
> much garbage as gold.

Uh, I never invoked Wikipedia.  For you to even suggest that indicates 
that you obviously you haven't been paying very close attention.

>> _Virii_, however, is not.  Any dictionary listing it will be listing it

>> as a deference to a common misspelling.
> 
> Wrong again. It is listed as a variant and/or marked as a computer
> term..

Well, you're not giving us the citation, so who knows.  The bottom line 
is, _all_ of the online resources you quoted just now to back up your 
claim about the plural of _genius_ do not agree with your claim about 
the plural of _virus_, which is an old canard that clearly violates 
basic etymology.  A book that mentions the doubly-wrong _virii_ plural 
spelling is more likely to list it as explicitly wrong and why, rather 
than to claim it's correct.

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
   'Tis done. We have become a nation.
    -- Benjamin Rush (on the ratification of the US Constitution)