Grammar Nerd Poll

B. But then, I like Latin roots and tend to overuse them, especially for humorous effect.

Your egregious grammatical error would be using "quote" as a noun. It's "quotation."

If one is educated, the plural of "memorandum" is "memoranda". If not, "memos". Benen is no great shakes on "which" (general class) vs. "that" (specific instances).

"Indices" is the plural of "index", "penes" is the plural of "penis" ("Ordinary people should recognize that artists are simply smarter than the rest of us - and that unbuilding green dancing penises and covering topless women just is not very cultured of us," 05/06/2002 California Justice William W. Bedsworth, A Criminal Waste of Space; and "clitorides" is the plural of clitoris.

Language has three purposes: to seduce, to complain, to offend - all of them being immorally enjoyable. ("To inform" is a subset of "to offend". Thus arises religion from a fruit snack in the Garden of Eden.)

/* Puts on copyeditor hat. */

Well, the really egregious error in this post is that it has nothing to with grammar. The choice of plural forms is a matter of style and usage, not grammar at all. (That is, it would be a grammar question if you were asking which form of to be to use with the plural of memorandum, but you're not, so it isn't.)

That said, the general trend with the formation of plurals of latinate nouns is to move away from latinate plurals and toward English plurals. Thus indexes instead of indeces, for example.

Memorandums doesn't really bother me as such -- it's perfectly consistent with modern copyediting standards. But I find the choice of memorandum rather than the more usual memo to be a bit stuffy.

So, to answer your question, the plural of memorandum is E) memos.

The plural of "index" is indices, not indeces!
People in the general relativity community use "indices" not "indexes" all day,
for whatever reason.

It's good that you ask us---all matters like these should be decided in referenda.

The Ruby on Rails nerds have a "pluralize" method:

edison:~ $ ruby -r rubygems -e "require 'active_support'; puts 'memorandum'.pluralize"

memorandums

/going back to my nerd cave now...

'memoranda'* or 'memos'

The egregious error in the post is one of usage, not grammar: it should be "proximate cause of" (not for).

*Firefox thinks this is misspelled

Memorializations.

(GD&R)

--
So since we're being picky, how often do you see someone use fora instead of forums? Making Latin-origin words at home in our bastard language doesn't bother me nearly as much as the recent abominations resulting from taking a perfectly good noun, making a verb of it, and then tacking on -ize to make it a noun again with a couple of totally worthless extra syllables.

Memos, memorandums, memoranda (which Firefox thinks is misspelled): it really depends on what you're trying to prove. After all, we don't speak Latin. Stamina isn't plural anymore, is it?

And -ize is a verb-making suffix.

More than one memorandum is memorandumb

So when do we get to say âthe data areâ?

As a Latin student many years ago, I know that "memoranda" is the plural of "memorandum", just as "fora" is the plural of "forum".

But I had the choice earlier this week, in a comment to a blog posting, to use "fora" or "forums" and I opted for the latter, as the former seemed likely to cause confusion among those reading the comments.

Sometimes you just have to go with the majority usage in order to avoid confusion....

Memoranda. I tend to opt for the proper pluralization of Latin and Greek words whenever it doesn't seem to be so uncommon as to be confusing to a large portion of the audience. Hence, I'll label my variables with indices, but I'll generally talk about internet forums. I don't think I've ever (before now) seen memorandum pluralized as "memorandums". As has been pointed out, memos is probably more common these days. A related, and perhaps more common, one is addenda, which I would be similarly startled to see rendered as addendums.
One that I have trouble succumbing to popular usage on is pendula. Everyone says pendulums, but for some reason that one bugs me more than most.

I would say "memoranda" (well, really I would say "memos"), but I don't mind "memorandums" as long as they're consistent about it.

One thing I've been noticing a lot recently is that many people who learn one of these non-standard (for English) plural forms, like "momenta" or "vacua", have a tendency to also start using it for the singular. That is, I keep hearing things like "now we expand around this vacua..." or "the momenta of this particle is..." Those are a little grating, so I would prefer the people saying them just stuck with "momentums" or "vacuums" so as not to get confused.

Don't we need more than one datum point?

Memorandum, memoranda.
Agendum, agenda.
Momentum, momenta.

Ho-hum.

Usage in my area of the legal community is memoranda.

@The Ridger: Stamina isn't plural, but neither is it singular. It's a mass noun.

@melior: When referring to data points (or points of data, which sounds much better), again, data is here used as a mass noun. However, unlike the previous example of stamina, datum is still an acceptable, if somewhat stilted, word, and "Don't we need more than one datum?" a perfectly legitimate construction.

B, no question.

I have no particular preference, but as a general piece of advice I'd like people to be careful of choosing the Latin option. Pluralization in Latin is not generally a matter of tacking an -a or an -i at the end. Unless a person actually understands the various ways to decline nouns in Latin, use the English plural.

B, no question. By what criterions do you judge the datums? My favourite is "status" (long 'oo') as the plural of "status". And don't get me started on "octopi".

The worst offenders, in my opinion, are journalists who do not know that 'media' is the plural of 'medium'.

memoranda. memorandum, data, datum, fora, forum, flora, florum?

D. Interdepartmental war.

Ha! My Firefox thinks memoranda is spelled correctly (but thinks Firefox is mis-spelled).

My impression is that the Anglicisation of Latinate plurals is more common over in the US than it is in the UK: I'm using a British English spell-checker, hence the difference. I'm sure, though, that Fowler has a pithy little essay on the subject.

If you're going to be fussy enough to use "memorandum" instead of "memo," then be fussy enough to use "memoranda".

As a part-time copyeditor, if you are using memorandum instead of memo, then yes, as almost everyone else here says: memoranda.

It is, and always has been: Memoranda

Either memorandums or memoranda is acceptable. I'd prefer memoranda, but obviously NYT house style is to use -dums, and they're not wrong to do so.

As Matt@20 said, don't assume that you just add -a to pluralize Latin nouns. It's a rather complicated question. But beyond that, we actually speak and write English, not Latin. Many of those funky grammar rules we've been trained on (split infinitives and the like) were actually ginned up in the 19th century by pundits who thought English should be retconned to work more like Latin.

I'm getting slightly less proscriptivist in my old age, but that only goes so far. Don't get me started on the evisceration of "enormity."

Of course it's B, but then again my great-aunt the Latin teacher warped me by referring to young toughs as "hoodla."

Probably B.

But recognize that in Latin this is already a plural verbal adjective (=that must be remembered), with the noun (rerum, things) understood. So Latin speakers would still use memorandum even for several sets of things that need to be remembered. We are not Latin-speakers, though.

Language is the ultimate democracy. Words are defined automatically by the population using that language to communicate. If most people say 'memorandums', than 'memorandums' it is, like 'circuses', 'museums' and 'forums'.

Personally, I'm in favour (or should that be 'favor'?) of dropping all that Latin plural nonsense. After all, the Romans don't use it any more, so why should we, 2,000 years later? The first time I saw the word 'fora', it stopped me in my stride, until I realised that it was the plural of 'forum'. It was a failure to communicate, and thus, automatically, the wrong word to use.

I'm far more concerned with egregious errors like the increasingly common use of "should of", instead of "should've". That truly, is horrible, and worth worrying about, since it subverts the language.

@Kate-17: same here, "memoranda."

[Yes, B.]

Failure to pluralise correctly is probably the most common reason for me to swear at NPR. Shouldn't there be *some* place where one belives that football teams play in football stadia, dammit? [Most common peeve IRL is perhaps 'less' when 'fewer' would be correct.]

Data are still plural in neuroscience and psychology, in my experience.

"Battle lines are drawn" should be "Battle lines have been drawn" for a start. I get the feeling I'll be here all night.

Oh, and B is correct. Anyone wanna teach the manufactroversy?

B. But then I took Latin back in middle school. My ancient Webster's Dictionary lists both, with version A given first.

However, it does come across odd in the Times, since (writing now as a regular reader of The New Yorker) they tended to assume a more literate audience than most newspapers.

And, yes, data ARE plural. It drives me nuts to see a multitude of experimental measurements referred to as if they constituted a single one. Unless your dictionary does not contain the word datum. Then you are excused. Poorly informed, but excused. ;-)

HP is correct (I am wearing my copyeditor hat too) that it is a matter of style, not grammar. Either is fine. Words Into Type, for instance, lists memorandums as preferred, and gives a list of words, such as census, impetus, nexus, that routinely take -es plurals. Insisting on the latin form is pretentious twittery.

memoranda

and I side with the poster above in preferring "proximate cause of" over "proximate cause for", but it is a nit picky sort of thing

I was taught (in the UK) to use the latinate plurals: fora, memoranda, data.

However, over the years I have 'Americanized' my use of language because the aim of all writing is to communicate. If the audience is clueless about a word, they'll generally be confused by one's message, rather than informed.

Almost all of my writing is in business, and generally to educated business people. However, few are scholars of note, and most would likely imagine "fora" to be the name of an Italian restaurant, rather than "meeting places"

That means I also commit the sin of never having a single datum to support my thesis (but I often have a piece of data)

Memoranda.

Memos, in a pinch, but never, ever "memorandums".

I also use "data" in the singular. Similarly, I use "water" in the singular. They're both mass nouns, rather than count nouns. "This water is cold", and "This data is poorly calibrated." If you want to refer to a specific number of "bits", you need to use special terminology -- three drops of water, three data points. Even people who use "datum" rather than "data point" for a single piece of data do not, I think, refer to "three data".

Memoranda. Hallelujah! A place where people know grammar!

Although I would probably say "memoranda", I think "memorandums" and "memos" are more acceptable.

To repeat the argument of others, we are talking about English here, not Latin. You don't assign a gender to other English words adopted from Latin (e.g., "octupus" isn't masculine). Nor do you insist on conjugating Latin-based verbs using Latin stems instead of good ol' English stems like -ing and -ed. So why must you insist on pluralizing Latin-based English words using Latin rules? If common usage now dictates using -s to pluralize, then by all means, do so.

Arrgh! English is such a bastardized language!

Here's what the OED has to say:

"The plural memoranda is first attested in late Middle English, while memorandums is frequent from the 16th cent. onwards. Many 20th-cent. British style guides prefer memoranda, which is more frequent than memorandums in current British written usage. U.S. style guides frequently recommend memorandums, and of U.S. usage Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dict. (1983) notes s.v.: âas plurals memoranda and memorandums are about equally frequent.â Singular memoranda and plural memorandas, memorandum are all rare in print; of spoken usage Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dict. further comments: âwe have a little evidence of the confusion of forms, including use of memorandum as a plural, in speech (as at congressional hearings)â."

@jon: Stamina is the plural of stamen. (see here)

If you can justify pretending that it's okay to treat it as an English mass noun, why do you object to treating other Latin borrowings as English words?

I'm with Walt Kelly. He always said that the mongoose is a singular animal because no one can say two of them. Maybe one memorandum is enough?

Well, memoranda might be in common use today, but it is spurious.

Latin nouns ending in -um are usually 2nd declension neuter which form nominative plurals ending in -a.

However, memorandum, like referendum is a gerundive which has no plural in Latin.

Therefore memorandums is actually more correct as there can be no reason to end the plural in -a other than through ignorance. If I were to hear someone use memoranda, I would infer that they were tragically lacking a decent classical education and unaware of this distinction.

Spurious words and usages often enter languages - "obnoxious" for example - so one could also argue that a form now in common usage is also correct.

I agree with "memoranda" as the correct plural, or "memos" if you are in a hurry.

As recently as 50 years ago, the famous Canadian comedy duo Wayne and Shuster could get a guaranteed laugh from one of Wayne's characters, "Flavius Maximus, Private Roman Eye," walking into a bar and ordering a martinus. When the bartender says, "You mean martini," Flavius replies, "If I want two I'll ask for them." Alas, that joke would not work nearly as well today.

Although I have no firm opinion on this matter, I'm delighted to see everyone else does. I've just finished reading the entire Q&A section on the Chicago Manual of Style website and continued on to these 46 comments because a mid-afternoon snack is the very thing to be accompanied by minute discussions of style. Thank you, all, for caring. Without the Internet, I might have thought I were alone in the universe.

In this most distinguished of forums, Charles Tye's discussion of Latin 'pluralization' (D.C., it's the -ize followed by the -tion that is excessive in noun formation), most convinces me that the data agree: you are not more right to say 'memoranda,' and, in fact, you may be more wrong. However, the choice is yours since both are in common use. I think it's elegant to use 'memorandum' as a plural form, as per jim, and that having more than one is, semantically, 'memorandumb.'