Guild Wars 2

someone else noticed that the focus category in tp is called foci?

maybe they were calling focus foci all the time and did thatby mistake

While I don’t fully understand what you are saying, Focus is singular where Foci is plural.

Never heard of Foci before lol. But guess it makes sense I mean you don’t get Octopuses do you?

Are you telling me Legos, deers, and sheeps aren’t actual words too? :O

Lady Celtaine.3760:

Never heard of Foci before lol. But guess it makes sense I mean you don’t get Octopuses do you?

[Biology nerd] Actually that one is debatable, sometimes to the point of being quite controversial. In short ‘octopuses’ and ‘octopods’ are both considered correct. Octopi is not because that’s Latin pluralisation and the word is greek. [/Biology nerd]

But focus is latin (I think) so foci is correct.

Technically if they want to be consistent they should also change ‘forums’ to ‘fora’ as well.

Danikat.8537:

Lady Celtaine.3760:

Never heard of Foci before lol. But guess it makes sense I mean you don’t get Octopuses do you?

[Biology nerd] Actually that one is debatable, sometimes to the point of being quite controversial. In short ‘octopuses’ and ‘octopods’ are both considered correct. Octopi is not because that’s Latin pluralisation and the word is greek. [/Biology nerd]

But focus is latin (I think) so foci is correct.

Technically if they want to be consistent they should also change ‘forums’ to ‘fora’ as well.

Interesting! As for the forum update you will have to wait for September 2015 feature patch

Danikat.8537:

Lady Celtaine.3760:

Never heard of Foci before lol. But guess it makes sense I mean you don’t get Octopuses do you?

[Biology nerd] Actually that one is debatable, sometimes to the point of being quite controversial. In short ‘octopuses’ and ‘octopods’ are both considered correct. Octopi is not because that’s Latin pluralisation and the word is greek. [/Biology nerd]

But focus is latin (I think) so foci is correct.

Technically if they want to be consistent they should also change ‘forums’ to ‘fora’ as well.

(Seriously offtopic now.) Just on the grounds the two languages are related and most animal names (the scientific ones atleast) are based in latin it’s easy to see why it would happen that the word has become interchangeable and tbh I’m more than happy to let it slide on the basis of “looks legit”. LOL

(Gonna let thread go quiet again now.)

Yeah well, I prefer Staves to be the plural for a Staff, but they went with Staffs instead.

Nokaru.7831:

Yeah well, I prefer Staves to be the plural for a Staff, but they went with Staffs instead.

Did they really?? Ugh, that’s so gross. It’s like using Elfs/Dwarfs as the plural instead of Elves/Dwarves. Just… just no.

Reisinger.4203:

Are you telling me Legos, deers, and sheeps aren’t actual words too? :O

Yep!

LittleFoot MacLoyd.6032:

While I don’t fully understand what you are saying, Focus is singular where Foci is plural.

The plural of “focus”, in English, should be “focuses”. It’s “foci” in Latin. Dictionaries list both as acceptable pluralizations. That many English speakers adopt the pluralized form of the word from the root language for loan words is yet another bit of evidence that English is a creole and not an true language.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

Did they really?? Ugh, that’s so gross. It’s like using Elfs/Dwarfs as the plural instead of Elves/Dwarves. Just… just no.

Actually, dwarfs is the standard plural for dwarf. You can thank J.R.R. Tolkien for “dwarves”.

Berk.8561:

The plural of “focus”, in English, should be “focuses”.

No, it shouldn’t. There are TONS of exceptions to every single “rule” in English. Even native changes, not ones imported from other languages. There’s a reason many people consider English to be one of the hardest secondary languages to learn. There just too many examples of, “use this as a rule, except in this situation, or in this situation…”

Just about every other language on the planet has very set rules as to what is “correct” when constructing tenses of words, and none of them have exceptions the way English does (to such an insane extent, I mean).

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Berk.8561:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

Did they really?? Ugh, that’s so gross. It’s like using Elfs/Dwarfs as the plural instead of Elves/Dwarves. Just… just no.

Actually, dwarfs is the standard plural for dwarf. You can thank J.R.R. Tolkien for “dwarves”.

That doesn’t mean dwarfs is any less gross sounding, which was the point of that particular post I made. “Correct” or not, dwarves just sounds better to a lot of people.

Reisinger.4203:

Are you telling me Legos, deers, and sheeps aren’t actual words too? :O

Technically it should always be written as LEGO bricks as LEGO is the brand name.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

No, it shouldn’t. There are TONS of exceptions to every single “rule” in English.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by the word “should” (as in, “If English is going to be a consistent language, it should pluralize nouns in a standard way.”). I’ve already explained that’s because English is a creole, not an actual language.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

Just about every other language on the planet has very set rules as to what is “correct” when constructing tenses of words, and none of them have exceptions the way English does (to such an insane extent, I mean).

Exactly. This is why the pluralization of “focus” should be “focuses”. Please understand the meaning of the word “should” in this context.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Why not? And if that’s true, why do dictionaries list it as an acceptable pluralization?

PookieDaWombat.6209:

Technically it should always be written as LEGO bricks as LEGO is the brand name.

In the 1970s, Lego actually included fliers in their sets explaining that “Legos” was not a proper use of their name to protect their trademark.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Focuses is an acceptable pluralization.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

That doesn’t mean dwarfs is any less gross sounding, which was the point of that particular post I made. “Correct” or not, dwarves just sounds better to a lot of people.

By “gross” I assumed you meant that it didn’t sound right to you, as opposed to it literally unsettling your stomach and making you want to vomit. My point is that, grammatically, the version that sounds “gross” to you is, indeed, correct in many contexts (including talking about how a large object “dwarfs” a smaller object). That it sounds better with a “v” to many people is exactly why Tolkien changed it and it’s why people do all sorts of non-standard things in English.

My favorite is how the second-person plural pronoun (you) completely replaced the second person singular pronoun (thou) so people are creating new second-person plural pronouns (y’all, yous, yinz) and then sometime using that new second-person plural as a singular for politeness (“How y’all doing?” when talking to one person).

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Sure it is!
As a verb tense.

PookieDaWombat.6209:

Reisinger.4203:

Are you telling me Legos, deers, and sheeps aren’t actual words too? :O

Technically it should always be written as LEGO bricks as LEGO is the brand name.

S’okay, we do this rather frequently. For example:
You get a “Band-Aid” for your booboo instead of a “bandage.”
And you Xerox something instead of “make a copy or facsimile.”

So I’ll say Legos if I darn well want to~

Rauderi.8706:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Sure it is!
As a verb tense.

Are you implying it’s just a conjugation?

Rauderi.8706:

PookieDaWombat.6209:

Reisinger.4203:

Are you telling me Legos, deers, and sheeps aren’t actual words too? :O

Technically it should always be written as LEGO bricks as LEGO is the brand name.

S’okay, we do this rather frequently. For example:
You get a “Band-Aid” for your booboo instead of a “bandage.”
And you Xerox something instead of “make a copy or facsimile.”

So I’ll say Legos if I darn well want to~

Several brands have left such a deep mark in the field that the brand is informally interchangeable with the product. Sort of goes to show how language can evolve, though, just by simple association.

hannah mee.7925:

Several brands have left such a deep mark in the field that the brand is informally interchangeable with the product. Sort of goes to show how language can evolve, though, just by simple association.

The reason why companies fight that is that when their name becomes generic, they lose their trademark status and anyone can use the word. In other words, if the word “legos” became a generic word for any building block, then anyone could go to court and argue that they can call their products “legos” and sell them that way. So for a company, this is a very bad thing and that’s why they fight it.

hannah mee.7925:

Rauderi.8706:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Sure it is!
As a verb tense.

Are you implying it’s just a conjugation?

I’m mostly countering the “In no way” portion. =P

Though, “proper” rules aside, by syntax rules, “focuses” could be used as a plural noun.
blahblahblah, modern era, evolving language, etc.
Because ginormous didn’t used to be a word. :\

Rauderi.8706:

hannah mee.7925:

Rauderi.8706:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

In no way is the word “focuses” proper English.

Sure it is!
As a verb tense.

Are you implying it’s just a conjugation?

I’m mostly countering the “In no way” portion. =P

Though, “proper” rules aside, by syntax rules, “focuses” could be used as a plural noun.
blahblahblah, modern era, evolving language, etc.
Because ginormous didn’t used to be a word. :\

Quite. If a word becomes popular enough, it becomes an actual word.

Completely stolen from https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~mbarrien/jokes/english.txt

…If you’re studying English and it confuses you, think about
the confusion it has for people who grew up speaking it:

English is a crazy language

If pro and con are opposites, is congress the opposite of progress?

There is no egg in eggplant, no pine or apple in pineapple, and no ham
in hamburger, English muffins weren’t invented in England or French
Fries in France. Sweet meats are candy, while sweetbreads, which
aren’t, are meat.

Exploring it’s paradoxes, we find that quick sand works slowly, boxing
rings are square, public bathrooms have no bath, and a guinea pig is
neither a pig nor from Guinea.

Why is it that at writer writes, but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t
groce, humdingers don’t hum and hammers don’t ham?

If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn’t the plural of booth be
beeth? One goose, two geese-so one moose, two meese? One index, two
indices-one Kleenex, two Kleenices?

If you have a bunch of odds and ends and you get rid of all but one,
what do you call it?

If the teacher taught, why isn’t it true that the preacher praught? If
a horsehair mat is made from the hair of horses and a camel’s-hair coat
is made from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair coat made?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what other language do people drive on a parkway and park in a
driveway? Recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and
send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man
and a wise guy are opposites? How can it be hot as hell one day, and
cold as hell the next?

Have you ever seen a horsefull carriage or a strapfull gown?

A house can burn up as it burns down. You can fill out a form by
filling it in. Your alarm clock goes off by going on.

When the stars are out they are visible, but when the lights are out,
they are invisible. When I wind my watch I start it, but when I wind up
this message, I end it.

…More humor for those confused in learning English:

ENGLISH

We’ll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
When couldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?
The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.
And I speak of a foot, and you show me your feet,
But I give a boot – would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?
If the singular is this and plural is these,
Why shouldn’t the plural of kiss be nicknamed kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think you will all agree,
Is the trickiest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it’s said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don’t call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(they rhyme with suite and straight and debt)
A moth is not a moth in mother.
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there.
And dear and fear for bear and pear.
And then there’s dose and rose and lose —
Just look them up -- and goose and choose.
And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I’d learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn’t learned it at fifty-five!

Berk.8561:

hannah mee.7925:

Several brands have left such a deep mark in the field that the brand is informally interchangeable with the product. Sort of goes to show how language can evolve, though, just by simple association.

The reason why companies fight that is that when their name becomes generic, they lose their trademark status and anyone can use the word. In other words, if the word “legos” became a generic word for any building block, then anyone could go to court and argue that they can call their products “legos” and sell them that way. So for a company, this is a very bad thing and that’s why they fight it.

Yet you can’t go out and hunt down every person on the planet and go cease and desist for just talking. Unless corporations rule the world and we end up like that one SYFY show I watched for 3 seasons about the future and space time continuum/time travel in 40 odd years.

“Tin-foil hat!”

Roybe.5896:

Completely stolen from https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~mbarrien/jokes/english.txt

…If you’re studying English and it confuses you, think about
the confusion it has for people who grew up speaking it:

English is a crazy language

If pro and con are opposites, is congress the opposite of progress?

There is no egg in eggplant, no pine or apple in pineapple, and no ham
in hamburger, English muffins weren’t invented in England or French
Fries in France. Sweet meats are candy, while sweetbreads, which
aren’t, are meat.

Exploring it’s paradoxes, we find that quick sand works slowly, boxing
rings are square, public bathrooms have no bath, and a guinea pig is
neither a pig nor from Guinea.

Why is it that at writer writes, but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t
groce, humdingers don’t hum and hammers don’t ham?

If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn’t the plural of booth be
beeth? One goose, two geese-so one moose, two meese? One index, two
indices-one Kleenex, two Kleenices?

If you have a bunch of odds and ends and you get rid of all but one,
what do you call it?

If the teacher taught, why isn’t it true that the preacher praught? If
a horsehair mat is made from the hair of horses and a camel’s-hair coat
is made from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair coat made?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what other language do people drive on a parkway and park in a
driveway? Recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and
send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man
and a wise guy are opposites? How can it be hot as hell one day, and
cold as hell the next?

Have you ever seen a horsefull carriage or a strapfull gown?

A house can burn up as it burns down. You can fill out a form by
filling it in. Your alarm clock goes off by going on.

When the stars are out they are visible, but when the lights are out,
they are invisible. When I wind my watch I start it, but when I wind up
this message, I end it.

…More humor for those confused in learning English:

ENGLISH

We’ll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
When couldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?
The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.
And I speak of a foot, and you show me your feet,
But I give a boot – would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?
If the singular is this and plural is these,
Why shouldn’t the plural of kiss be nicknamed kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think you will all agree,
Is the trickiest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it’s said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don’t call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(they rhyme with suite and straight and debt)
A moth is not a moth in mother.
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there.
And dear and fear for bear and pear.
And then there’s dose and rose and lose —
Just look them up -- and goose and choose.
And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I’d learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn’t learned it at fifty-five!

This is all so overwhelming!
Can I go back to just being whelmed?

Back on topic, “focuses” and “foci” are both correct, but while in all-day life people are more likely to use the modern Englich pluralisation, fantasy games (and books, tv etc) like to use the Latin (sometimes Greek) pluralisation to give it a more archaic feel. For athmosphere/style. See also ‘of the magi’.

It only bothers me when it’s done wrong, i.e. a version that’s never eve been correct, not in Rome or Greece or England – such ad ‘stati’ for status, ‘viri’ (sometimes even ‘virii’…) for virus or ‘pegasi’ for pegasus.

Reminds me of something I found off the interwebs:

I’ve a fondness for silly language things like this, but keeping track of all the varied origins and their rules is typically too much for one person to handle. Heck, spelling out “you” is sometimes too much work. =P

“Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets.”
- Eddy Peters

Back on topic?
Then again, most people would also pronounce foci as “fo kai” when it should be “fo sai”. And now we being to see why it’s not worth fussing over, especially since the forum won’t accept phonology fonts. =P

Then again, most people would also pronounce foci as “fo kai” when it should be “fo sai”.

Not so! It entirely depends whether you refer to ancient Rome, or medieval (clerical) Latin.

The correct pronunciation would be “foh-kee” in the first case (although some people argue it could have been “foh-chee”, see also modern Italian), and “foh-tsee” in the latter. None of that “ai” stuff, that’s just English.

Sincerely, a language nerd

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed non risus. Suspendisse lectus tortor, dignissim sit amet, adipiscing nec, ultricies sed, dolor.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

It only bothers me when it’s done wrong, i.e. a version that’s never eve been correct, not in Rome or Greece or England – such ad ‘stati’ for status, ‘viri’ (sometimes even ‘virii’…) for virus or ‘pegasi’ for pegasus.

I do this for comedic effect.

Unfortunately, few people tend to recognize my comedy and think I’m just unedumacated.