Talk:Ignoramus (play)

Comment

This is an article in the Wikipedia, which means that it is an encyclopedia entry. As such, it is not designed to offer lexical definitions. Wiktionary is our online dictionary, and it already contains an entry for "ignoramus." That's why we don't need a definition in this article and why, actually, a definition should not be present in the article (duplication of effort). Geogre 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC) for all of this lsck of discussion .. what would be the plural? ingnoramuses or ingnorami?[reply]

If we are talking about the drama, and if there is no other play of the same name, there would be no plural. For the ordinary English word, treated as a Latin noun rather than as a verb (meaning withheld, as above, for reasons of adolescent authoritarianism) I suggest "ignorami" as easier to say than "ignoramuses."NRPanikker (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin word is a verb, not a noun, and is at any rate already in the plural. Therefore, to make it plural in English, an ordinary English plural must be used. There is no call to pretend that it is a Latin second-declension masculine noun with a plural in -ī. The English plural is ‘ignoramuses’, ease of pronunciation not being relevant. ‘Ignorami’ would be a hypercorrection.

Something strange happens when we want to use this word in Latin, though. It is a Latin verb, but in the play it is a proper noun. It therefore needs to be treated as a noun in Latin, no matter what its origins are. Treating it as undeclinable is an option. However, it is the norm in Latin to Latinise foreign names, and shoehorn them into the Latin system as 1st, 2nd or 3rd declension. ‘Ignōrāmus’ is absolutely begging to be treated as a second-declension noun.

Its nominative and vocative plural, as a loanword into Latin from English, is therefore ignōrāmī. Its accusative plural is ignōrāmōs. Its genitive plural is ignōrāmārum. Its dative and ablative plural is ignōrāmīs. — Chameleon 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone all the way round the houses, we find ourselves back at "ignorami" as the appropriate plural for Wikipedians. NRPanikker (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it is the norm in Latin to Latinise foreign names, and shoehorn them into the Latin system..." No. It is normal to calque them, or to construct an equivalent word or phrase that follows the normal rules for constructing nouns in Latin – for example pediludium instead of *footballus, interrete or rete informaticum instead of *internetus, et cetera. The correct latin term would therefore be something like *ignorator, one who does not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.83.206 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be to follow the rules of "The Immortals" for the French language. However, their strictures are dead letters at home and should be ignored by anglophones. NRPanikker (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]