Cactus or Cacti?

[DaveW]

I'm being pedantic, but regarding "Cacti Identification", is that not a strange title for these threads? Should that not be "Cactus Identification"? Cacti is surely plural and I was always told "If you can't say cactuses you can't say cacti" and you would never really say "Cactuses Identification" using the English language?

http://grammarist.com/usage/cacti-cactuses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For instance it would be "I have a cactus" not "I have a cacti" as you would never say "I have a cactuses"

[majcka]

This is just too much for me. I barely speak English and I'm blond!

[Carl_B]

I'm being pedantic

Yes Dave, yes you are

[tumamoc]

Dude, you have too much time on your hands.

[peterb]

I agree, Dave, it should be Cactus Identification.

peterb

[majcka]

OK. You intriged me. Let me say once more I'm not a native English speaker. But as I can understand this.... it would be:

A. Cactus identification...if we talk about one cactus.
B. Cacti identification...if we talk about several of them.

At least in my language there would be something like that.

Identification of one cactus and identification of sevral cacti (cactuses).

Or maybe not. As far as I get things American English is much different than Britain English, is it?

[Carl_B]

OK. You intriged me. Let me say once more I'm not a native English speaker. But as I can understand this.... it would be:

A. Cactus identification...if we talk about one cactus.
B. Cacti identification...if we talk about several of them.

At least in my language there would be something like that.

Identification of one cactus and identification of sevral cacti (cactuses).

Or maybe not. As far as I get things American English is much different than Britain English, is it?

As a native English speaker (barley ) that to me looks correct

British English & American English are pretty similar I doubt anyone from Britain would have a problem reading American English or vice versa it's just the spelling of certain words in American English especially with loanwords from other languages & certain silent letters such as in "Colour" becomes 'Color' or "Centre" becomes "Center"

[A. Dean Stock]

Nothing wrong with being "pedantic", especially if you are right. In this case you certainly are.
Dean

[peterb]

bravo, Dean.

peterb

[DaveW]

As I said the simple rule is " if you can't say cactuses you can't say cacti" Maja.

I have a cactus - not I have a cacti. I have a collection of cacti (or cactuses). I have a cactus collection - not I have a cacti collection. Ain't English great! Or I should say isn't English great!

[peterb]

my current pet peeve is using "cactus" for the plural. I realize it is just a preference. But that book _Cactus of Arizona_ always sounds like it is about one plant.

peterb

[Saxicola]

Or maybe not. As far as I get things American English is much different than Britain English, is it?

No, the languages are very similar to the point that linguists wouldn't even consider them different dialects. Most of the differences are pretty minor and often come down to different terms for the same thing such as vacation vs. holiday, flat vs. apartment, lorry vs. truck. But the number of cases like that is very small compared to the terms that are the same both places. I don't think there would ever be a situation where people couldn't actually communicate because of the differences. I'd say that the main difference between them is primarily accent. There are a handful of words that have changed slightly too "color vs. colour", "aluminum vs. aluminium", "math vs. maths", and apparently the British don't really use the word "gotten" even though it is an old English word (Americans use it regularly).

As far as Cacti and Cactuses go, I use both. I've always felt the Cactuses ending was more correct, but it is easier to go with the flow and use Cacti. In this specific case I agree that the singular, "Cactus Identification" is correct.

[adetheproducer]

I would have thought cacti would be the correct one to use as it insinuates more than one cactus could be identified. Where as cactus would asume just one. Got to love the language complicated and pointless.

[DaveW]

Remember the official names of our specialist societies are called Cactus & Succulent Societies, not Cacti & Succulent Societies since that would be akin to saying "Cactuses & Succulent Societies"

The difference in US to UK spelling is often said to be because:-

"It goes back to the early 19th century and the publication of Noah Webster's dictionary. The new country was anxious to establish it's separate identity from Great Britain so a spelling reform seemed like a good thing to do. Noah Webster actually proposed hundreds of changes in spelling, such as vizion for vision, but only a few of the spelling reforms were actually put into practice, color for colour, theater for theatre, dramatize for dramatise, traveling for travelling."

Some claim however that America used the earlier form of English it's founding fathers brought over:-

"It seems likely that it was the British who changed the spelling from color to colour, rather than the reverse. In 19th century census returns for example it is very common to find an occupation as "laborer" rather than labourer as we would write it today."

"Color or Colour: Most words of this category derive from Latin non-agent nouns having nominative -or; the first such borrowings into English were from early Old French and the ending was -or or -ur. After the Norman Conquest, the termination became -our in Anglo-French in an attempt to represent the Old French pronunciation of words ending in -or.

Webster's 1828 dictionary featured only -or and is generally given much of the credit for the adoption of this form in the US. By contrast, Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary used the -our spelling for all words still so spelled in Britain, as well as for emperour, errour, governour, horrour, tenour, terrour, and tremour, where the u has since been dropped. Johnson, unlike Webster, was not an advocate of spelling reform and for the most part simply recorded what he found."

Uniform spelling is really a modern concept, in the past spellings were usually phonetic and often varied individual to individual or school to school.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/OE_vs_ME.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even some old English letters were used we no longer have and they have been confused with modern ones. For instance the letter known as Thorn was often printed as a "Y", but was originally pronounced as the th sound so "Ye old tea shoppe" should be pronounced "The old tea shoppe" but tea had not been imported in those days anyway!

"The English language consists of a hotchpotch of source material combining to form one of the most agile and expressive languages in the world. While using a base of the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) alphabets, it soon incorporated a great deal from other languages such as Latin, classical Greek (which itself incorporated much from ancient Semitic languages), and French (in two distinct waves)."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancash ... n/A2922077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A lot of the spellings of our words also came from the first printers setting up the words in type as they thought they should be spelt, rather than the spellings academics would have used.

Bernard Shaw was right, English spelling needs reforming!

[greenknight]

The word "cactus" is Latin, comes from the Ancient Greek "kaktos" - which was the name of some spiny plant, identity uncertain. "Cacti" is the Latin plural, the English plural is "cactuses" - either is considered correct.

This forum really should be called "cactus identification" - but I wasn't gonna be the one to bring it up.