Plural of the word "status"

  • Thread starter Chris Hudson
  • Start date
  • Views : 923,662
Status
Not open for further replies.

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I have come to this discussion rather late, but I'll add my two pennies' worth in anyway:

Plural of status = statuses

In my previous job, I frequently had to refer to someone's legal status in a particular country (ie whether or not they were legally entitled to be present in a specific country).

There were three possible statuses - legal, illegal and undefined. Sometimes it was difficult to differentiate between the second and third statuses, but there was never any confusion between the first and second statuses. On our computer system, we had to choose one of these three statuses.

(Note: the above is not a realistic description of my job, per se, but it shows how regularly I had to use the word "statuses" at work so, to me, it's the correct term.)
 

FiatLux

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
I would be sorry to see Greek and Latin reduced to the stati of mere appendages to Linguistics and English plural-formation...

:shock: Now why would you go and use "stati" when it's been established in the thread that it's clearly the most incorrect of the three choices you gave just a few posts previously???
*sigh*
 

FiatLux

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
My twopennyworth: I'd like to suggest that the word status is reserved for where we mean a quality that can be attributed to either one or many. As in: "members of the royal family have status" and the "Prince of Wales has status". You would talk about different degrees of status. I'd like to think that the word status does not have a plural. The temptation to pluralize would indicate that another word is probably better. e.g. water can exist in one state or another - 3 states: ice, water or steam. i.e state, not status ... and, in the example above, not a plurality of status but a plurality of degrees of status. I imagine that literate Romans would have reserved the 4th declension for nouns of this sort - abstract, qualitative and not amenable to being pluralized.

Of course status can be plural!!! Let's use Facebook as a relevant example of when you might run into the plural of status.

Facebook allows it's users to post their "status" yes? A short (420 characters) note about what your doing or how you're feeling or whatever. Okay well let's say someone was going to make a list of the funniest Facebook status they've seen, they would want to title their list no? Something like:

Best Facebook Status

This you see, is what brought me to this thread in the first place!

Now, can we all just agree that it's
Status if you want to be correct (and sound funny in conversation)
and
Statuses if you want to be in the majority (and sound retarded in conversation)

(I'll be using "status" in speech and text from now on thank you!)
:cool:
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
So far we have had 44 posts on this - mine is #45.

The discussion has been going on for many months, because nobody can give the definitive answer.

Why? Because we use the plural form so rarely that no form has become fixed. If we have to use it, most people would accept statuses even if it is technically incorrect.

The same goes for words like octopus. Neither octopus (by analogy with many aquatic beasts) nor octopuses would raise many eyebrows, but octopod(e)s might, even if it's technically correct.

We can be too precious sometimes.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Statuses if you want to be in the majority (and sound retarded in conversation)

Hypercorrect musings aside, statuses is listed as the (standard) plural of 'status' by both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's - arguably the two foremost English-language authorities in the world (and generally considered to be not in the least 'retarded'!).

:roll:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

FiatLux

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Hypercorrect musings aside, statuses is listed as the (standard) plural of 'status' by both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's - arguably the two foremost English-language authorities in the world (and generally considered to be not in the least 'retarded'!).

:roll:

Okay, here's how I see it.
Some new words start out as either improper forms of real words or as slang and slowly become more and more commonly accepted until an "authority" (Oxford, Webster, etc.) makes it "official" and puts it in their fancy book.

This is all well and good but I see a distinction between adding "new" words, such as "ringtone" or "ginormous" and adding bastardized versions of real words, especially when the "new form" trying to be created already exists in a proper way.

I say all that to raise this point:
In the beginning there was the Latin "status" (singular) and beside it sat it's plural form "status" (long u), and all was well.

Then over the decades and centuries the languages grew and evolved and a new language was established and it was English, and it was good.

Over time the infrequency of use of, or need for, the plural of this word caused it's existence to be all but forgotten in common vernacular so that when it's use was called for people would fall back on the default "add and -es to it!" and come up with "statuses", and it was bad.

Eventually so few people remembered the correct plural "status", and so many people used and accepted the bastardized "statuses" that the "authorities" penned it into their books making it now the "standard" form of the word.

So, if this counts as a "hypercorrect musing" then so be it, but if being right is wrong then I don't wanna be right!!! (wait WHAT!??!?)

Bottom Line:
"status" (long u) is the most technically correct form, even if Ox and Web want to make everyone feel all warm and snuggly about having crapped out a deuce like "statuses" :lol:
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Bottom Line:
"status" (long u) is the most technically correct form, even if Ox and Web want to make everyone feel all warm and snuggly about having crapped out a deuce like "statuses" :lol:


status (long u) is the correct form when writing Latin. If Oxford and Webster and probably 99% of the English-speaking world (or at least of those people who feel the need for a plural form of this word) feel that the correct form in English is statuses, then it is.
 

FiatLux

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Man, I feel like I jumped into the shark tank and only found a bunch of goldfish inside :-(

I mean, I thought this place would be grammar nazi central! You know, sifting through the sorted history of it all to find the hidden truth! Taking everything back, back, way back to the origins for answers!

What is this the "liberal" grammar nazi site?? lol

Okay, all kidding aside, I think I may just be a little late to the "save-the-plural-status!!!" party. Perhaps 50 or more years ago, before "statuses" gained an unstoppable amount of public use and acceptance, I would have been able to more successfully argue my point.

I respectfully concede the point to "statuses"
...*sigh*

(on a side note, I'm blown away at the responsiveness of posters on this forum!!! I may have to visit more often [if that's cool])
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Bottom Line:
"status" (long u) is the most technically correct form, even if Ox and Web want to make everyone feel all warm and snuggly about having crapped out a deuce like "statuses" :lol:

I am not a great fan of the idea that we have to follow the plural rules of the original language, and it only seems to refer to a languages like Latin and Greek. And what happens when we borrow words from languages that don't have a singular/plural distinction? Would it be wrong to shove an -s on the end? If we borrow a word, we should use it the way we want to IMO. ;-)
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
FiatFlux, what's the plural of:
- zloty,
- kielbasa,
- vodka,
- ogonek,
- sejm?
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I may have to visit more often [if that's cool])

Yes, provided you remember that I'm the rudest person here - don't try to outdo me!!

;-)
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Yes, provided you remember that I'm the rudest person here - don't try to outdo me!!

;-)

Apart from his misguided obsession with the subjunctive, philo is so often one of the most perceptive people on this forum. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top