Lotus's or Lotii?

[theelanman]

The press, most of whom have been required to take some language studies, seem to get it right.

well sometimes.........
ha ha ha......
I presume we're talking spelling rather than content......
they seem to be a bit off the mark over here most of the time....and that includes the tv......
far too much hot air and sensationalizing.......ah well its all about the 'figures'.......just my opinion

[nitroman]

It's LOTUS as far as I'm concerned!
1 LOTUS.
2 LOTUS. Etc...

I had not considered that for some, English may only be a 2nd language.

You have 1 Ford. You have 2 Fords.
You have 1 BMW. You have 3 BMWs.
Lotus is not some unique entity immune from grammar.

It has been proven that dogs cannot differentiate between circles & ovals. To expect them to is futile. Every organism has a limit to what it can comprehend.

The press, most of whom have been required to take some language studies, seem to get it right.

well sometimes.........
ha ha ha......
I presume we're talking spelling rather than content......
they seem to be a bit off the mark over here most of the time....and that includes the tv......
far too much hot air and sensationalizing.......ah well its all about the 'figures'.......just my opinion

it = the Lotus/Lotuses issue. This is why legal documents are sooooo long! Aside from it though, I concur. They endlessly make much ado about nothing.

[theelanman]

according to Colin Chapman....the founder himself......its Lotus......even in the plural....its Lotus....
so therefore you have 2 Lotus
there is no 'i' or 'es'.......

[Paul.P]

I'm sure there are a few more examples like this in the english language, say Fish for instance, that is singular & plural, i believe that is why english is the most difficult language to learn, because nothing is a constant.

[nitroman]

Apparently this is a highly debated issue. Here are comments from other sources:

http://www.gglotus.org/ggrace/ggfaq/general.html (their FAQ page)
What is the plural form of Lotus?
The preferred plural form is Lotuses.

http://www.lotustalk.com/
I would guess that Lotus wants it said one way because it is about branding and name recognition, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can supersede proper english.

Merriam Webster weighs in on Lotus Plural
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are having a discussion on a automobile forum as to the correct spelling for the plural of Lotus. Some of us use Lotus, some use Lotuses, 3 use Loti. Lotus is an British car manufacturer. The founder asked that the plural be Lotus. A recent letter from the factory states they wish the plural to be Lotus. Some of us say it doesn't matter what they want, it has to do with the accepted spelling of Lotus and not it's meaning. Which is the correct spelling?

Sincerely,
Josh Schreider

We do not usually enter regular plurals in our dictionary, only irregular
ones like "fish" or "foci." "Lotuses" is the generally accepted plural of
"lotus," so I would say that it should also be applied to the car.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem awkward to say "We both own Lotuses," as one
would say "We both own Fords," which means it wouldn't catch too many
people's attention as being wrong.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Korzec
Associate Editor
Merriam Webster


I think, because Lotus is a proper noun, that it can not be changed. So it should be Lotuses.

Lotus actually is a name. The proper way to plural a proper noun that is a name is by adding "s" or "es."
have fun, Nick

Lotus is a Latin-derived word, at least as far English speakers are concerned. The Romans would have pluralized it "loti". To the Greeks, however, from whom the Romans took it, it was "lotos", pluralized as "lotoi". Circling back to us, IMHO, "Lotuses" avoids any whiff of pedantry.

Reminds me of the old joke about the guy that want to mail order a couple of animals. He couldn't figure out if the plural of Mongoose was Mongosses or Mongeese. So he wrote the letter: "Please send me one Mongoose, and while you are at it, send me another one..."

I hear people calling the plural of the thingy in your right hand right now mice.

That makes no sense - why would anyone think the plural of penis would be "mice" - is it Latin or something?

-------------------------------------
I consulted two dictionaries: webster's new world (wnw) and dictionary.com. Neither of them lists any special plurals for "lotus", implying that it is made just like always, that is, by adding "s" or "es". When there is something special they mention it, like they both list for "focus" - "n. pl. fo·cus·es or fo·ci", meaning that either focuses or foci can be used. I use "foci" when talking about lenses and "focus cars" when talking about cars.

(even though "lotus" came to english from latin, it seems to be, so-to-speak, a naturalized word, that is, it became, and feels like, an english word, in contrast to "focus" which still feels foreign or scientific. By the way, "lotus" came to latin from greek "lotos" where it got from hebrew "lot". By the way squared, the first listed meaning of lotus in wnw is "a fruit that was supposed to induce a dreamy languour and forgetfulness")

"loti", as a plural of lotus, as far as i can tell, is not correct, especially since "loti" is "the basic monetary unit of Lesotho" (wnw).

I don't like the suggested "lotus" as plural of "lotus" - it's just annoying - besides not being correct - even though it was apparently suggested by a great authority.
----------------------------------------

Lotus is a name. What the dictionary says is irrelevant. (Try that with Lexus.) Given no additional info the proper pluralization of a proper name such as Lotus would be Lotuses. But, ACBC says the plural is Lotus, so it's Lotus. Still, it isn't necessarily _incorrect_ to call them Lotuses because that's how you pluralize a proper noun in English.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If we are concerned with the grammatically correct plural form of "Lotus", the name of the car company Colin Chapman started, this is what I understand. I don't think it matters what the proper plural form of "lotus" is as stated by a dictionary or any other grammatical authority. The "Lotus" we are speaking of is not "lotus" the word we find in the dictionary, but Lotus the proper noun who's meaning only Chapman truly knows. Being a proper noun, the name needs to be preserved and can not be changed. The plural form of proper nouns is created by adding a "s" to the end, or in the case of a proper noun already ending in "s", "es" is added, making our two words in question "Lotuses" and "Elises". Even if Chapman's company was named "Fungus" instead of "Lotus", the plural form would not be "Fungi". It would be "Funguses".

Chapman may have created the name of his company, but because "Lotus" falls into the category of a proper noun, grammatically, he was incorrect in using "Lotus" as the plural form. Now, if somebody has the honor of creating a word that is a normal noun, they would then have the privilege of creating the plural form of that word. If no exceptional rule was made by the creator of that word, then the plural form of the word would be dictated by the existing rules.

Outside of all this nonsense, I personally feel that if you can understand it, then it's fine. As banal as this will sound, I feel like saying it anyway. The whole point of language is to communicate. Since a new word or grammatical rule does not make it into the defining references until it's use is widespread enough to warrant it's inclusion, dictionaries and grammatical authorities are only playing catch up and reporting the news after it happens.

And of course there's the whole argument of the need for a standard, least we end up in a language chaos where nobody understands anybody. But that's the point of expression. You can make your choice of how well you want to adhere to the standard vs widespread compatibility. Should you choose to exercise your poetic license, you run the risk of varying degrees of incompatibility. Welcome to the cost benefit of expression evolution.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If Lotus was someone's last name, you would say 'We're having dinner with the Lotuses tonight'........not 'We're having dinner with the Lotus tonight' or not 'We're having dinner with the Loti tonight'.

And bla, bla, bla; but you get the point.

ADDENDUM:
Perused to the end of their thread. Note how it ended (the PhDs have their say).
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f3/elis ... ndex3.html

[Jackonicko]

An American correcting someone from Cumbria, and someone from Rutland on proper English usage.





You beggars can't even spell 'colour'...... It's like an Englishman lecturing Americans on godliness and humility.

(Or dentistry, perhaps?)

I'd like to own two Lotus.

Not two Lotii. Not two Lotuses. Two Lotus.

If I was talking about the flower it would be lotuses. (Which is inelegant, but correct).

I agree with the sentiment that we are looking for the "grammatically correct plural form of Lotus, the name of the car company Colin Chapman started" and that it doesn't matter "what the proper plural form of "lotus" is as stated by a dictionary or any other grammatical authority."

As your man says, "the Lotus we are speaking of is not "lotus" the word we find in the dictionary", but neither it is "Lotus the proper noun whose meaning only Chapman truly knows", rather we are talking about Lotus the trade name. And because we're talking about Lotus the trade name, the fact that the founder asked that the plural be Lotus, and that the company and factory have stated that they wish the plural to be Lotus is conclusive. It's not that Lotus is some unique entity immune from grammar, it's that it's not a proper noun, but a trade name, and trade names ARE immune from normal grammatical rules.

Thus the former Royal Aircraft Establishment is fully entitled to spell its name with leading and trailing capitals, and to deliberately bug.ger up the spelling, thus: QinetiQ. While BAe Systems is entitled to insist that it be written as BAE SYSTEMS. An Apple MP3 player is an iPod, not an Ipod.



and the plural of fungus is fungii......



(NB: Both of your 'authorities' are American, one openly acknowledging that she's talking about "modern, American English", and the other has a PHd (not in English but in Classical Languages) from the University of Chicago).

[inkitin]

and the plural of fungus is fungii

Really The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't think so !

[nitroman]

I would guess that the two camps are divided roughly thus:
1) Those who have a love of the language(s) and/or significant knowledge of it/them.
2) Those whose emotion is vested primarily in Colin.

This is how the other thread ended:
Have read this thread and given my opinion to no effect at all, despite a Ph.D. in Classical Languages from the University of Chicago, a dissertation on discourse linguistics, and two years' teaching and research at a well known Ivy League university (a lot of good that did me), I decided to take a shortcut: I wrote Lotus. Here is the reply I received:

"Hi Gene,

The plural of Lotus when refering to Lotus Cars (i.e. us) is Lotus (not Loti
or Lotuses etc)

If the sentence feels unbalanced then you may wish to pluralise the sentence by saying Lotus cars.

Eg: There were lots of Lotus in the carpark
or There were lots Lotus cars in the carpark.

When refering to the plural of Elise, then it is Elises

Hope that this settles the argument

Thank you and kind regards


Alastair Florance
Group PR Manager

Group Lotus plc
Potash Lane,
Hethel,
Norfolk
NR14 8EZ
U.K."

As for myself, outside of hearing range of Mr. Florance, I will say "Lotuses."
=========================================
Since Laserbluette (Composition and Rhetoric PhD, almost) and Viacondotti (language PhD) both agree, I'm going to go with Lotuses.

[Jackonicko]

You guess wrong.

I have no emotion vested in Colin Chapman, but I do have a love of the English language. I've been a book, magazine and newspaper editor, and am a writer by profession. I'd therefore claim to have a love of the language and a fairly significant knowledge of it.

I say that it's Lotus, singular or plural, because I understand what a trade name is.

My wife has an even greater love of the English language - and as an English graduate from Royal Holloway College, University of London (and as an Oxford University post grad) certainly has a significant knowledge of it. She shouts at the radio when people fumble the use of the word 'anathema' (amazing how many people omit an 'an', treating this noun as though it were an adjective).

She says that it's Lotus, singular or plural, because she understands what a trade name is.

[nitroman]

As I actually own two Lotuses, I have the pleasure of practical application. I remain with the PhDs, away from the whims of those whose only concern is marketing. Common usage is the #1 factor with which an encyclopedia will comply in the long term. LOTUS® is fighting a losing battle in that regard.

[G UK]

A Yank trying to lecture a Englishman on English. This can only end badly!!

As has been pointed out any other meaning of the word Lotus would be as you say, therefore you are right in most cases. Unfortunately Lotus as a trade name is at the whims of the business in question so Lotus in the plural is Lotus when referring to "Lotus Cars".

Examples of the whole trade name issue have already been given with other common trade names whos grammer usage would not be normally be under this scrutiny.

[Jackonicko]

Entertaining nonsense, as ever.

Common usage would have us use 'like' in every phrase, "off of" would be correct grammar, 'color' would be a correct spelling, and we'd use anathema as an adjective.

It's a question of slavish adherence to inappropriately applied rules (and we should remember that rules are for the guidance of wise men, and for the slavish obedience of fools) versus the correct use of a trade name. Lotus, when applied to a car or the company, is a trade name, not a proper noun. The holder of the trademark is the authority on how it should be used.

But if you want to look like Cletis, knock yourself out.

You remain with your PhD holding, self-appointed experts in American English.

I'd rather get it right.

[nitroman]

Yes, I get your point on all that. I'm saying that for me though, I'll stay with what SEEMS grammatically right, instead of what is legally via ownership correct. If you ever own two Lotuses, you too may frame your experience to suit your pleasure.

[Jackonicko]

You don't need to own two Lotus to need to talk about them in the plural, nor even to be an outrageously pretentious and boastful poseur.

I managed that before I even owned a single Elan, and I'm sure that your own personality is unrelated to the size and composition of your fleet of 'automobiles'.

It certainly (and demonstrably) does not give anyone any expertise in judging correct grammar.

[ailwyn]

Thus the former Royal Aircraft Establishment is fully entitled to spell its name with leading and trailing capitals, and to deliberately bug.ger up the spelling, thus: QinetiQ.

IMHO this is a bad example, the leading and trailing Qs are merely a branding excercise. They are not recognised by organisations (except those that wish to do business) outside of QinetiQ/Qinetiq/QINETIQ and the spelling (the letters used and order) is certainly the same whichever pattern of capitals you follow. Same with BAE/BAe.

The Lotus/Lotii/Lotuses debate is a different thing all together as your talking about multiples, now if there were a product called a QinetiQ then the multiple would without doubt be QinetiQs?

For my 2p, the plural I would use is Lotuses, but I don't claim that's correct

[theelanman]

so the man who started it all (ACBC) called it lotus no matter whether singular or plural....
we've had an email from Lotus Cars themselves confirming this.......
so why is this debate still rattling on?????






so no more lotuses, lotus's or loti.....

its

LOTUS

[Nige]

You don't need to own two Lotus to need to talk about them in the plural, nor even to be an outrageously pretentious and boastful poseur.

I'll settle for the outrageously pretentious and boastful poseur monicker and not worry about the plural of the 3 cars I have that were made at Hethel .

[Dave Eds]

Lotuseses then Nige?

[nitroman]

For what it's worth I think Jackonicko proffered the explanation which is probably correct. I pride myself on supporting the idea, free of the person from whom it arises.

Right or wrong though, as I said yesterday, in the rare instances where it must be spoken I'll no doubt stick with the incorrect plural as it will likely not incur an odd glance.

[theelanman]

i just love it when people ask a question, get an answer and then completely disregard it......
whats the point in asking or joining in the conversation???.....

Im confused.....