Incorrect plural of bonus

[Gark the Goblin]

I've seen a few users do this, and I've got a "boni" to pick. The traditional English plural of the noun "bonus" is "bonuses." What's up with the new spelling?

(prescriptivism mileage may vary)

[Mudfoot]

It's not new. It's more than 2000 years old. Tsk. The youth of today have no respect for tradition.

[Tacticslion]

Gark the Goblin wrote:

I've seen a few users do this, and I've got a "boni" to pick. The traditional English plural of the noun "bonus" is "bonuses." What's up with the new spelling?

(prescriptivism mileage may vary)

Mudfoot wrote:

It's not new. It's more than 2000 years old. Tsk. The youth of today have no respect for tradition.

Heh.

I love these forums.

[Axolotl]

Be careful with the plural of onus, then. It will summon ogre mages.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

I think his complaint is boni fide.

[Kazaan]

Wikipedia/hypercorrection wrote:

In linguistics or usage, hypercorrection is a non-standard usage that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of grammar or a usage prescription. A speaker or writer who produces a hypercorrection generally believes that the form is correct through misunderstanding of these rules, often combined with a desire to appear formal or educated.[1][2]

Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical rule is applied in an inappropriate context, so that an attempt to be "correct" leads to an incorrect result. It does not occur when a speaker follows "a natural speech instinct", according to Otto Jespersen and Robert J. Menner.[3]

Hypercorrection is sometimes found among speakers of less prestigious language varieties who produce forms associated with high-prestige varieties, even in situations where speakers of those varieties would not. Some commentators call such production hyperurbanism.[4]

[Scythia]

I'd have to be a divine janitrix to clean up all the Latin language errors people make.

[Professor Stuffington]

I believe that I spoke to this very question about three-and-a-half years ago...

[minoritarian]

I retch whenever I see someone wrote malus instead of penalty.

[Saldiven]

Mudfoot wrote:

It's not new. It's more than 2000 years old. Tsk. The youth of today have no respect for tradition.

Bonus as a noun in the English language apparently only dates to the 18th century.

Kazaan's post about hypercorrection is apropos.

edit:

Looks like the Prof ninja'd me by three and a half years.... :P

[LandSwordBear]

Beats the hell out of donuts then, donit?

[LandSwordBear]

Player 1 Um. What's with all the Bone-Eye talk?

[Hark]

Gark the Goblin wrote:

I've seen a few users do this, and I've got a "boni" to pick. The traditional English plural of the noun "bonus" is "bonuses." What's up with the new spelling?

(prescriptivism mileage may vary)

A couple years ago I had this conversation with someone. In that particular case it was the result of English being a secondary language and some usage of grammar rules from their native language.

Edit: I'd normally be in a thread like this complaining about how proper grammar isn't much of a thing as there only really two rules for it.

1. Is it a native speaker of the language, or something a native speaker would say/write?

2. Are native speakers able to understand what is said/written without confusion?

If both are true it is grammatically correct. In this particular case it is an error made by a non-native speaker and can cause native speakers confusion without exposure so it fails on both tests for correct grammar.

[Sagotel]

[pedantic]
Here is the list of errors that annoy me:
1) it's used as a possessive pronoun instead of its;
2) alright instead of all right;
3) irregardless;
4) penultimate used to mean "more than ultimate".
[/pedantic]

I chose the name Sagotel in self-mockery. It is an acronym for "Self-Appointed Guardian of the English Lexicon".

[Kazaan]

Sagotel wrote:

3) irregardless

This one is actually not an error and another example of hypercorrection; though, in this case, an inversion because it is a correct term being claimed to be incorrect rather than an incorrect term being claimed to be correct. Irregardless is a portmanteau of "irrespective" and "regardless". But the common fault is an incorrect stance that it is a prefix "ir-" being applied to the word "regardless"; in which case, the "ir-" prefix would be redundant with the "-less" suffix. However, since this isn't actually the case, the fault is invalid; the prefix "ir-" is only being applied to the word "respective" which, when subsumed into the term "irregardless", loses distinction and presents as if the "ir-" prefix from the first morpheme is applying to the entire second morpheme.

This is similar to the case of "flammable" and "inflammable". Inflammable comes from the Latin root word Inflammare; to kindle or to burn. It is related to words such as "incarcerate" or "incantation". The "in" in these cases is the same as the English word "in"; inflame literally means "in a flame", it does not mean "not a flame". In other words, "inflame" comes from a Latin word meaning "to burn something in a fire" so "inflammable" means something that is "able to be burned in a fire". Meanwhile, "flammable" comes from "flammare" meaning to set something on fire. The subtle linguistic difference is that "inflammare" implies bringing the burnable object to the fire-source (putting a log in a burning campfire) while "flammare" implies bringing a fire-source to the burnable object (bringing a lit match to a candle). But conflation of the different "in-" prefixes can lead to catastrophic results if misinterpreting "inflammable" to mean "not flammable" so there was a concerted movement to promote universal use of "flammable" and abandonment of the term "inflammable". But, just as with "irregardless", the "ir-" prefix is not negating the word "flammable" but, rather, a part of the verb "inflame". Inflammable and flammable are linguistically separate words that happen to converge on the same topic and, by a similar token, irrespective and regardless are still distinct terms morphed into a single term so the "ir-" prefix is not in conflict with the "-less" suffix.

[chopswil]

it's bonsai

[Sir Jolt]

Hark wrote:

Gark the Goblin wrote:

I've seen a few users do this, and I've got a "boni" to pick. The traditional English plural of the noun "bonus" is "bonuses." What's up with the new spelling?

(prescriptivism mileage may vary)

A couple years ago I had this conversation with someone. In that particular case it was the result of English being a secondary language and some usage of grammar rules from their native language.

Edit: I'd normally be in a thread like this complaining about how proper grammar isn't much of a thing as there only really two rules for it.

1. Is it a native speaker of the language, or something a native speaker would say/write?

2. Are native speakers able to understand what is said/written without confusion?

If both are true it is grammatically correct. In this particular case it is an error made by a non-native speaker and can cause native speakers confusion without exposure so it fails on both tests for correct grammar.

I disagree with this (and the sentence that I put in bold is factually incorrect) because, as the Internet and social media have shown over the years, people have a terrible time understanding each other. When people aren't using the same rules, nor even making the same attempt to do so, you get miscommunication. The Internet and the various social medias are the poster children for miscommunication.

When speaking, we're often very sloppy with our language because meaning is often made clear from context. Context is less clear, if not absent entirely, when writing/printing. In such cases, clarity comes from adherence to a common set of rules. When those rules are ignored to the degree that most people can't even remember what they are, not only are you engaging in miscommunication but you're actively encouraging it (deliberately or otherwise). That you might still be understood doesn't change that fact.

No usage of irregardless is correct as irregardless is not a word (no more than kdbgxkjcflkds is a word). Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

[Orfamay Quest]

Sir Jolt wrote:

I disagree with this (and the sentence that I put in bold is factually incorrect) because, as the Internet and social media have shown over the years, people have a terrible time understanding each other. [...] Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

Shrug. I support Hark in this, and by extension, disagree with you.

If a native speaker would put a prefix or suffix to a word, then the extended word is also a word. That you personally dislike the word does not make it "not a word," because you're not the arbiter of language.

Prescriptivism v. descriptivism. But I've never met a professional psycholinguist who was a prescriptivist; I don't think I've ever met a professional linguist (more generally) who was one. I tend to have respect for expert judgments,.... so just as I reject geocentrism on the grounds that no astronomer or planetary scientist believes it, and I reject the four humor theory of disease on the grounds that no physician believes it, and I reject phrenology on the grounds that no anatomist accepts it, I similarly reject prescriptivism.

[Just a Guess]

Where I am boni would be the correct plural for bonus. Just that many people don't realize it and use boni for both, singular and plural; And this causes me physical pain. Especially if I already told them a couple of time.

[Davor]

I still prefer Octopedes to Octopuses, and my favorite fake plural, Platypedes.

[Atarlost]

Davor wrote:

I still prefer Octopedes to Octopuses, and my favorite fake plural, Platypedes.

Huh? I thought it was Octopodes.

[GreyWolfLord]

Professor Stuffington wrote:

I believe that I spoke to this very question about three-and-a-half years ago...

I'm going to quote your post here.

The ignorant savages like myself do not understand all the high falutin talk going on in this thread.

Boni...what?

If someone came to me and asked about their boni this year...my response would probably be...

What are you asking me about?

so...for those as ignorant as me...

Professor Stuffington wrote:

And, to get truly technical, while the English word "bonus" is indeed a direct borrowing from Latin, in Latin bonus is the masculine singular form of the adjective bonum meaning "good", or as a noun "a good thing." Its use in English goes back to the mid-18th century, so it's not terribly old from a linguistic perspective. As far as I can tell, it's always been used in this fashion. Its proper plural in English is "bonuses".

As Latin uses grammatical gender, bonus (plural boni) used as a noun means "a good man."

Technically, the the correct word to borrow from Latin would have been bonum (plural bona), the neuter form that means "a good thing." Presumably the original coiner of the term wasn't as knowledgable of Latin as he thought he was, or the first common usage referred to people. Regardless, the meaning of the modern English word "bonus" (a little something extra) is distinct from its Latin root, and its proper plural is "bonuses." Using "boni" as a plural of "bonus" is simply wrong in modern usage.

Deliberately doing so would indicate either hubristic pretentiousness, or an attempt at jocularity.

Just so I don't feel that bad about speaking English, but not understanding what people are saying if they came up to me and talked about their boni...

(though if you are thinking dirty...that could take on an entirely different context...and it doesn't rhyme with pony...can't post links here because...well...it's rather adult content...).

[Franz Lunzer]

but cacti are okay? jk

[Tormsskull]

I had always used bonuses until I started seeing boni in a lot of places online. I happened to be in a Mythology class at the time, and the professor of the class spoke English, Greek, and Latin. I mentioned this to him at the time and he said he didn't understand why people were using boni - in English it was clearly supposed to be bonuses.

Good enough for me.

[Chemlak]

Sagotel wrote:

[pedantic]

Here is the list of errors that annoy me:
1) it's used as a possessive pronoun instead of its;
2) alright instead of all right;
3) irregardless;
4) penultimate used to mean "more than ultimate".
[/pedantic]

I chose the name Sagotel in self-mockery. It is an acronym for "Self-Appointed Guardian of the English Lexicon".

Just had to quote this from oxforddictionaries.com:

Quote:

There is no logical reason for insisting that all right should be written as two words rather than as alright, when other single-word forms such as altogether have long been accepted. Nevertheless, alright is still regarded as being unacceptable in formal writing.

[chopswil]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/1644258/study-says-people-who-c ontinually-point-out-typos-are-jerks

[Ninja-Assassin]

chopswil wrote:

Linked

Fixed that for you. >:I

EDIT: I mean, come on.

EDIT 2: It's not like it's hard, here.

EDIT 3: Get with the program!

EDIT 4: What did you expect? (I'm both ninja and assassin!)

[chopswil]

Ninja-Assassin wrote:

chopswil wrote:

Linked

Fixed that for you. >:I

EDIT: I mean, come on.

EDIT 2: It's not like it's hard, here.

EDIT 3: Get with the program!

EDIT 4: What did you expect? (I'm both ninja and assassin!)

it was a test

mr. penguin always faces "due south" seems to be appropriate here

[MeanMutton]

Davor wrote:

I still prefer Octopedes to Octopuses, and my favorite fake plural, Platypedes.

Here in Detroit (where we throw octopuses onto the ice during playoff hockey games), our hockey announcer has taken to using "octopi" as a singular and "octopies" as the plural. It causes me near physical pain.

[Stuffy Grammarian]

Sir Jolt wrote:

The Internet and the various social medias are the poster children for miscommunication.

Technically speaking, "media" are plural already. The singular would have been "medium." However, through a history of incorrect usage, "media" (and "data") are now treated in English as if they are singular. Writing things like "These data suggest that..." straddles the line between proper usage and hypercorrection.

If this is confusing to you, you are not alone. (That's a joke; "you" used to be a plural or formal form of "thou.")

[Kirth Gersen]

chopswil wrote:

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/1644258/study-says-people-who-c ontinually-point-out-typos-are-jerks

"Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn't the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant."

--Trevanian

[MeanMutton]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

chopswil wrote:

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/1644258/study-says-people-who-c ontinually-point-out-typos-are-jerks

"Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn't the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant."

--Trevanian

Sounds like a jerk.

[Kullen]

MeanMutton wrote:

Sounds like a jerk.

Boo hoo.

[Kung Fu Joe]

When being nice isn't good.
And it applies to grown-ups, too!

[Saldiven]

Sir Jolt wrote:

No usage of irregardless is correct as irregardless is not a word (no more than kdbgxkjcflkds is a word). Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

"Irregardless" would mean "not regardless," which would become "not without paying attention to the present situation; not despite the prevailing circumstances."

Which would make "irregardless" mean exactly the opposite of what the speaker intends in its usage.

[Deadmanwalking]

chopswil wrote:

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/1644258/study-says-people-who-c ontinually-point-out-typos-are-jerks

Actually...speaking a s a Psych Major who's studied that model, calling people with 'low agreeableness' by that measure 'jerks' is not precisely accurate in the first place. It's a simplification, and not necessarily a super accurate one.

[Snowblind]

Saldiven wrote:

Sir Jolt wrote:

No usage of irregardless is correct as irregardless is not a word (no more than kdbgxkjcflkds is a word). Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

"Irregardless" would mean "not regardless," which would become "not without paying attention to the present situation; not despite the prevailing circumstances."

Which would make "irregardless" mean exactly the opposite of what the speaker intends in its usage.

This was actually mentioned upthread.

For what it's worth, here are some interesting (and apparently contradictory) tibbits from online dictionaries.

lots of quotes:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.

dictionary.com wrote:

Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

Wikipedia wrote:

Irregardless is a word commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since the early twentieth century, though the word appeared in print as early as 1795.[1] Most dictionaries list it as nonstandard or incorrect usage, and recommend that "regardless" should be used instead.[2][3][4]

...
Origin

The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, or portmanteau word, of the standard English words irrespective and regardless. The blend creates a word with a meaning not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The word irregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", instead of being a synonym of regardless.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Usage Discussion of irregardless

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Irregardless has been around for a while. Given that the dictionary is filled with words that only exist because some old hack made them up to snazz up his plays, Irregardless would probably qualify as a word too.

[Kazaan]

Saldiven wrote:

Sir Jolt wrote:

No usage of irregardless is correct as irregardless is not a word (no more than kdbgxkjcflkds is a word). Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

"Irregardless" would mean "not regardless," which would become "not without paying attention to the present situation; not despite the prevailing circumstances."

Which would make "irregardless" mean exactly the opposite of what the speaker intends in its usage.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this already. Irregardless is not simply the prefix "ir-" applied to the word "regardless". It is a portmanteau of "irrespective" and "regardless" and, thus, a valid term. Look up-thread for my complete breakdown on the matter.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kazaan wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Sir Jolt wrote:

No usage of irregardless is correct as irregardless is not a word (no more than kdbgxkjcflkds is a word). Adding a prefix or a suffix to a word does not necessarily create a new word; there's more to it than that.

"Irregardless" would mean "not regardless," which would become "not without paying attention to the present situation; not despite the prevailing circumstances."

Which would make "irregardless" mean exactly the opposite of what the speaker intends in its usage.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this already. Irregardless is not simply the prefix "ir-" applied to the word "regardless". It is a portmanteau of "irrespective" and "regardless" and, thus, a valid term. Look up-thread for my complete breakdown on the matter.

Not to mention the idea that "two negatives make a positive" is not actually part of English semantics. Otherwise the Rolling Stones' "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" would be about how Mike is never, every, completely unsatisfied, and "We Don't Need No Education" would be about how important high school is to everyone, or at least to Pink Floyd.

[Sagotel]

When I was in high school, I was taught that irregardless and alright were incorrect. I went to a strict high school, a long time ago. Language changes; I know that. I don't like it, but I know it. My coworkers love to say, "irregardless" when I am nearby. As one said, "It's like saying Voldemort."

When I call myself pedantic, I do not mean it as a compliment.

Speaking of rock lyrics, would anyone want to hear Bo Diddly sing, "Whom Do You Love?"

[Orfamay Quest]

Sagotel wrote:

Speaking of rock lyrics, would anyone want to hear Bo Diddly sing, "Whom Do You Love?"

Apparently -- as in, I understand this to be a true story, but I don't have the reference to hand -- an early record producer wanted to make a Beatles album, but insisted that the song should be "She Loves You, Yes, Yes, Yes."

[Sagotel]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Sagotel wrote:

Speaking of rock lyrics, would anyone want to hear Bo Diddly sing, "Whom Do You Love?"

Apparently -- as in, I understand this to be a true story, but I don't have the reference to hand -- an early record producer wanted to make a Beatles album, but insisted that the song should be "She Loves You, Yes, Yes, Yes."

Oh, dear.

[Treppa]

I haven't seen the word boni before this thread, and my first impression was that it's the plural of boner.

D:

[Philo Pharynx]

Here's my rule. Does the reader understand what's being said? Then it's good enough for informal communication.

[Kullen]

Here's my rule. Does the writer sound like a pretentious d-bag using words like "boni" or "whilst"? Then it's OK to make fun of them.

[Professor Stuffington]

Not a fair comparison.

Whilst is a proper British English word. Boni is simply wrong.

My general recommendation is for Americans to avoid using British expressions and spelling. Frankly, such use of Britishisms by Americans is pretentious and makes one sound like a wazzock.

[Message board troll]

Me word plenty good.

[Randarak]

Here she come down, say Boni Boni
Well, shoot 'em down, turn around come home, honey
Hey, she gimme love an' I feel alright now
Everybody! You got me tossin' turnin' in the night
Make me feel alright

I say yeah, (yeah), yeah, (yeah)
Yeah, (yeah), yeah, (yeah), yeah

Well you make me feel Boni, Boni
So Boni, Boni
Good Boni, Boni
Yeah, Boni, Boni
So good, Boni, Boni
Oh, yeah, Boni, Boni
Come on, Boni, Boni
All right, baby Boni, Boni
Say yeah, (yeah), yeah, (yeah)
Yeah, (yeah), yeah, (yeah) , yeah (yeah), yeah....okay, I'm done...

[Chemlak]

Professor Stuffington wrote:

Not a fair comparison.

Whilst is a proper British English word. Boni is simply wrong.

My general recommendation is for Americans to avoid using British expressions and spelling. Frankly, such use of Britishisms by Americans is pretentious and makes one sound like a wazzock.

If not a wazzock, then a twonk, maybe a plonker, or perhaps at best a numpty.

It's so nice to be able to insult people with so many different words.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone of how wrong Gark was in this thread! He tried to put the oni on us, but we put the onus on him! Wow, it doesn't take much repetition to make "onus" look like a fake word.