[berskfury_89]

thanks for the post.. really helps

[Asuna_mybb_import7736]

Shouldnt this post be in "From noob to hacker" ?

You can not post in that section. It's under construction.

It's vira, not viruses.

The plural would be "vira" if we spoke Latin, but at least in my english dictionary the english plural is "viruses".
Also here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#English

I've always been told it's vira. Viruses also sounds wrong. Are you sure it's viruses?

[Deque]

Shouldnt this post be in "From noob to hacker" ?

You can not post in that section. It's under construction.

It's vira, not viruses.

The plural would be "vira" if we spoke Latin, but at least in my english dictionary the english plural is "viruses".
Also here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#English

I've always been told it's vira. Viruses also sounds wrong. Are you sure it's viruses?

No, I am just telling you, what wikipedia and my dictionary say.
I am not a native english speaker. It might be that both plural forms are right or that my book is wrong or whatever.

[Linuxephus™]

I've always been told it's vira. Viruses also sounds wrong. Are you sure it's viruses?

Virus in the English language denotes the singular form, viz, a virus, a single virus, etceteral.
Viruses in the English language denotes the plural form, viz. several viruses, many viruses, two viruses, three viruses, etceteral.:thumbs:

[-ELM]

I've always been told it's vira. Viruses also sounds wrong. Are you sure it's viruses?

Virus in the English language denotes the singular form, viz, a virus, a single virus, etceteral.
Viruses in the English language denotes the plural form, viz. several viruses, many viruses, two viruses, three viruses, etceteral.:thumbs:

As virus, in it's latin origin is neither masculine or feminine, it's technically correct for it's plural form (when used in the nominative case at least) to be vira. That being said the correct plural form in the English language is indeed viruses.

More on topic this has potential to be a really useful thread. It could be improved by capitalizing some of the terms used, Xss to be changed to XSS for example. You also use several methods to separate the subject from it's definition, you should try use one for consistency; my personal preference would be colons or dashes but then again it's your thread so it's your call.

Aside from that, keep it up.

[Linuxephus™]

As virus, in it's latin origin is neither masculine or feminine, it's technically correct for it's plural form (when used in the nominative case at least) to be vira. That being said the correct plural form in the English language is indeed viruses.

More on topic this has potential to be a really useful thread. It could be improved by capitalizing some of the terms used, Xss to be changed to XSS for example. You also use several methods to separate the subject from it's definition, you should try use one for consistency; my personal preference would be colons or dashes but then again it's your thread so it's your call.

Aside from that, keep it up.

True that may be, however the use of Vira is deprecated and rarely is an applicable use of the word in it's Latin context which makes it more of a subjective matter more so than the nominative use even where Latin is still spoken or written in the few nations that still prefer Latin as a native language.
Masculine and feminine specifics being irrelevant since the use of gender specific descriptors are also not applicable even in the most generic of uses.

P.S.-Agreed.
An excellent tutorial nonetheless.

[Deque]

As virus, in it's latin origin is neither masculine or feminine, it's technically correct for it's plural form (when used in the nominative case at least) to be vira. That being said the correct plural form in the English language is indeed viruses.

More on topic this has potential to be a really useful thread. It could be improved by capitalizing some of the terms used, Xss to be changed to XSS for example. You also use several methods to separate the subject from it's definition, you should try use one for consistency; my personal preference would be colons or dashes but then again it's your thread so it's your call.

Aside from that, keep it up.

True that may be, however the use of Vira is deprecated and rarely is an applicable use of the word in it's Latin context which makes it more of a subjective matter more so than the nominative use even where Latin is still spoken or written in the few nations that still prefer Latin as a native language.
Masculine and feminine specifics being irrelevant since the use of gender specific descriptors are also not applicable even in the most generic of uses.

P.S.-Agreed.
An excellent tutorial nonetheless.

The gender as well as the kind of declination in Latin are important to know the right ending of the word.
If the virus where masculin, the plural form would be viri.
But it is neutrum, so the plural nominative form should be vira.
Bigger but: Actually it has not plural form in Latin. Virus in Latin means poison or slime. Romans didn't use this in plural form.

[Linuxephus™]

The gender as well as the kind of declination in Latin are important to know the right ending of the word.
If the virus where masculin, the plural form would be viri.
But it is neutrum, so the plural nominative form should be vira.
Bigger but: Actually it has not plural form in Latin. Virus in Latin means poison or slime. Romans didn't use this in plural form.

http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/p...irus.2805/

I'll let this gentleman explain it best in his own words: "The word virus has no classically attested plural form in Latin. In antiquity the word had not yet acquired its current meaning. It denoted something like toxicity; venom; a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle; or poison in the abstract or general sense[2]. Since virus in antiquity denoted something noncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns, such as air, valor, and helpfulness in English, pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the nonexistence of plural forms.[3]

Further, it is unclear how a plural might have been formed under Latin grammar if the word had acquired a meaning requiring a plural form. In Latin virus is generally regarded to be a neuter of the second declension, but neuter second declension nouns ending in -us (rather than -um) are so rare that there are no recorded plurals. Possibilities include vira (by analogy with 2nd declension neuters in -um such as bellum) and virus with a long u (by analogy with 4th declension masculine such as status, although as a neuter noun the plural of virus in the 4th declension would be virua). However, none of these is attested[4].

The form virii would not have been a correct plural, since the ending -ii only occurs in the plural of masculine and feminine words ending in -ius. For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent word virius. The form viri would also be incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is normally used for masculine or feminine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men."

So I think I'm going to have to let Linux Format off with this. They were right and I was wrong. Motto : don't tangle with the penguin - he knows best!"

To elaborate a bit more however: Vira has been known in rare cases to delineate a grouping or plural of more than one.
Merely because no currently known word for the plural form of Vira is known to currently exist, doesn't negate the logic at some point in history long ago, there was a plural form of Vira in Latin.
Hence, by your own words and understanding of what's being stated, Vira should be the plural form in Latin, regardless of any individual's misunderstanding or misplaced "defining" by modern terminology of what does or does not qualify as plural unless the defining point is the basis of ancient Latin itself.
And Latin being a very diverse and rich language would have that covered to put it simply.

@Deque
Addendum: I would honestly in this case appreciate you taking a deep look at my logic in it's current application on the Latin subject matter of Vira.
Is it flawed?
If so, elaborate.
To be quite honest, I'm very knowledgeable on more subjects than I can count. English being the foremost among all of those subjects, obviously.
Latin however does push the boundaries for me even on the basic foundation thereof.
Hence, if you should find my logic on the matter flawed, speak thus that I may concede the point forthwith.

In closing: Virus in the English language is singular for one.
Viruses in the English language is plural for more than one.
To steer the thread back on track.

[Deque]

@Deque
Addendum: I would honestly in this case appreciate you taking a deep look at my logic in it's current application on the Latin subject matter of Vira.
Is it flawed?
If so, elaborate.
To be quite honest, I'm very knowledgeable on more subjects than I can count. English being the foremost among all of those subjects, obviously.
Latin however does push the boundaries for me even on the basic foundation thereof.
Hence, if you should find my logic on the matter flawed, speak thus that I may concede the point forthwith.

In closing: Virus in the English language is singular for one.
Viruses in the English language is plural for more than one.
To steer the thread back on track.

I can't see any flaw in your logic (I am not 100% sure that I understood you correctly). Vira is the would-be plural in Latin. But since we speak English, we say viruses (according to my dictionary). Nothing more or less.
Edit: Interesting article, though.
I had Latin in school, but I wasn't that good at it.

[Linuxephus™]

I can't see any flaw in your logic (I am not 100% sure that I understood you correctly). Vira is the would-be plural in Latin. But since we speak English, we say viruses (according to my dictionary). Nothing more or less.
Edit: Interesting article, though.
I had Latin in school, but I wasn't that good at it.

Ah, thank God.
You have a very analytical mind such as my own, and I indeed would not like to get into an analytical debate on the finer points of Latin in this case.
Take that for the compliment it is.
And yes, your dictionary is 100% correct as to the meaning of the English word viruses.
And technically so was ILoveYou's description of Vira if I recall her comment correctly.

Meanwhile, enough digressing from me.