I recently corrected someone who used the term "redices" to mean "reducible expressions" (in the context of the lambda-calculus and similar formal systems):
"redices" is not the plural of "redex". If there were a Latin word "redix", it might pluralize as "redices", but there isn't, and "redix" is different from "redex" anyway. He pointed out: I think "redices" is fairly common use, as a googling confirms. . . . What makes you think "redices" isn't the plural of "redex"? How are you with "indices"? "Index" ------- I had to admit that he was right about "index" not being "indix". I don't speak Latin myself, but a friend of mine who does explained to me that "index" and "indices" are the nominative singular and plural of "index", a regular third-declension Latin noun. Charlton Lewis's Latin dictionary has the following entry for it [1]: index dicis, m and f [in+DIC-] , one who points out, a discloser, discoverer, informer, witness: falsus, S.: haec omnia indices detulerunt.-- An informer, betrayer, spy: vallatus indicibus: saeptus armatis indicibus: silex, qui nunc dicitur index, traitor's stone, O.--An index, sign, mark, indication, proof: complexus, benevolentiae indices: vox stultitiae: auctoris anulus, O.: Ianum indicem pacis bellique fecit, L.--A title, superscription, inscription: deceptus indicibus librorum: tabula in aedem cum indice hoc posita est, L.--A forefinger, index finger: pollex, non index: indice monstrare digito, H. I don't know the etymology of the term "redex" for certain, but it means "reducible expression", and is therefore an originally English word, not a Latin loanword. It doesn't appear in the Oxford English Dictionary Online. English Pluralization --------------------- English is somewhat unusual in that it often imports irregular pluralizations of loanwords along with the original loanwords --- thus we have mujahedin, Taliban, tableaux, criteria, cherubim, axes, and bacteria, rather than *mujahids, *Talibs, *tableaus, *criterions, cherubs, *axises, and *bacteriums. [2] This adds to the confusion of irregular plurals already natively present in English, things like "oxen", which was in Old English, coming from Proto-Germanic and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European. [3] As illustrated above, there are many cases in which the regular plural form is considered incorrect by almost everyone, but there are other cases where use of the irregular "classical" form is a way to show off the speaker's erudition; I think "index" and "cherub" are such examples. Both "indexes" and "cherubs" are legitimate English, but "indices" and "cherubim" are ways to demonstrate your erudition, and perhaps your knowledge of Latin and Hebrew. Damian Conway's article "An Algorithmic Approach to English Pluralization" [7] lists several more examples. Showing off one's knowledge may be thought to demonstrate an arrogant attitude of superiority, if those you're talking to don't share that same knowledge, or to demonstrate that you belong in the group, if they do. However, in either case, it's worse if the folks you're talking to know that the knowledge you're showing off is wrong. The Jargon File mentions deliberately irregular pluralizations in hacker jargon [4]: Further, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms. Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary [from the 1950s?] includes an entry which implies that the plural of 'mouse' is meeces, and notes that the defined plural of 'caboose' is 'cabeese'. This latter has apparently been standard (or at least a standard joke) among railfans (railroad enthusiasts) for many years. On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in 'x' may form plurals in '-xen' (see VAXen and boxen in the main text) [following "oxen"]. Even words ending in phonetic /k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g., 'soxen' for a bunch of socks. Other funny plurals are 'frobbotzim' for the plural of 'frobbozz' (see frobnitz) and 'Unices' and 'Twenices' (rather than 'Unixes' and 'Twenexes'; see Unix, TWENEX in main text). But note that 'Unixen' and 'Twenexen' are never used; it has been suggested that this is because '-ix' and '-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural. Finally, it has been suggested to general approval that the plural of 'mongoose' ought to be 'polygoose'. The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending '-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix '-en') to cases where it isn't normally considered to apply. This is not 'poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress but to amuse, and never at the expense of clarity. One might also speculate that hackers do this to poke fun at those who think that knowing Latin declensions makes them smart. Other, non-hacker occurrences of the same playful misapplied Latin pluralization have been reported, such as "grimi" for "grimaces" or "waitri" for "waitresses". [6] Back to "Redices" ----------------- So I can think of six likely interpretations a listener might arrive at when they hear "redices" used as the plural of "redex": 1. The speaker is trying to demonstrate that they're better-educated than I am, but they are failing, because they don't know enough Latin to know that "redex" isn't a Latin word. Therefore, they are not only arrogant but unskilled and unaware of it [5]. 2. The speaker is trying to demonstrate that they are as well educated as I am, but they are failing, because they don't know enough Latin to know that "redex" isn't a Latin word. Therefore, they think they are not worthy of associating with me, because they think they would need to have a classical education in order to be so, but they clearly don't have it. Furthermore, they are unskilled and unaware of it. 3. The speaker uttered an incomprehensible word. They must have a bigger vocabulary than I do; maybe they are smart and I should listen to them more carefully. 4. The speaker uttered an incomprehensible word. They must be talking nonsense. 5. The speaker is playfully forming a nonstandard plural. 6. This word "redex" I haven't heard before must be a Latin word, and "redices" is either its only correct plural or a correct show-off academic plural. I suspect that explanation #5 is the correct explanation of the term's origin, and it's prefigured by the "Unices" and "Twenices" examples from the Jargon File [4], but I intend to avoid the use of "redices" except in clearly playful contexts because of the possibility of interpretations #1, #2, #4, and especially #6, which will make it more difficult for the listener to discover the correct derivation from "reducible expression". Maybe this is just me taking myself way too seriously. Correcting People ----------------- If you correct people who are using "redices" (as I did), you run the risk of a similarly hazardous gamut of responses. 1. Why is he trying to show off his knowledge? Doesn't he know "redices" is a playful invention? He must be not only arrogant but unskilled and unaware of it. 2. I've always heard "redices" as the plural of "redex". Have I been looking dumb all these years? Oops. References ---------- These references are not intended to assign credit; they're just here so you can dig deeper if you're interested. [1] Charlton Lewis, "An Elementary Latin Dictionary", 1890, ISBN: 0199102058 > http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3D%237793 [2] Letter from Dr. Lim Chin Lam, Penang, to The Star of Malaysia newspaper, 2006-08-25: It must be noted that the above nouns have been adopted (or borrowed or hijacked) from other languages and normally retain the singular and plural forms in their original language. > http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2006/8/25/lifefocus/15088814&sec=lifefocus [3] Douglas Harper's Etymonline Online Etymology Dictionary entry "ox" > http://etymonline.com/?term=ox [4] Jargon File 4.2, dated 2000-01-31, attributed to a large collection of hackers but currently enclosed by Eric Raymond, section "Jargon Construction", subsection "Overgeneralization"; > http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/o/overgeneralization.html [5] "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments", by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, December 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134 > http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html > http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html > http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [6] "More False Latin", by John Algeo, American Speech, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb., 1966), pp. 72-74, doi:10.2307/453250 > http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283(196602)41%3A1%3C72%3AMFL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G [7] "An Algorithmic Approach to English Pluralization", by Damian Conway; this describes the algorithm in Lingua::EN::Inflect. > http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/Plurals.html