[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.241.199. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1975

A Solecism

Author Affiliations

New Orleans

Arch Dermatol. 1975;111(9):1215. doi:10.1001/archderm.1975.01630210131026

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.—  In an article in a recent issue of the Archives, "scabie" is given as the singular form of scabies. Since this spelling occurs twice, this is not a typographical error but a solecism.Latin did not consistently form plurals by adding "s." This was true for nouns of the fourth and fifth declensions, but true only for masculine and feminine forms of the nouns of the third declension. Neuter nouns of the second and third declensions ended in "a," masculine nouns of the second declension ended in "i," and all nouns of the first declension ended in "ae." Reference to Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, England, Clarendon Press, 1966) confirms that the word is singular. On p 1637, one reads, "scabies . . . in particular, as a disease, the scab, mange, itch . . . an itching, longing, pruriency."Moreover, "anu" is not the singular form of anus, and Bacchus

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×