Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alienoid wrote:
What about "orks"? I thought that was spelled orc

Its that way on purpose and has the benefit of being copyrightable. The fantasy range spells it "Orcs."

Codex is GW's term for "army book" in 40k, its theirs to spell how they please.

Here's a previous run-through on this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/359177.page

I assume it's like Index, which is indices, but indexes is user correctly, too:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=118577

"OED gives both indexes and indices as the plural, without comment*."
"Indices is preferred in maths and physics, usual in other senses except as"

A codex is a book, just as is an index.

I prefer to say Codices, but write Codexes. Go figure.

Is this another English vs American version? Like Color or Colour?

There are also numerous Spelling, Grammar, and wording Errors on the BRB, websites and Codices.

 Random Dude wrote:
Seriously, If GW had bothered to use spell check, they would know that codexes isn't a word, It's codices. It seems like GW blatantly doesn't care about spelling and grammar. What do you think?

Seriously, who gives a gak.

 Diggory_x wrote:
Seriously, who gives a gak.

Us beardy rules-lawyery types.

The English language has absorbed so many words from Latin and Greek over the years that it's hard to keep track of word origins and correct pluralizations unless you devote a lot of time to reading the "etymology" entries in the dictionary.

As an example of non-standard plurals you'd have to work pretty hard to keep track of: "sphinx" plural "sphinges", clitoris plural clitorides, octopus plural octopodes, "demon" plural "demones", "climax" plural "climaces". There are also the French derived words we have, but nobody pluralizes "bureau" as "bureaux" in practice, and you'd look at them funny if they did.

Fundamentally it comes down to a difference in philosophy. English languages tend towards descriptivism; dictionaries just indicate how words are used and aren't there to tell you what has been determined to be correct. They just tell you what everyone else is doing. If enough people start using a word differently, the dictionary definition will change to reflect it. French leans towards prescriptivism; the dictionary tells you what the "correct" form is (according to the Academie Francaise) and no matter how many people use a word differently, it's still "wrong". Until it's not.

English orthography is a nightmare, I'll grant, but the spoken language is highly adaptable and flexible, with simple sounds and little in the way of accenting, and this has greatly aided its spread across the world and its development into the current lingua franca.

But, but, but 'funplex', 'bromance', 'frenemy'.....
My heart weeps for the English language.
Just because other people use these words doesn't mean they should make it into the dictionary or that the unwashed masses shouldn't be shot on sight for using them.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
But, but, but 'funplex', 'bromance', 'frenemy'.....
My heart weeps for the English language.
Just because other people use these words doesn't mean they should make it into the dictionary or that the unwashed masses shouldn't be shot on sight for using them.

That's exactly how the Oxford's dictionary works. If a word is used enough globally it gets in. That's why "Selfy" is now in the dictionary. If the majority of people say Codexes...

Isn't made-up outrage cute when it is pedantry?

You're all so super smart with the language, here's a pat on your head.

Jeez laweez, I work with words for a living and even I tell the stench of someone looking for a reason to be upset from a mile away.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
But, but, but 'funplex', 'bromance', 'frenemy'.....
My heart weeps for the English language.
Just because other people use these words doesn't mean they should make it into the dictionary or that the unwashed masses shouldn't be shot on sight for using them.

You've not enough bullets, mate.

But seriously, read Chaucer or Beowulf and see how different the language was then, and then consider that every change from there to here was probably opposed by somebody along the way on the grounds that "that's not a word!" Hell, they literally set fire to the first guy that printed a bible in English for sullying the holy book with a vernacular language. But times change, languages change, and evolve, and adapt. Or they wither. I have a Basque-speaking friend who assures me that trying to discuss anything other than farming or the weather in Basque is incredibly frustrating, just because they don't have the words for it.

My favourite story is about Churchill being told he couldn't end a sentence with a preposition. His reply was "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put!"

 curran12 wrote:
Isn't made-up outrage cute when it is pedantry?

You're all so super smart with the language, here's a pat on your head.

Jeez laweez, I work with words for a living and even I tell the stench of someone looking for a reason to be upset from a mile away.

No need to be snarky. People have different opinions on how things should be and how they will pronounce things. Saying you work with words for a living or are a certified PhD in linguistics means feth all squared here.

office_waaagh wrote:

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
But, but, but 'funplex', 'bromance', 'frenemy'.....
My heart weeps for the English language.
Just because other people use these words doesn't mean they should make it into the dictionary or that the unwashed masses shouldn't be shot on sight for using them.

You've not enough bullets, mate.

But seriously, read Chaucer or Beowulf and see how different the language was then, and then consider that every change from there to here was probably opposed by somebody along the way on the grounds that "that's not a word!" Hell, they literally set fire to the first guy that printed a bible in English for sullying the holy book with a vernacular language. But times change, languages change, and evolve, and adapt. Or they wither. I have a Basque-speaking friend who assures me that trying to discuss anything other than farming or the weather in Basque is incredibly frustrating, just because they don't have the words for it.

My favourite story is about Churchill being told he couldn't end a sentence with a preposition. His reply was "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put!"

And let's not forget about Shakespeare who regularly mangled the language, invented new words and re purposed old ones to make great works.

 Deadshot wrote:


No need to be snarky. People have different opinions on how things should be and how they will pronounce things. Saying you work with words for a living or are a certified PhD in linguistics means feth all squared here.

Indeed it doesn't mean anything. Of course, I still am calling out nonsensical pedantry when I see it. Don't need a degree for that.

Yeah, the English language is pretty laissez-faire when it comes to "proper" grammar and spelling.

I'd just roll with it if I was you about "codexes" vs "codecies". As long as it gets the point across right?

Also, try looking up what "O.K." originally stood for

Just to add:

I just got my German 4th rules book open next to me and it reads "codices".

 curran12 wrote:
Isn't made-up outrage cute when it is pedantry?
You're all so super smart with the language, here's a pat on your head.

It's not just language. When i'm king the first up against the wall will be the grown men who cycle on the pavement.

How do you pluralise "octopus"?

Seriously though, it's not a huge deal. Pluralising "codex" as "codexii", "codii", or even "codecies" is a bigger sin in my book (so to speak). It helps that "codexes" is an accepted plural in English.

 Cheexsta wrote:
How do you pluralise "octopus"? .

I say "octopi". But that is because I have a friend who is an English major, and it is fun to make her squirm with language butchery.

It's also the same reason why I make sure to use British spellings around her.

Hunam0001 wrote:

Also, try looking up what "O.K." originally stood for

This one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK

Yeah, as I'd heard.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
But, but, but 'funplex', 'bromance', 'frenemy'.....
My heart weeps for the English language.
Just because other people use these words doesn't mean they should make it into the dictionary or that the unwashed masses shouldn't be shot on sight for using them.

as others have said the english language tends to evolve very quickly, taking on new words etc. As opposed to say French where what is and isn't accepted is much more formalized