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.

.

Doesn't it say codices in the rulebook? I'm sure it does.

pm713 wrote:
Doesn't it say codices in the rulebook? I'm sure it does.

The website says codexes.

Just one word:

Dwarfs.

A codex is also described as being a hand written book on paper. given GW codexes aren't hand written well.. clearly differnt beasts

People who understand me... (at last).

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just one word:

Dwarfs.

'Dwarfs' is the correct spelling. Tolkien came along and changed it to 'dwarves' in The Hobbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Middle-earth)#Spelling_.22Dwarves.22

It winds me up too!

 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?

The Oxford Dictionary begs to differ.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just one word:

Dwarfs.

'Dwarfs' is the correct spelling. Tolkien came along and changed it to 'dwarves' in The Hobbit.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dwarf?q=dwarfs

Both win!

Codexes is an acceptable plural for codex, if you are writing English. Use codices for Latin. Do you say fora or forums? viruses or virii? Have you ever used datum as the singular for data? and so on. (or et cetera) Anglicized words follow English language customs. They're our words now, and we will spell them, and pluralize them, as we see fit.

See also split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions.

And judging from the last codex I saw, which was some 5 years ago, it was painfully obvious that GW did not use a spellchecker, or a copy editor, or a proofreader...

What about "orks"? I thought that was spelled orc

 Red Harvest wrote:
Do you say fora or forums? viruses or virii? Have you ever used datum as the singluar for data? and so on. (or et cetera)

Yes, no because I am led to believe it's 4th conjugation, yes, and I'm not sure why et cetera was included

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just one word:

Dwarfs.

'Dwarfs' is the correct spelling. Tolkien came along and changed it to 'dwarves' in The Hobbit.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dwarf?q=dwarfs

Both win!

As mentioned, Tolkien was the one responsible for the usage of 'dwarves' being accepted into modern language, and only in regards to the mythological beings. For all other purposes, it is 'dwarfs'.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
Do you say fora or forums? viruses or virii? Have you ever used datum as the singluar for data? and so on. (or et cetera)

Yes, no because I am led to believe it's 4th conjugation, yes, and I'm not sure why et cetera was included

Feel free to return to the 1st century AD then. Caesar Augustus may need your help. I believe he just lost 2 legions to some German named Herman (Arminius to you.)

Well, you learn something new every day.

 Red Harvest wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
Do you say fora or forums? viruses or virii? Have you ever used datum as the singluar for data? and so on. (or et cetera)

Yes, no because I am led to believe it's 4th conjugation, yes, and I'm not sure why et cetera was included

Feel free to return to the 1st century AD then. Caesar Augustus may need your help. I believe he just lost 2 legions to some German named Herman (Arminius to you.)

Vale!

It's almost as bad as GW's annoying habit of saying things like "roll a dice". FFS, the word for a single cube with numbers on it is 'die'.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's almost as bad as GW's annoying habit of saying things like "roll a dice". FFS, the word for a single cube with numbers on it is 'die'.

'Dice' has been accepted as the singular form for at least a couple of decades now.

Yeh it's not worth the effort as a maths teacher to get pupils to refer to the singular as 'die', especially when every modern textbook refers to it as a 'dice'.

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

That was a deliberate spelling change to differentiate between WHFB orcs and their 40K cousins.

 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?

I don't think they care. Or perhaps they are aware that most of their players won't be using the language right anyway, innit? Like, inorite? (and other language usages of the uneducated oiks that give me the gaks).

Do we say Indexes? Well, the unedumacated do - and it's still wrong. The word is IndiCES. Same for Vortex and its plural - vortiCES. Appendix and appendiCES and Codex/CodiCES.


You know it and I know it. WE are the last bastion of the more betterer and gooder spelling.

The singular of dice being dice has also annoyed me for a while. Common usage or not. Or using "versed" as the verb form of versus.

And yes, I do use Fora for the plural of forum, datum for a singular piece of data and as for virus - I refer to them as "keep your vile death-dealing sicknesses away from me" and "go and die silently somewhere."

 chromedog wrote:
Do we say Indexes? Well, the unedumacated do - and it's still wrong. The word is IndiCES.

Again, at least according to the Oxford dictionary, either is acceptable, with 'indices' being more commonly used in technical writing and 'indexes' more common for general use.

More of the older latin-style plurals are gradually being replaced by their englicised versions. And once that new version becomes commonly accepted, then it becomes 'correct'. Language is a fluid thing, and what is acceptable simply comes down to common usage and the liklihood of that usage being understood.

Once upon a time, people were complaining just as much about those uneducated louts writing with contractions. Or starting sentences with conjunctions.


And as much as I personally dislike using 'verse' as a verb, I've resigned myself to the fact that it's so ingrained into Generation Y and onwards now that it's probably here to stay.

You guys are aiming far too high with your standards.

Hell, I can confuse my white trash coworkers by off-handedly using words like superfluous, or, I absolutely kid you not.....surplus.

That's right, a 50-year old man did not know what I meant by "pack up 50 of those, and then just stack all the surplus pieces over there".

 AegisGrimm wrote:
You guys are aiming far too high with your standards.

Hell, I can confuse my white trash coworkers by off-handedly using words like superfluous, or, I absolutely kid you not.....surplus.

That's right, a 50-year old man did not know what I meant by "pack up 50 of those, and then just stack all the surplus pieces over there".

'MERICA!!!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just one word:

Dwarfs.

 chromedog wrote:



You know it and I know it. WE are the last bastion of the more betterer and gooder spelling.

The singular of dice being dice has also annoyed me for a while. Common usage or not. Or using "versed" as the verb form of versus.

And yes, I do use Fora for the plural of forum, datum for a singular piece of data and as for virus - I refer to them as "keep your vile death-dealing sicknesses away from me" and "go and die silently somewhere."

This point about betterer and gooder is really apt. For example, there is a poster above who uses the expression "virii," which as far as I know has never been and never will be a word for anything, since the Latin "virus" is not countable. When someone complains about "codexes" they are only a little smarter than people who know that codex is probably Latin, and therefore probably is not "codexes" and take a stab at codii or codexii or something else.


So the basic response to the OP is not only that "codexes" is definitely a word, but that it is a better word, since it uses the existing and most common rules of English. Do you know that English takes longer to read in words per minute or phrases per minute than for example, French or Korean? Both have national language institutes that dictate authoritatively what is correct and not, and that standardize grammar so that writing is more effectively and quickly comprehensible.

I can't read french or korean, so I couldn't say yea or nay about that.

English IS a hell of a lot harder to understand than many European languages, though - with its bass-ackward sentence structure and exceptions to every other rule.

Listening to German and Swedish Backpackers at my last job showed me the vast differences in how it is learned.

Germans speak it like they learned it formally.
Swedes speak it like they learned it from hearing it spoken.

It's rare to hear Germans use contractions.
Swedes toss them about with wild abandon.

Chillax guys.
This ought to boil some piss...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11012673/Chillax-Scrabble-has-added-5000-words-to-its-dictionary.html

Pedantry is so much more fun when the pedant is wrong.