Sprue vs. Spruce: A Lesson in Terminology.

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.

**ArbitorIan**

In case is hasn't been mentioned, could I also submit

It's COMMISSAR, not COMMISSIONER

**Scott-S6**

Todosi wrote:Cavalry and Calvary drive me up a wall. Also supposebly, and rendering claws. It's RENDING for the love of all that is holy!

I don't know, claws that render would be pretty scary!

Render
To give what is due or owed
To give in return or retribution
To reduce, convert, or melt down (fat) by heating.

**Just Dave**

Locclo wrote:Well, here's what I found. Dictionary.com lists the plural is codices.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codex
Wikipedia backs this one up (I'm using dictionary as a source here first, shut up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

But go to Wiktionary, and it gets a little more blurry.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codex
The English form is either or - Codexes or Codices. The French variation, based on the Latin form, however, lists it as neither! The plural of Codex is, apparently, also Codex. (But it's a different word meaning 'all senses' according to the page) Go to the Latin section, and it's even more confusing - it can be spelled codices, codicum, or codicibus. (Although before you jump down my throat, these are different forms of saying the word in a sentence)

I think the final word is a trip down to Merriam-Webster's site: a search for codex gives us this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/codex

The plural is Codices. And on one last note, both Google and Microsoft Word's spellcheckers list Codexes as an incorrect word.

Aaah, thank you very much Locclo, it's appreciated. I think I'll stick to Codices as its what my Firefox spellcheck accepts.
However, I may go for codicibus for 'lols'. Thanks man!

insaniak wrote:
Just Dave wrote:Nonetheless, for whomever is the true grammar-nazi (or simply smart person) here, I ask you - as an actual question, not a test - what is the plural of Codex?
Is it Codex's? Or Codices? Or both? Or neither? Or is there no such thing as the plural of Codex and there can never be more than one in one place at a time?

So far as GW are concerned, 'Codex' is a word in the made-up 'High Gothic' language of Warhammer 40K, that just happens to bear many similarities and shared words with Latin... but it's slightly English-ised Latin, and isn't really intended to follow Latin rules of Grammar.

As such, so far as GW are concerned, the plural of Codex is 'Codexes'... It's what they use pretty consistently, and at least one of the Devs has said as much publicly in the past, including the 'made up language' explanation as to why they don't much care about what a Latin dictionary says it should be.

What the plural should be in actual Latin is only really relevant when you're discussing Latin.

Thanks Insaniak, so I can 'legally' call it pretty much anything? Hmmm...

**Kilkrazy**

Just Dave wrote:
Locclo wrote:Well, here's what I found. Dictionary.com lists the plural is codices.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codex
Wikipedia backs this one up (I'm using dictionary as a source here first, shut up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

But go to Wiktionary, and it gets a little more blurry.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codex
The English form is either or - Codexes or Codices. The French variation, based on the Latin form, however, lists it as neither! The plural of Codex is, apparently, also Codex. (But it's a different word meaning 'all senses' according to the page) Go to the Latin section, and it's even more confusing - it can be spelled codices, codicum, or codicibus. (Although before you jump down my throat, these are different forms of saying the word in a sentence)

I think the final word is a trip down to Merriam-Webster's site: a search for codex gives us this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/codex

The plural is Codices. And on one last note, both Google and Microsoft Word's spellcheckers list Codexes as an incorrect word.

Aaah, thank you very much Locclo, it's appreciated. I think I'll stick to Codices as its what my Firefox spellcheck accepts.
However, I may go for codicibus for 'lols'. Thanks man!
...
...

Don't be silly, that's Ablative case!

Young people these days, etc...

**BloodQuest**

Kilkrazy wrote:Don't be silly, that's Ablative case!

Please! Clearly the dative in this instance.

**Scott-S6**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
Romanes eunt domus?

**squilverine**

The thing is, if you were to collect model trees would you have a spuce sprue or a sprue of spruces?

**Element206**

haha! Youve seen someone use the word spruce? that is hilarious! I didnt know sprues were conifers!

I just assumed everyone knew what they were talking about....im gonna keep my eye out for that mistake now! Kinda like people that say prostrate and mean prostate!

or colonel and colonial....oh there are a million of them out there!

**hemingway**

Balance wrote:

I think Dwarves vs. Dwarfs has roots in Tolkien, at least. Keep in mind that plural forms are more or less just rules of thumb, and not hard and fast rules. I've seen discussion about it before... I think it may have been an intentional stylistic choice to help differentiate "short, hairy, mountain-people born from the mountains" from "people with stunted growth that can get a reality show these days if they have an interesting job."

Also important to note that I have found numerous spelling and grammar fails on GWs website. Their online text content should not be considered authoritative.

**Element206**

hemingway wrote:Also important to note that I have found numerous spelling and grammar fails on GWs website. Their online text content should not be considered authoritative.

-- Not to mention the codices. Do they even have an editor at GW?

**chromedog**

They might have an editor, but their Proof Reader leaves much to be desired.

Still, not surprised that northerners can't be arsed to get the King's English correct. There's no civilisation north of Watford and all that.