Talk:argumentums ad hominem

RFV discussion in re context tags
The standard plural is argumenta ad hominem. A JSTOR search of academic journals yields 23 hits on "argumenta ad hominem" and zero hits for "argumentums ad hominem". JSTOR does yield 2 English-language hits for "argumentums", although one of these is an article in American Speech, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Apr., 1928), which simply includes "argumentums" in the author's list of recommended English plurals of Latin terms. The citations provided for "argumentums ad hominem" in the Wiktionary entry strike me as suspect (the work of writers who just plain didn't know any better). -- WikiPedant 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are yet more hits on bgc for the macaronic "ad hominem arguments" than for "argumenta ad hominem". "argumentums ad hominem" seems to be the worst of both worlds. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously the standard plural is, but I wouldn’t go quite as far as to call  (whereas undefined: certainly would be) — perhaps, judging from the citations in the entry,  would be more appropriate.
 * The term for the genetic fallacy of dismissing an argument by attacking its arguer is written in many ways: correctly as undefined:, but also as undefined:, undefined:, undefined:, even just undefined:, and probably in many other ways, including, I wager, undefined: for the plural that verges on the etymologically-consistent. How can we best show this diversity of usage?
 * Sorry WikiPedant — I don’t understand your objection to the citations given at the entry for undefined: — what’s the issue?
 * It is interesting to note that the term may see some usage outside being the first word of the many phrasal names of fallacies; that, at least, is what is implied by these books:, , and …
 * †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Doremítzwr -- My objection to the citations is basically that the sources strike me as unauthoritative. The most authoritative users of this terminology are philosophers or scholars in rhetoric or critical thinking, and they just don't say "argumentums ad hominem". -- WikiPedant 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh right; I thought you meant that you took issue with citations. Certainly, the citations for  are not by authoritative authors. Hence it would be inappropriate to call the latter form standard; however, it exists in a different class from the genuinely erroneous undefined: &c., which is why I advocate its being labelled with . †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch, I just fixed that typo which I made in the original post to this section. I did indeed mean the entry for "argument ums ad hominem," and I think you are too kind to characterize that term merely as informal.  If a speaker used that term at an academic philosophy conference, there'd be snickering all over the room. -- WikiPedant 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there would be, but “an academic philosophy conference” is a formal setting, is it not? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been to a few and am not so sure about that. ;) -- WikiPedant 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having been to many myself, I think it's appropriate that the word symposium: comes originally from a word that effectively meant "drinking party". --EncycloPetey 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it’s been over four months since anyone’s commented on this and as the context tag for in the entry has not been changed from in all that time, I’ll strike this discussion’s heading and declare the issue resolved. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)