Talk:prospectus

non-standard plural form?
I've also seen prospecti as a plural form of prospectus, albeit a non-standard one. Can this be attested I wonder? ---&gt; Tooironic 01:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It has no foundation in the Latin: the plural of prospectus in Latin is prospectus, with a longer "u" sound, since it is 4th declension, not 2nd as is generally assumed where a noun ends in "-us". Therefore, it might be seen sometimes, but it is seen as an error, not a viable alternative.

True, very true. However my experience with Latin over the two years : I have been studying this fascinating language for quite a while, yes, may just have the plural form of prospectus, is infact prospectus. It doesn't change. The English language has both the natural plural and the fancy plural under prospectus, just because it is an irregular like many words all throughout the complex nature of the world of English. The plural sounding is PRO-SPEC-TUUS. My professor also agrees with me. So yes, it cannot be attested.


 * Wiktionary includes words which can be attested, not which are "correct". So going back to my original question: can it be attested? ---&gt; Tooironic 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)