Re: Other rexes? (jk) [Joke]

[Roberta Meehan <biology@ctos.com>]

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 
> 25-07-03 11:11, Mike Taylor wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> many T. rex, not many T. rexes.
> >
> > Grammatically, the plural of "rex" depends on the mood, or "tense" of
> > the sentence in which it is used in.  For example, in the inductive
> > documentative voice, used in BBC TV documentararies, the plural is
> > "_T. rex_ individuals"; however, when the plural of "rex" is used as a
> > cognitive carnivorous infraction, "rexes" is correct, as in:
> >
> >         Look out, Bob!  Them darned rexes have ate Earl!
> >
> > (... with apologies to the real Mister Language Person.)
> 
> Of course the correct Latin plural would be *T[yrannosauri] reges*
>

But, of course too, by standard English convention, we only use the
taxonomic Latin in the nominative singular.  Now, if we were talking
Latin, it might be a different story.  Is your rex in the nominative,
genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, or vocative case?  Do you have
one rex or more than one rex?

Of course, I don't think we'd use the vocative -- because that is for
direct address.  Aside from the fact that humans and rexes did not
coexist, it would seem that if most of us were to have met a live rex in
person, it would not be logical to say sweetly, "Rexy, come here,
darling, so I can check your epidermis for pre-feathers."

(I would write that in Latin -- but my Latin books are all packed and I
don't trust myself to say it correctly.)

Roberta Meehan (moving across the country on Monday and going stir crazy
today.  Keep those T. rexes coming!)