Wugs, if its an Anglo root, unless it’s derived from Latin “Wug*, wugīs” in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye). Unless its one of the random Latin words where we don’t do that and it’s still “wugs.” Unless it’s a loanword from germanic then we might anglicise it or we might say “wugar.” Because eNgLIsH iS EaSY…
Wouldn’t that be Wux, Wuges? It would need to be Wug, Wugines for the ol romans to not condense the word base into ending with x before English gets invented.
Correct! Thank you for catching that, I accidentally put it in third declension. So yes Wuges. I was referencing when second declension nouns borrowed into English sometimes remain -i for the plural (as in radii, stimuli etc.) So Wugus, Wugi.
Oh yeah and sometimes it’s actually Greek causing irregulars (looking at you, criteria)…
Wugs, if its an Anglo root, unless it’s derived from Latin “Wug*, wugīs” in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye). Unless its one of the random Latin words where we don’t do that and it’s still “wugs.” Unless it’s a loanword from germanic then we might anglicise it or we might say “wugar.” Because eNgLIsH iS EaSY…
Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”
Wouldn’t a wug, wugis group noun be wuges plural?
Wouldn’t that be Wux, Wuges? It would need to be Wug, Wugines for the ol romans to not condense the word base into ending with x before English gets invented.
Correct! Thank you for catching that, I accidentally put it in third declension. So yes Wuges. I was referencing when second declension nouns borrowed into English sometimes remain -i for the plural (as in radii, stimuli etc.) So Wugus, Wugi.
Oh yeah and sometimes it’s actually Greek causing irregulars (looking at you, criteria)…