Dictionary.com claims that the plural of 'apparatus' is 'apparatuses'. Surely that can't be right… isn't it 'apparati'?
Learn English – the proper plural form of ‘apparatus’
grammatical-numberlatin
Related Solutions
Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) suggests that the original apocalypse wasn't conceived of as a one-time-only armageddon:
apocalypse n [ME revelation, Revelation, fr. AF apocalipse, fr. LL apocalypsis, fr. Gr apokalypsis, fr. apokalyptein to uncover, fr. apo- + kalyptein to cover — more at HELL] (13c) 1 a : one of the Jewish and Christian writings of 200 B.C. to A.D. 150 marked by pseudonymity, symbolic imagery, and the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil and raise the righteous to life in messianic kingdom b cap : REVELATION 3 ["cap : an apocalyptic writing addressed to early Christians of Asia Minor and included as a book in the New Testament — called also Apocalypse"] 2 a : something viewed as a prophetic revelation b : ARMAGEDDON ["1 a : the site or time of a final or conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil b : the battle taking place at Armageddon 2 : a usu. vast decisive conflict or confrontation"] 3 : a great disaster {an environmental apocalypse}
While definitions 1b and (for the most part) 2b refer to Apocalypse as a one-off event, definitions 1a, 2a, and 3 do not. Perhaps most interesting, definition 1a suggests that someone living 2,000 years ago could make a career—or at least an avocation—of writing apocalypses.
The prospect of multiple apocalypses in the definition 3 sense is bolstered by the history of film over the past fifty years, wherein the possibility (if not probability) of countless zombie apocalypses—especially in Hollywood—has become an industry trope.
As for the plural form, it is simply apocalypses, just as the plural of eclipse (which has a different etymology) is eclipses.
From Google Books Ngram Viewer, Offspring is more common, in the past 200 years, so the negligible usage of Offsprings might be attributed to a few ignorant authors.
Very common usage of Offspring vs negligible usage of Offsprings
Very common usage of Fish vs smaller (but not negligible) usage of fishes
Possible Explanation:
Fish and Fishes are both correct, but the singular is generally more common, and the ratio looks good. So we can consider that both are used normally.
Offspring is correct and is used commonly, while Offspings, being "wrong" in some sense, has negligible usage, and the ratio is "abnormally low". So we can consider that Offsprings should be avoided?
Best Answer
The Latin plural of the noun apparatus is actually apparatus. (Sometimes the Latin is spelled singular apparātus and plural apparātūs; the vowel lengthens in the plural, but that's not usually reflected in the spelling.) This is because it's fourth declension. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when most educated English speakers had studied Latin, apparatus was sometimes used as the plural; I believe this usage is quite rare today.
With status, apparatus, and other Latin nouns of the fourth declension ending in -us, the English plural adds an -es. The Latin nouns which pluralize by turning an -us into an -i, like radius, fungus, alumnus, are all second declension. For some Latin nouns of the second declension, like campus, the Latin plural has been lost, and the English plural adds an -es. But campi would be correct in Latin, while apparati is incorrect in both English and Latin.
You don't actually hear the English plural apparatuses that often, because apparatus is often treated as a semi-uncountable noun: one apparatus, two pieces of apparatus. (See Google Ngrams.) I assume this usage developed because people didn't know whether to use apparatus or apparatuses for the plural, and figured out a way of avoiding the issue altogether.