A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

Was there a plural of 'forum' in Latin?

There was a place outside a building where
men discoursed loftily in togas but was
'forum' a general term for such places,
in which case it would have a plural
or was it the name of the place, like coliseum,
in which case it may never have had a plural?

 

Fora ITYF

Erm, ITYF that there was more than one coliseum but only one Coliseum
IYSWIM. Colisea I beleieve. ISTBC

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Allfa 116 giulietta 3.0l (Really). Sprint 1.7
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

I assume so - there would certainly have been many forums.

The argument to date, however, (except in Des's case) has been what
the correct plural of "forum" is in English, irrespective of the
etymology of the word.

"Forums" is undoubtedly both correct and the most widely used.
However, at least one (and likely more than one) reputable English
dictionary gives "fora" as an alternative. Des, AFAIK, is the only one
refusing to accept that this gives "fora" legitimacy, if not
popularity.

FWIW, my favourite multi-plural word is "money". Most dictionaries
allow both "monies" and (the earlier) "moneys". I favour the latter,
but I suggest you all use Des' preference (whatever it might be - I've
got him killfiled) and save yourselves a heap of bandwidth!

 

Interestingly, I favour the former, because it was the one most commonly
used in textbooks, in the dark days when I was going to be a lawyer.

Des is, of course, spouting complete bollocks. Well, everyone does on
ukrm, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to declare that Chambers
is wrong.

 

A special kind of arrogance; that often seen on certain types of buses?

 

Clapham ones.