On 24/03/24 09:02, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Back in the day when most people subscribed to a daily newspaper, a
> weekly chore was tying up the week's issues in a bundle and setting
> them out for the trash collector.

WIWAL I used to collect newspapers around the neighbourhood and sell
them to butcher shops and fish shops. The rules about wrapping food were
different back then.

One particular newspaper, I recall, was considered to be good only for
wrapping fish. I guess that's one thing that hasn't changed.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 23/03/24 23:56, Blueshirt wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/24 22:41, Janet wrote:
>>> In article <utlubn$3g3i7$1@dont-email.me>, vpaereru-
>>> unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid says...
>>
>>>> It looks as if 'refuse collector' is the official term,
>>>> while we plebs say 'dustman' and 'bin man'.
>>>
>>> Is it the last career that employs only men?
>>
>> I can only say that I've never seen a female dustperson.
>
> Of course not. The song wouldn't work then would it?
>
> My old Mum's a dustwoman
> She wears a dustwoman's hat
> She wears cor blimey trousers
> And she lives in a council flat ...
>
> Just doesn't have the same ring to it!

When I first heard that song I thought it was about a Dutchman.

Australia's garbos were never called dustmen, so the whole concept of
collecting dust was a little strange to us. Eventually I realised that
the term came from a country where people burnt coal in their homes.

Our main use for coal, I believe, was for generating electricity. Over
the years the power stations accumulated dust in "ash dams". Now we're
finally realising that those ash dams are environmental hazards, as they
do things like leaking out into nearby lakes.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 24/03/24 01:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) schrieb oder zitierte:

>> |"Emmerweiber" dragged the buckets of rubbish to the Spree at night.
>
> These were allegedly freelance women who emptied buckets of
> faeces into the river "Spree" at night, although even then
> the dumping of faeces into that river was not permitted.
>
> "Emmerweiber" = "bucket women".

We still have the term "nightsoil" for what went into those buckets.

In my youth the dunny truck came around during the day. I remember that
my mother would never go to the toilet on a Thursday morning, for fear
of being caught on the throne at the wrong time.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Charles Hope:
> Yes, they were supplied for this job. The full one was swapped for an empty
> one each week and collected in a specially fiited out lorry, so the full
> ones could be hung up on the sides of the vehicle Oh, they were green.

Got it, thanks.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Dystypsia."
msb@vex.net | --Michael Wares gives the reason for a typo

On 2024-03-23 00:54, Hibou wrote:
> Le 22/03/2024 à 20:16, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
>> On 22-Mar-24 11:41, Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 22/03/2024 à 02:11, Sn!pe a écrit :
>>>> In English, which is correct:
>>>>
>>>> 'forums' or 'fora';  'viruses', 'viri', "virii" (hoho) or 'vira' ?
>>>
>>> I quite like 'fora', but I wouldn't say it to a dustman.
>>
>> Your use of "dustman" dates you terribly.
>>
>> That said, I'm unsure what the current job title might be.
>>
>> Recycling operative?
>
> Our dear Government's Careers Service has some suggestions...
>
> <https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/bin-worker>
>
> ... which I put into the Ngram Viewer, along with 'dustman' and 'bin
> man' (which seems to be the usual one round here):
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dustman%2Cbin+man%2Crefuse+collector%2Cwaste+operative%2Crecycling+collector%2Crecycling+operative%2Cbin+loader&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>
>
> It looks as if 'refuse collector' is the official term, while we plebs
> say 'dustman' and 'bin man'.

Years ago, I heard someone call them 'Sanitation Engineers'.

--
Private signature.
Do not read.

On 2024-03-23 16:44, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 24/03/24 09:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Back in the day when most people subscribed to a daily newspaper, a
>> weekly chore was tying up the week's issues in a bundle and setting
>> them out for the trash collector.
>
> WIWAL I used to collect newspapers around the neighbourhood and sell
> them to butcher shops and fish shops. The rules about wrapping food were
> different back then.
>
> One particular newspaper, I recall, was considered to be good only for
> wrapping fish. I guess that's one thing that hasn't changed.

We used to use 'Suitable only for the floor of a bird cage."

--
This message was brought to you by the numbers 0 and 1.

On 2024-03-23 18:39:21 +0000, Mark Brader said:

> "Snipe":
>>> As "work-related injuries and deaths" are countable,
>>> should not 'less' instead be 'fewer'?
>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> Of course,
>
> No, since they're countable either one is correct.
>
>> but the distinction is dying.
>
> No, only the claim that "less" can be wrong when "fewer" is correct.

It's such a long time since I read any of this Mr Brader's posts that I
wasn't sure if he was still here. However, I cleaned out my kill file a
couple of weeks ago, thinking that many of the entries were obsolete.
Anyway, it'll only take a moment to put him back where he belongs.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 22 Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet wrote

> On 22-Mar-24 19:20, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman:
>>> I suppose that's like AmFFE (American Fast Food English) "a fry"
>>> for a serving of French fries.
>>
>> I guess this one is Jerry's domain, but to me "a fry" only means
>> one of the pieces of fried potato that make up that serving.
>
> But if you're in the business of delivering food to customers, and
> the smallest unit you handle is 'one serving', I think 'a fry'
> might be acceptable.
>
> P.S. In the real world, they're chips, not fries.

Unless you're talking about "lamb's fry" (pan-fried lamb innards,
usually liver).

--
Cheers, Harvey

In article <utnsne$3urrq$1@dont-email.me>,
larry@invalid.ca says...
>
> On 2024-03-23 00:54, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 22/03/2024 à 20:16, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
> >> On 22-Mar-24 11:41, Hibou wrote:
> >>> Le 22/03/2024 à 02:11, Sn!pe a écrit :
> >>>> In English, which is correct:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'forums' or 'fora';  'viruses', 'viri', "virii" (hoho) or 'vira' ?
> >>>
> >>> I quite like 'fora', but I wouldn't say it to a dustman.
> >>
> >> Your use of "dustman" dates you terribly.
> >>
> >> That said, I'm unsure what the current job title might be.
> >>
> >> Recycling operative?
> >
> > Our dear Government's Careers Service has some suggestions...
> >
> > <https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/bin-worker>
> >
> > ... which I put into the Ngram Viewer, along with 'dustman' and 'bin
> > man' (which seems to be the usual one round here):
> >
> > <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dustman%2Cbin+man%2Crefuse+collector%2Cwaste+operative%2Crecycling+collector%2Crecycling+operative%2Cbin+loader&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>
> >
> > It looks as if 'refuse collector' is the official term, while we plebs
> > say 'dustman' and 'bin man'.
>
> Years ago, I heard someone call them 'Sanitation Engineers'.

That's the person who comes to empty the septic tank.

Janet

In article <XnsB13F6CE6943E8whhvans@135.181.20.170>,
office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>
> On 22 Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet wrote
>
> > On 22-Mar-24 19:20, Mark Brader wrote:
> >> Jerry Friedman:
> >>> I suppose that's like AmFFE (American Fast Food English) "a fry"
> >>> for a serving of French fries.
> >>
> >> I guess this one is Jerry's domain, but to me "a fry" only means
> >> one of the pieces of fried potato that make up that serving.
> >
> > But if you're in the business of delivering food to customers, and
> > the smallest unit you handle is 'one serving', I think 'a fry'
> > might be acceptable.
> >
> > P.S. In the real world, they're chips, not fries.
>
> Unless you're talking about "lamb's fry" (pan-fried lamb innards,
> usually liver).

Or "small fry" which is very tiny baby fish.

"smalls" are underwear.

Janet

On 25/03/24 03:13, Janet wrote:
> In article <XnsB13F6CE6943E8whhvans@135.181.20.170>,
> office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet wrote
>>
>>> On 22-Mar-24 19:20, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Jerry Friedman:
>>>>> I suppose that's like AmFFE (American Fast Food English) "a fry"
>>>>> for a serving of French fries.
>>>>
>>>> I guess this one is Jerry's domain, but to me "a fry" only means
>>>> one of the pieces of fried potato that make up that serving.
>>>
>>> But if you're in the business of delivering food to customers, and
>>> the smallest unit you handle is 'one serving', I think 'a fry'
>>> might be acceptable.
>>>
>>> P.S. In the real world, they're chips, not fries.
>>
>> Unless you're talking about "lamb's fry" (pan-fried lamb innards,
>> usually liver).
>
> Or "small fry" which is very tiny baby fish.
>
> "smalls" are underwear.

A "fry-up" might or might not include chips.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-03-24 10:13, Janet wrote:
> In article <XnsB13F6CE6943E8whhvans@135.181.20.170>,
> office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet wrote
>>
>>> On 22-Mar-24 19:20, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Jerry Friedman:
>>>>> I suppose that's like AmFFE (American Fast Food English) "a fry"
>>>>> for a serving of French fries.
>>>>
>>>> I guess this one is Jerry's domain, but to me "a fry" only means
>>>> one of the pieces of fried potato that make up that serving.
>>>
>>> But if you're in the business of delivering food to customers, and
>>> the smallest unit you handle is 'one serving', I think 'a fry'
>>> might be acceptable.
>>>
>>> P.S. In the real world, they're chips, not fries.
>>
>> Unless you're talking about "lamb's fry" (pan-fried lamb innards,
>> usually liver).
>
> Or "small fry" which is very tiny baby fish.
>
> "smalls" are underwear.

Or "smells" in some cases.

--
When opportunity knocks on the front door, most people
are in the back yard looking for four-leaf clovers.

HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
> On 22 Mar 2024, Hibou wrote
>> Le 22/03/2024 à 02:11, Sn!pe a écrit :
>>> In English, which is correct:
>>>
>>> 'forums' or 'fora'; 'viruses', 'viri', "virii" (hoho) or 'vira'
>>> ?
>>
>> I quite like 'fora', but I wouldn't say it to a dustman.
>
> I quite like knowing such plurals, but never mind dustmen -- I wouldn't
> say "fora" anywhere in public. Sometimes, knowing something is fine,
> while using it is tooth-grindingly pretentious.

I can't see it as pretentious. I grew up surrounded by them, they were
the norm, all I'm pretending to be is normal. I, all the time, use
almost all -ia: millennia, stadia, podia, auditoria, clostridia,
labia. I can barely think of an -iums that I use apart from premiums,
and I can't promise I never use premia. Maybe nasturtiums.

> Some years ago I encountered a choirmaster who addressed the female
> choristors as "alti" and "soprani", which still strikes me as one of
> the silliest examples of this I've come across. It's like hearing
> someone in Starbucks and asking "two cappuccini".

But -o -> -i isn't well established in English, unlike -ium -> -ia,
so I think this is bit of an A2O comparison.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On 2024-03-26 07:59:50 +0000, Phil Carmody said:

> HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>> On 22 Mar 2024, Hibou wrote
>>> Le 22/03/2024 à 02:11, Sn!pe a écrit :
>>>> In English, which is correct:
>>>>
>>>> 'forums' or 'fora'; 'viruses', 'viri', "virii" (hoho) or 'vira'
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> I quite like 'fora', but I wouldn't say it to a dustman.
>>
>> I quite like knowing such plurals, but never mind dustmen -- I wouldn't
>> say "fora" anywhere in public. Sometimes, knowing something is fine,
>> while using it is tooth-grindingly pretentious.
>
> I can't see it as pretentious. I grew up surrounded by them, they were
> the norm, all I'm pretending to be is normal. I, all the time, use
> almost all -ia: millennia,

OK

> stadia, podia, auditoria, clostridia,

I wouldn't use any of those.

> labia. I can barely think of an -iums that I use apart from premiums,
> and I can't promise I never use premia. Maybe nasturtiums.

Nasturtia is good if you want to sound really pretentious. I would use
it only in a context where it was obviously facetious.
>
>> Some years ago I encountered a choirmaster who addressed the female
>> choristors as "alti" and "soprani", which still strikes me as one of
>> the silliest examples of this I've come across. It's like hearing
>> someone in Starbucks and asking "two cappuccini".
>
> But -o -> -i isn't well established in English, unlike -ium -> -ia,
> so I think this is bit of an A2O comparison.
>
> Phil

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, at 18:27:12, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:
>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>> "Viruses." "Virii" and "vira" are wrong both in Latin and English.
>>> "Viri" should be the Latin plural, but I believe there are no examples
>>> of its having been used.
>>
>> My recollection is that virus was 3rd declension, but I haven't managed
>> to confirm that.
>
>My recollection says the same. I seem to remember that there were three
>mass words: virus, pelagus and vulgus - all with no classical plural.
>
Late to this game - but virus is second declension in that it forms its
genitive in -i.

Most second declension nouns in -us are masculine, but virus is
exceptional, being neuter. I've two Latin dictionaries or word-lists and
they agree with each other on this: virus, -i, (nt).

The few second declension nouns in -um (nominative case) are neuter and
form their plurals in -a, so I suppose that anyone wanting to coin a
plural of virus might take the plurals of the neuter -um nouns as
precedent. Maybe there aren't any other second declension neuter nouns
in -us with known plurals.
--
Paul W

HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
> FWIW, a plural that I consciously switched to in the last couple of
> decades is "memorandums". Although I liked "memoranda", I felt that
> the word is sufficiently naturalised that it was time to use the
> plural formed as one usually does for English words.

I would say that the -a ending is sufficiently naturalised, and that one
usually pluralises -um words -a. Even the sheep and the oxen are smart
enough to see that the simple rule you think exists doesn't.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On 26/03/24 23:18, Phil Carmody wrote:
> HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:

>> FWIW, a plural that I consciously switched to in the last couple
>> of decades is "memorandums". Although I liked "memoranda", I felt
>> that the word is sufficiently naturalised that it was time to use
>> the plural formed as one usually does for English words.
>
> I would say that the -a ending is sufficiently naturalised, and that
> one usually pluralises -um words -a. Even the sheep and the oxen are
> smart enough to see that the simple rule you think exists doesn't.

The sheeps and the oxes understand that you should say "datums", not
"data". "Mediums", not "media".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-03-26, lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-03-24 10:13, Janet wrote:
>> In article <XnsB13F6CE6943E8whhvans@135.181.20.170>,
>> office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>>>
>>> On 22 Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet wrote
>>>
>>>> On 22-Mar-24 19:20, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Friedman:
>>>>>> I suppose that's like AmFFE (American Fast Food English) "a fry"
>>>>>> for a serving of French fries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess this one is Jerry's domain, but to me "a fry" only means
>>>>> one of the pieces of fried potato that make up that serving.
>>>>
>>>> But if you're in the business of delivering food to customers, and
>>>> the smallest unit you handle is 'one serving', I think 'a fry'
>>>> might be acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. In the real world, they're chips, not fries.
>>>
>>> Unless you're talking about "lamb's fry" (pan-fried lamb innards,
>>> usually liver).
>>
>> Or "small fry" which is very tiny baby fish.
>>
>> "smalls" are underwear.
>
> Or "smells" in some cases.

"He who smelt it dealt it."

--
In Fortran, GOD is REAL (unless declared INTEGER).

On 2024-03-26, Phil Carmody wrote:

> HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>> On 22 Mar 2024, Hibou wrote
>>> Le 22/03/2024 à 02:11, Sn!pe a écrit :
>>>> In English, which is correct:
>>>>
>>>> 'forums' or 'fora'; 'viruses', 'viri', "virii" (hoho) or 'vira'
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> I quite like 'fora', but I wouldn't say it to a dustman.
>>
>> I quite like knowing such plurals, but never mind dustmen -- I wouldn't
>> say "fora" anywhere in public. Sometimes, knowing something is fine,
>> while using it is tooth-grindingly pretentious.
>
> I can't see it as pretentious. I grew up surrounded by them, they were
> the norm, all I'm pretending to be is normal. I, all the time, use
> almost all -ia: millennia, stadia, podia, auditoria, clostridia,
> labia. I can barely think of an -iums that I use apart from premiums,
> and I can't promise I never use premia. Maybe nasturtiums.

I'd only use "stadia" for the lines in the obsolete surveying
technique, or for facetiousness.

I think the plural "labia" is well-known, however.

>
>> Some years ago I encountered a choirmaster who addressed the female
>> choristors as "alti" and "soprani", which still strikes me as one of
>> the silliest examples of this I've come across. It's like hearing
>> someone in Starbucks and asking "two cappuccini".
>
> But -o -> -i isn't well established in English, unlike -ium -> -ia,
> so I think this is bit of an A2O comparison.
>
> Phil

--
Animals are fine, but their acceptability is limited. A small child
is even better, but not nearly as effective as the right kind of
adult. (Lord Summerisle)

On 2024-03-26, Paul Wolff wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, at 18:27:12, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:
>>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>>> "Viruses." "Virii" and "vira" are wrong both in Latin and English.
>>>> "Viri" should be the Latin plural, but I believe there are no examples
>>>> of its having been used.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that virus was 3rd declension, but I haven't managed
>>> to confirm that.
>>
>>My recollection says the same. I seem to remember that there were three
>>mass words: virus, pelagus and vulgus - all with no classical plural.
>>
> Late to this game - but virus is second declension in that it forms its
> genitive in -i.
>
> Most second declension nouns in -us are masculine, but virus is
> exceptional, being neuter. I've two Latin dictionaries or word-lists and
> they agree with each other on this: virus, -i, (nt).

I just checked a treeware dictionary and got the same answer (& the
definition "slime; poison; stench"), so I'm not sure where I got the
incorrect idea (which I unfortunately posted recently) that it was 4th
declension.

> The few second declension nouns in -um (nominative case) are neuter and
> form their plurals in -a, so I suppose that anyone wanting to coin a
> plural of virus might take the plurals of the neuter -um nouns as
> precedent. Maybe there aren't any other second declension neuter nouns
> in -us with known plurals.

--
I don't care if you think the earth is flat.
--Gene Simmons

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, at 14:36:29, Adam Funk posted:
>On 2024-03-26, Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, at 18:27:12, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:
>>>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Viruses." "Virii" and "vira" are wrong both in Latin and English.
>>>>> "Viri" should be the Latin plural, but I believe there are no examples
>>>>> of its having been used.
>>>>
>>>> My recollection is that virus was 3rd declension, but I haven't managed
>>>> to confirm that.
>>>
>>>My recollection says the same. I seem to remember that there were three
>>>mass words: virus, pelagus and vulgus - all with no classical plural.
>>>
>> Late to this game - but virus is second declension in that it forms its
>> genitive in -i.
>>
>> Most second declension nouns in -us are masculine, but virus is
>> exceptional, being neuter. I've two Latin dictionaries or word-lists and
>> they agree with each other on this: virus, -i, (nt).
>
>I just checked a treeware dictionary and got the same answer (& the
>definition "slime; poison; stench"),

"Salt taste" too, apparently. I wonder what we could make of people
sprinkling virus on their boiled eggs as they eat.

> so I'm not sure where I got the
>incorrect idea (which I unfortunately posted recently) that it was 4th
>declension.
>
>> The few second declension nouns in -um (nominative case) are neuter and
>> form their plurals in -a, so I suppose that anyone wanting to coin a
>> plural of virus might take the plurals of the neuter -um nouns as
>> precedent. Maybe there aren't any other second declension neuter nouns
>> in -us with known plurals.
--
Paul W

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> I think the plural "labia" is well-known, however.

Is that the genitive?

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon has full confidence in our political masters.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:19:06 +0000
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the plural "labia" is well-known, however.
>
> Is that the genitive?
>
<Like>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 2024-03-26 14:19, Sn!pe wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the plural "labia" is well-known, however.
>
> Is that the genitive?
>

Genius!

--
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.

On 2024-03-26, Paul Wolff wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, at 14:36:29, Adam Funk posted:
>>On 2024-03-26, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, at 18:27:12, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:
>>>>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Viruses." "Virii" and "vira" are wrong both in Latin and English.
>>>>>> "Viri" should be the Latin plural, but I believe there are no examples
>>>>>> of its having been used.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recollection is that virus was 3rd declension, but I haven't managed
>>>>> to confirm that.
>>>>
>>>>My recollection says the same. I seem to remember that there were three
>>>>mass words: virus, pelagus and vulgus - all with no classical plural.
>>>>
>>> Late to this game - but virus is second declension in that it forms its
>>> genitive in -i.
>>>
>>> Most second declension nouns in -us are masculine, but virus is
>>> exceptional, being neuter. I've two Latin dictionaries or word-lists and
>>> they agree with each other on this: virus, -i, (nt).
>>
>>I just checked a treeware dictionary and got the same answer (& the
>>definition "slime; poison; stench"),
>
> "Salt taste" too, apparently. I wonder what we could make of people
> sprinkling virus on their boiled eggs as they eat.

I didn't know that --- it's bizarre because salt was highly valued.

>> so I'm not sure where I got the
>>incorrect idea (which I unfortunately posted recently) that it was 4th
>>declension.
>>
>>> The few second declension nouns in -um (nominative case) are neuter and
>>> form their plurals in -a, so I suppose that anyone wanting to coin a
>>> plural of virus might take the plurals of the neuter -um nouns as
>>> precedent. Maybe there aren't any other second declension neuter nouns
>>> in -us with known plurals.

--
One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and
'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice
drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure'
quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. ---George Orwell