Jeremy wrote:
I think it's an oxymoron though (except for when talking about the footbag move) because "nemesis" is defined as the arch or ultimate enemy, so can you have more than one nemesis?
Let's say A,B,C,D,F,X and Y are members of a community.
A's nemesis is B.
B's nemesis is F.
C's nemesis is X.
D's nemesis is Y.
Can you give me a list of various players' nemeses in this community?
Jeremy wrote:
I think it's an oxymoron though (except for when talking about the footbag move) because "nemesis" is defined as the arch or ultimate enemy, so can you have more than one nemesis?
Let's say A,B,C,D,F,X and Y are members of a community.
A's nemesis is B.
B's nemesis is F.
C's nemesis is X.
D's nemesis is Y.
Can you give me a list of various players' nemeses in this community?
Sure, but is that a usage that has ever occurred before the 20th century? When you look at the usage of the word in literature, I doubt that it's ever been used where a plural would be necessary.
I wonder if the ancient greek people were discussing about how to say nemessis b2b or at least bsos ;)
So my point is:
Footbag people are more clever than ancient greek people. Footbag wins.
@discussion
In my opinion plural form of nemesis... doesn't exist since as Jeremy said Nemesis is a character from a Greek Mythology. It was only one Nemesis. There wasn't second, third etc. Nemesis was a daughter of Zeus, Zeus wasn't dumb and didn't call every daughter Nemesis, he was kinda creative with names if you look deeper into gods and half-gods (this guy had his own hangover on Earth couple times, so half-gods as Hercules were common thing). So he never called: Hey you two Nemesii or Nemeses or whatever, because there was no second Nemesis. So plural form of Nemesis is kind of gramatical profanation ;)
Of course I do not attack anyone. I actually didn't even paid attention to title. I read it once and I thought it's probably form of word Nemesis but in finnish language. For example in polish we have different forms for foreign words, names, it all depends on context.
Lets take a name. Anssi.
I know Anssi. In polish: Znam Anssiego.
I propsed to Anssi. In polish: Dalem propsa Anssiemu.
So I don't see anything wrong with word Nemesii (in polish we say Nemezisy for plural, but we never write it it's just a speaking language).
So to sum it up:
In my opinion plural from of Nemesis doesn't exist. We create in our own languages because we called a trick like that and we imply need plural form. Greek people, history teachers don't need em, so it simply does not exist for them.
Also it's ok to create plurals in our languages, but I wouldn't use them on a paper. They are just to make it simplier with our own mother grammar, common behaviour if you look in past. For example you know word 'Kielbasa' and I believe you say 'Kielbasas' if you mean plural. Well this word is polish and I know since childhood that plural form is Kielbasy, but I know since you use it, it wouldnt make sense with your grammar. That's why I think we shouldn't take it too serious if someone uses a plural form to make it easier in his grammar ;)
I think what is being overlooked over here is that Nemesis has been appropriated into another context. In my opinion, it can be treated like a common name. This isn't Greek, this is footbag.
In my opinion plural form of nemesis... doesn't exist since as Jeremy said Nemesis is a character from a Greek Mythology. It was only one Nemesis.
As Ian quite correctly points out, although the origin of the word "nemesis" comes from a Greek proper name (which referred to one person, and was capitalized), it has evolved in meaning in the English language. It's most commonly accepted meaning today is "arch enemy." Therefore it is completely irrelevant if the original person's name couldn't be pluralized, but rather the fact that the concept "arch enemy" can be pluralized. As my example at the top of this page shows, it can. My last post also included a citation from a dictionary showing that the pluralized form is also a legitimate word.
This isn't up for debate.
Back on topic: this is a great video, and frankly I agree with Anssi that Jay and Anz can call it whatever they like.
I guess it depends on how much of a purist you are perhaps. "Arch enemy" as a definition is very simplified, and I think a consequence of extend poetic licence in the 20th Century (and perhaps earlier). I agree, and have never disagreed that today there are plurals of it, although it's worth noting that there is no formal system for creating and defining words, and things that are considered words by some dictionaries are always "up for debate" (in fact some debates about dictionary words are far more volatile than anything that's been seen on modified).
The more pure, non proper noun, sense of the word "nemesis" is really more like "the arch enemy," rather than "an arch enemy." Indeed "arch enemy" really suggests that there is only one as well. Of course it's entirely possible to have gramatically correct oxymorons. A great example is with calling the person at the top of a ranking system (such as tennis etc.) the "number 1" but then when two people are equal saying "there are two number 1s." Completely correct in this context, but still a contradiction. "Oxymoron" doesn't mean "wrong," it just means that there is an apparent contradiction. "Nemesis" really implies inevitable downfall as well. So the idea of being able to beat your nemesis is very modern and contradicts the original meaning of the word.
Obviously when I said; "except for talking about footbag moves," I was accepting that any word, when appropriated as a noun for something else, can be pluralised. So every footbag move name has a plural, and indeed if you named a move "sheep" I think it would be more correct to pluralise it and say; "I hit 45 consecutive sheeps" rather than go with the convention regarding the plural of that particular woolly ruminant, because the footbag usage of the word is really a completely different word, and you should use normal plural conventions, rather than following old dead language specific conventions.
I'm not, or at least trying not to, make any judgements about what you should say. If you want to use nemesis to refer to every enemy you have, that's fine. Words are obviously fluid, and ungoverned. I had a curiosity about this topic to begin with, but now I regret getting involved, and find discussion tedious and combative.
Edit; Sorry, one more thing about oxymorons, a much better example would be if somebody said: "I have a really small big toe." That statement could be completely factually and grammatically correct, and still an oxymoron. "Oxymoron" is not a judgement, but rather just indicating some kind of apparent contradiction. Me calling "nemeses" an oxymoron was not saying that the word can't or shouldn't exist, it was saying that if you have a traditional definition of the word, suggesting more than one nemesis is a contradiction. Given how prevalent the concept is in classical literature, no doubt a meta discussion of that literature would involve talking about multiple nemesisodes.
