Earlier quoted context omitted.
just because something is intelligent is no reason not to eat it imho
This is an honest question, I'm not making a joke. Why shouldn't we eat _you_ then?
prion disease shudders
Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
141–150 of 277 posts
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#142Disneyfication of octopuses. In that video you'll see, exactly anything that you want to see.
Would justify perfectly an: "in the video the octopus is seen trying to avoid being stolen its food by all the other fishes", that is the same behavior that you'll see if you break a crab or an urchin underwater. Many coastal fishes from rocky bottoms will come to steal any food scrap available. They don't cooperate with other fishes on any way.
Or maybe they are playing "rock, paper, tentacle", but to me the message more probable here is "this is my food, go away". If you look the video carefully the fishes seem trying to swim near the mouth of the octopus, where the probability of stealing a scrape is higher.
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#143Audio found? https://youtu.be/sAoiwGjBmZs
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#144aside: me after reading the headline: Shouldn't that be Octopii? But no! "The plural form octopii is doubly incorrect. Firstly, octopus derives from Greek, not Latin; its etymologically-consistent plural form is octopodes. Secondly, even if octopus were a second-declension Latin noun, the plural form would be octopi; in the correct plurals radii and gladii, with which octopii is analogous, the first ‘i’s are part of…
While I'm all for a history lesson (and the double-I octopii is indeed simply incorrect) I take issue with anyone insisting that "octopi" is wrong: 1. Language is neither static nor a series of rules to be blindly followed. The way a word was pluralized 1400 years ago has limited relevance today. 2. As noted just about everywhere, "octopodes" looks insane in any modern English sentence because we don't pluralize any…
[deleted]
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best plural is simply keeping the word the same as the singular. I.e. "octopus". There are many animals using this form, e.g. fish, deer, elk, salmon, buffalo. E.g. Look at all those octopus. All the divers I know say it this way, easy to say, understand, doesn't make you sound like an asshole.
This is what I would say. It does beg the question though, how’d we come up with the list of animals to pluralize like that? Why “five birds” but not “five deers?”
I think it was done just to make it harder for those languages that do not have a concept of plural. Of course I'm kidding, but it has to be super frustrating trying to learn it as ESL.
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#146aside: me after reading the headline: Shouldn't that be Octopii? But no! "The plural form octopii is doubly incorrect. Firstly, octopus derives from Greek, not Latin; its etymologically-consistent plural form is octopodes. Secondly, even if octopus were a second-declension Latin noun, the plural form would be octopi; in the correct plurals radii and gladii, with which octopii is analogous, the first ‘i’s are part of…
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
It goes deeper than that! According to wikipedia, the tentacles, or appendages, are indeed called "arms", but they evolved from what in other molluscs is called a "foot"!
Deeper still, one of those arms on males contains their sexual organs call the hectocotylus.
[deleted]
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#148aside: me after reading the headline: Shouldn't that be Octopii? But no! "The plural form octopii is doubly incorrect. Firstly, octopus derives from Greek, not Latin; its etymologically-consistent plural form is octopodes. Secondly, even if octopus were a second-declension Latin noun, the plural form would be octopi; in the correct plurals radii and gladii, with which octopii is analogous, the first ‘i’s are part of…
So the plural of virus, if it wouldn't have been viruses, would be viri, not virii? I think for octopus I'd have intuitively thought octopi, but for virus I'd have thought virii.
The plural of the Latin virus is vira (second declension etc etc). However viri means "men"
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm all for a history lesson (and the double-I octopii is indeed simply incorrect) I take issue with anyone insisting that "octopi" is wrong: 1. Language is neither static nor a series of rules to be blindly followed. The way a word was pluralized 1400 years ago has limited relevance today. 2. As noted just about everywhere, "octopodes" looks insane in any modern English sentence because we don't pluralize any…
> Language is neither static nor a series of rules to be blindly followed. It's also not open to arbitrary subjective opinion. There are rules, this is not 'Nam. :) Languages evolve, but you can't just claim something is correct because you think so or you'd love it to be so. It's incorrect in English language, today. Maybe in the future, when more people start using the plural "octopi", it will be correct. Fun fact:…
> Maybe in the future, when more people start using the plural "octopi", it will be correct.
The future is now. "Octopi" is considered the correct plural by a significant plurality of US adults, and a plurality of all age groups.
Re: Octopuses seen hunting together with fish
#150I used to love eating octopus, but since I've learned so much about their intelligence, I have not been able to bring myself to do so, anymore. I have the luxury of choice. There are many, in this world, that do not.
I know enough people who have made this exact same choice (myself included) for this to have its own name. Octoparian?