Renaming "Tulpa" (and other tulpa terminologies)

[Raetin]

tulpa is singular and tulpae is plural. I tend to use tulpas though, for plural use.

[Guest Anonymous]

Tulpae started out when one of the original guide makers thought it sounded cool. He proceeded to use it in his guides and it caught on from there. That's really it. Tulpas is the proper pluralization in everything grammar related. The usage of tulpae has decreased significantly of late, with only a few members still using it.

[Guest Riy]

I swear I'm not retarded. Okay, I might be. But that's not the point. What's the difference?

 

Grammatically the plural form of tulpa is tulpas.

Tulpae came out in guides and "academia" I'm sure because they thought they could get away with it by twisting the word. Much like the word "Algae" is both singular and plural.

 

It's tulpas.

[Linkzelda]

Tulpas. When I first found out about tulpa in the DreamViews Tulpa IRC in October 2012, I saw some people mix around tulpae and tulpas. I just happened to pick tulpae at the time before going back to tulpas again because it was the word that seemed to be used a lot.

 

Same with tulpaforging, but saying that quickly faded away.

[Sands]

You never slap a Latin plural on a Tibetan word. The rumor even is it was done as a test to see how stupid people were and how easily they'd use a stupid word because some cool person used it. But I don't have any proof of that, you should ask the people who know better.

 

Also no, algae is always a plural. I can see some people using it wrong as there's plenty of people who try to sound smart and write "tulpae" when they should write "tulpa". If they tried it with "tulpas", I'm sure they'd notice that it's just plain wrong. Maybe that's the thing with algae. The singular is alga, by the way. Also it actually is Latin so a Latin plural is correct. It has nothing to do with the stupid plural that is "tulpae".

 

ps only correct plural for tulpa is tupperware

[Yori]

I prefer the plural "tulpa."

 

 

 

How many fucking times do we have to do this. The community has nothing to do with the word which already has the plural tulpas for it. The word is not new and none of us invented it. Slapping Latin plurals on words that aren't Latin is retarded.

 

I can't find "tulpas" or "tulpae" as the set plural in any dictionary, but I can find "tulpa" in one dictionary. The other supposedly praised dictionaries don't even acknowledge the word tulpa. If I'm mistaken, and you did confirm that "tulpas" was the standard set dictionary plural for yourself, then I'd like to know what the name of the dictionary is.

 

 

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word tulpa does not exist.

In the Collin's Websters American English dictionary, the word tulpa does not exist. In the Longman dictionary, the word tulpa does not exist. In the Oxford dictionar, the word tulpa does not exist. At "Dictionary.com", the word tulpa is there, but not its plural.

 

If you were simply saying that if it were in the dictionary, the plural would be "tulpas," that isn't set. Not all plural words in English follow the rules. And for some words, the plural from the original language is followed. So really, one can't say that the plural is already set. I don't see a reason to go along with the plural you've chosen as if the general English-speaking population has chosen a plural for it. Yes, I know, some say that you go by the dictionary, and not what the English-speaking population decides to say, but that doesn't really apply here since it's not an official word.

---

No? Plural for focus. It's pretty gay.

 

Hey, in calculus, "foci" is the word. That's just English... it doesn't always follow rules. And in this case, my grad year has been told that certain words and in -i, like cacti, etc, as if it were a rule. If I were to make everything follow the rules in English class, I'd just get marks off. You don't have to try to correct our dictionaries.

---

I see later he said you never slap a Latin plural onto a Tibetan word. I figure this would have to go for any type of plural except Tibetan. So was he trolling earlier or what?...

[Sands]

Yori being Yori again, huh?

[left blank]

Yes, I know, some say that you go by the dictionary, and not what the English-speaking population decides to say, but that doesn't really apply here since it's not an official word.

 

It's not an accepted English noun, but the plural "tulpas" has been established for decades. You can find it being used on Wikipedia, and there's an entry for it in the Wiktionary.

[Yori]

Are you being serious? The fact that the plural tulpas is used on wikipedia and on any other wiki doesn't mean that's "the plural" now. It just means that the person who wrote it prefers tulpas or just naturally put an S at the end. Some people say deers. Doesn't make it right.

[left blank]

Are you being serious? The fact that the plural tulpas is used on wikipedia and on any other wiki doesn't mean that's "the plural" now. It just means that the person who wrote it prefers tulpas or just naturally put an S at the end. Some people say deers. Doesn't make it right.

 

I'm being dead serious when I say 'tulpa' and 'tulpas' have both been employed for decades, including mainstream media references. They're simplistic and established plural forms of the singular noun. Due to 'tulpa's' obvious current non-standard English status, the most common usage is about as "right" as you can get.

 

"Tulpae," on the other hand, is a completely new and a relatively isolated invention. In my opinion, it's also a totally unnecessary perversion, when the existing words 'tulpa' and 'tulpas' are perfectly adequate.

 

With or without the actual Wikipedia article (which no one is contesting, apparently), its inclusion as a word in the Wiktionary is proof enough to me that majority rules on the matter. Although I guess it's just a matter of time before someone tries to insert the internet-born(e) neologism as a legitimate entry.

 

This is a good case of "leave well enough alone".