Apparatuses and Apparatus are both correct for plurals, why no Apparati? Does it come from a 4th declension noun in Latin, not a 2nd declension? Or just because?
Thanks.
Because it is English not Latin and therefore takes an English plural.
This was what was there, and was further down in the list. It makes sense to move the oldest and most general defintion to the top. Yes?
I went through this as a first iteration of revising the older usage:
I comment here because, well, the word is almost never used this way and I don't have a lot of experience with it.
--kop 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I had a look at the IPA pronunciations given for English, and the "rare" pronunciation /æ.pəˈɹæ.təs/ is actually the only one that I've heard. Perhaps more convincingly, it's also the closest match to the US recording given, where the vowels are clearly low-front, schwa, low-front, schwa. Seems to me like that pronunciation should have the "rare" notation removed from it, since it seems to be the prevalent one in the US. Anyone else? - 169.233.49.156 05:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Since one of the plural forms of the word is the same as the singular, I think this should be added to the Invariant Nouns category here: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:English_invariant_nouns . I don't know how to do this though, editing Wikis is not something I know how to do.
Apparatus is often treated as a uncountable noun: one apparatus, two pieces of apparatus --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)