I saw this word somewhere, but it didn't make any sense to me, because the word "surplus" already means in excess/something that's plural.
2006-11-16 17:28:35 · 5 answers · asked by tha bay where we hyphy & go dumb 3 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
I would agree with you; the word by its very nature is plural. It's ridiculous to try to make it more so. Perhaps if you were threatened or heavily bribed, you *might* be able to make the word redundantly plural.
How, then, should you go about this distasteful task? I would suggest looking at the etymology of the word. "Surplus" comes from several sources. I chose to look at the Latin roots: "super" (meaning "over") + "plus" (meaning "more"). After some contemplation of the problem, I at last came to one conclusion--the only possible one, I believe, considering the Latin. For of course, the only logical pluralization of surplus...is "surpli."
2006-11-16 17:44:20 · answer #1 · answered by The Clumsy Ninja 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what happens if you have a surplus in several different areas? For example, if you have a surplus of apples and a surplus of love? Then you can be happy that you have these surpluses.
2006-11-17 01:37:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Surplus is not plural but an indefinite amount kind of like water. Thats why you can't make it plural.
2006-11-17 01:43:19 · answer #3 · answered by mj_indigo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no mate its not a real world n u r right surplus is used as prural itself.....
2006-11-17 01:35:08 · answer #4 · answered by farukhbeyg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe there is such a word.
2006-11-17 01:35:23 · answer #5 · answered by Saffren 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋