🔬 Phage or Phages

Bacteriophage Ecology Group News (BEG News) was published mostly quarterly as an online newsletter for a total of 24 issues, July 1999 through April 2005. As follows is a reprint of an article from Volume 14. The newsletter’s successors are the ongoing Phage.org website, phage-therapy.org, and the Bacteriophage Ecology Group Facebook page.

by Hans-Wolfgang Ackermann During the last 50 years the terms "bacteriophage" and "phage" had a plural in the English-language scientific literature. As usual, it was indicated by -s: bacteriophages, phages. Similar plurals exist in other major scientific languages such as German, French, and Russian. Japanese is an exception because it has no plurals.

This happy situation seems to be over. Suddenly one notices in recent papers or manuscripts that some authors are using "bacteriophage" and "phage" as invariable nouns: one bacteriophage, two bacteriophage rather than one bacteriophage, two bacteriophages . These authors are generally raw newcomers to the field of virology. Where did they get their terminology from? What is correct? Presumably not from dictionaries or usage books. Dictionaries use singular forms of nouns and do not indicate plurals. Usage books do not even mention "bacteriophage" and "phage."

We love (or hate) bacterial viruses. We owe them our salaries and livelihood. We write papers on them (or are supposed to). We should strive to use optimal language. We thus should give the matter some thought. To do this, we shall go back to the history of the terms "bacteriophage" and "phage" and seek help in the books of Raettig [9, 10], which are indispensable guides to the older literature.

The terms "bacteriophage" and "phage" were coined by Félix d'Hérelle in 1918 [6]. He believed that there was only one bacteriophage with many races (hence no need for a plural) though he was convinced of the corpuscular, viral nature of his agents (which, of course, would suggest a need). d'Hérelle's ideas and terminology became widely known and almost universally accepted, partly because his two most important books were translated into English in 1922 and 1926, respectively [7, 8]. However, already in 1923 an outsider put the word "bacteriophage" into plural [5].

The plural form was truly introduced in 1929, when Burnet and McKie [1] proved that viruses of staphylococci were indeed heterogeneous and could not be considered as a single entity. By the fifties the plural form became generalized, for example in the publications of Delbrück, Dulbecco, Elford, Jacob, Luria, Lwoff, Nicolle, Ruska, and Wyckoff. Some people, using "bacteriophage" as variable or invariable nouns in different papers, had it both ways. In the sixties, the variable form (one bacteriophage, two bacteriophages) was almost universally accepted, although use of the singular form (two bacteriophage) lingered on.

Now, after 50 years of relative peace, the old invariable form is returning to the literature. We now have two usages: Bacteriophage(s) and phage(s). The noun is variable. The singular denotes an individual virus particle, a phage species, or a phage strain. The plural designates a population of phage particles, several phage species or strains, and the sum of all bacterial viruses: two types of phages or the sum of all phages. Bacteriophage and phage. The noun is invariable. Singulars and plurals are indicated by pronouns or modifiers (it, this, these, few) and verb forms: these phage, those phage, and a few phage as well as two phage and the sum of all phages, rather than "phages" for each of the above examples. Differentiation is generally impossible in the past tense. Invariable nouns are infrequent in the English language and fall into several categories [2, 3, 4]. Nouns used only in the singular (e.g., physics). Nouns used only in the plural (e.g., clothes or arms). Nouns used in the singular or plural according to context: Collective or groups nouns, in which the singular form (without terminal -s) can take either a singular or plural verb (army, committee, family, majority). The choice depends on whether the group is considered as a single unit or a collection of individuals [2]. Oddities without plural endings (e.g., sheep, aircraft, offspring, series, species, French, Japanese, Swiss). Ethnic names with facultative -s terminals (e.g., Haussa, Yoruba). The choice depends on the whim of the writer. Pidgins (e.g., "two book are" in Jamaican Creole) [4]. The invariable variety of the noun "bacteriophage" originated as a term without a plural and then became a group name. It is thus grammatically correct to say "bacteriophage is" and "bacteriophage was." The question is rather: is there any advantage to this? I see only one, of sorts, that it recalls an old misinterpretation. The disadvantages are many. In particular, invariable nouns are: Relatively unusual. Relatively rigid and unclear; indeed, they promote muddled writing. Unwarranted and generally useless if there are plurals in good standing. In particular, "the bacteriophages" is an excellent collective name and there is no need for an invariable form. Virtually nonexistent elsewhere in microbiology. I noticed indeed a title in an old paper that read "destruction of bacterial virus", but this would be inacceptable today. Reminiscent of Pidgin English. Finally, the invariable term "bacteriophage" is at variance with the use of this word in other scientific languages and the use of "-phage" in related compound words (e.g., anthropophage, macrophage, sarcophage). Thus, I do not understand when the old invariable term was resurrected and I side, definitely, in favor of pluralization and "bacteriophages and phages."

REFERENCES Burnet, F.M., McKie, M. 1929. Type differences amongst staphylococcal bacteriophages. Austr. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 6, 21. Chalker, S., Weiner, E. 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 69, 180, 301. Clark, J.O.E. 1990. Harrap's Dictionary of English Usage. Harrap, London, p. 317. Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 200. Doerr, R. 1922. Die Bakteriophagen (Phänomen von Twort und d'Hérelle). Klin. Wschr. 1922, 1489 and 1537. d'Hérelle, F. 1918. Sur le rôle du microbe filtrant bacteriophage dans la dysenterie bacillaire. C.R. Acad. Sci. 167, 970. d'Hérelle, F. 1922. The bacteriophage; its role in immunity. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. d'Hérelle, F. 1926. The bacteriophage and its behavior. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. Raettig, H. 1958. Bakteriophagie 1917 bis 1956, part II. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Raettig, H. 1968. Bakteriophagie 1957-1965, part II. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Editor's Note: Though I will make no claims to consistency, nevertheless when in doubt I substitute "horse" for "phage" in my writing. If the resulting construct seems to call for "horses" rather than "horse," then I use "phages" rather than "phage," i.e., one horse, two horses, many horses, those horses, etc.

Hans-Wolfgang Ackermann
Félix d'Hérelle Reference Center for Bacterial Viruses, Laval University, Québec, Canada

See Also

RELATED TAKES LINKS

References