NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok now this is a question that has puzzled me over the past few days, what is the plural of status?

I have been using stati simply because of other examples where a "-us" is used then the plural will be to have an "-i" but then again I only use it because it sounds better than statuses which just sounds bastardised and possibly even American, but then using stati sounds bastardised too.

It has been suggested to me that status is simply the plural as well just like sheep.

So since we have a few grammar Nazi's around here perhaps they can give me the right answer as well as a detailed explanation.

And so to can anyone else really.

m-w.com sez "statuses".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/status

Just add another I to it so it becomes Statii and sounds like the last name of a roman family. Then you sound really smart.

Yes I am aware of that Kat, but I have seen another dictonray simply say status in reagrds to British English and statuses is the correct term for American English

"Statuses" is what I've always heard.

Well, perhaps a look at OED, then?


http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/4657-plural-word-status-2.html
http://www.btb.gc.ca/btb.php?lang=eng&cont=1117 Does this help?

The -i plural suffix is grossly misused. The plural of octopus is octopuses (or octipodes), not octopi; the plural of cactus is cactuses. The -i plural is only applicable to nominative, Latin second declension, plural, masculine nouns. It's a very, very small subset of words.

Well, perhaps a look at OED, then?


http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/4657-plural-word-status-2.html Does this help?

Indeed, but are there many Latin words that have "-es" when talking about the plural when a word ends in "-us"

Well, perhaps a look at OED, then?


http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/4657-plural-word-status-2.html
http://www.btb.gc.ca/btb.php?lang=eng&cont=1117 Does this help?

Actually yes it does, cheers Kat.

Okay I have to take a stand against the (mis)use of Latin endings! It’s stupid and unnecessary. We speak English, not Latin; the plural of the noun “status” is “statuses”, “stadium” is “stadiums” and “forum” is “forums”! Declining words using foreign language rules, especially Greek or Latin, is pretentious and the mark of a bad writer. It’s just a lazy way to dress up one’s speech to make it look impressive.

The error is especially egregious when the pseudo-intellectual doing it obviously hasn’t a clue how the word should be declined in the foreign language in the first place, which would obviously be the case if anyone tried to pass off “stati” [sic] as Latin.

For “alumnus” you can use “alumni”. It’s correct in Latin but, more importantly, it’s correct in English, which is what we speak.

Okay I have to take a stand against the (mis)use of Latin endings! It’s stupid and unnecessary. We speak English, not Latin; the plural of the noun “status” is “statuses”, “stadium” is “stadiums” and “forum” is “forums”! Declining words using foreign language rules, especially Greek or Latin, is pretentious and the mark of a bad writer. It’s just a lazy way to dress up one’s speech to make it look impressive.

The error is especially egregious when the pseudo-intellectual doing it obviously hasn’t a clue how the word should be declined in the foreign language in the first place, which would obviously be the case if anyone tried to pass off “stati” [sic] as Latin.

As a classicist who absolutely loves Latin and can read it fluently, I must say: THANK YOU! Nothing is more frustrating than the attempt to use features of inflected languages in positional languages.

English grammar is mostly Germanic, and its vocabulary is a mix of Germanic and French. What Latin influence there is on English is indirect, and its influence on English morphology is almost nil.

That said, "stadia" is appropriate when it is referring to the ancient unit of measurement, but not when used to refer to multiple physical facilities for public presentations, as it is (ab)used by many sports RPers on the RP boards. Similarly, "fora" is appropriate when used to refer to the actual physical gathering places that existed in antiquity, but not for modern Internet message boards or even for modern gathering places that serve the same purpose as those of old.

I would suggest that the OP has his prioritie's out of order anyway, as he clearly has problem's with the misuse of apostrophe's to create plural's--a much more fundamental problem.

the plural of cactus is cactuses.

You're right about "octopi" (the -pus of which comes from the Greek for "foot"), but I'm fairly sure "cacti" is acceptable--both in any English dictionary and as a matter of Latin grammar.

The error is especially egregious when the pseudo-intellectual doing it obviously hasn’t a clue how the word should be declined in the foreign language in the first place, which would obviously be the case if anyone tried to pass off “stati” [sic] as Latin.

I find "penii" and its varieties most hilarious.

For “alumnus” you can use “alumni”. It’s correct in Latin but, more importantly, it’s correct in English, which is what we speak.

By this standard, which amounts to "common usage", you'd have to go with "cacti" and even "octopi" (!) too. What do you think of "cherubim"?

I find "penii" and its varieties most hilarious.
That and little gems like “viri” [sic] make me die a little inside.

By this standard, which amounts to "common usage"-
Actually, a preference for pluralisation according to the intuitive English rules for regular nouns (ie, endings in –s or –es) unless those forms don’t exist in English usage.

-you'd have to go with "cacti" and even "octopi" (!) too.
Common usage might just get you a pass on “cacti”, but it cannot excuse something barbarous, like forming the English plural of word that comes from Greek according to Latin rules. Incorrect is still incorrect.

What do you think of "cherubim"?
I’d assume you were talking about an order of the celestial hierarchy. If you clarified, I’d accept it for the chubby winged children, but “cherubs” is a lot less pompous.

The -i plural suffix is grossly misused. The plural of octopus is octopuses (or octipodes), not octopi; the plural of cactus is cactuses. The -i plural is only applicable to nominative, Latin second declension, plural, masculine nouns. It's a very, very small subset of words.

Of which cactus is one.

Or, at least, that's what I've been able to glean from a number of exhaustive searches. I could be wrong on this, but ultimately the point is moot. Cactus is pluralized according to the rules of biological nomenclature, and as such cacti is the proper plural.

I am still trying to think of a situation where I would need to use a plural form of status.

I am still trying to think of a situation where I would need to use a plural form of status.


"In this game, you control multiple soldiers at once. you need to keep track of all their statuses to play effectively."

Example given. :)

I am still trying to think of a situation where I would need to use a plural form of status.

<My Final Fantasy character> fought a Malboro and and got inflicted with multiple statuses.

"In this game, you control multiple soldiers at once. you need to keep track of all their statuses to play effectively."

Example given. :)

<My Final Fantasy character> fought a Malboro and and got inflicted with multiple statuses.

Seems to be a common thread of nerdiness here...

I would suggest that the OP has his prioritie's out of order anyway, as he clearly has problem's with the misuse of apostrophe's to create plural's--a much more fundamental problem.

And this is one of the reasons why I was hesitant about asking this question. I knew a few people would jump on here and say "Haha you fucking dumbass you don't know anything and you want to pretend you're smart"

Well how about correcting my mistake and an explanation since you know it all.

I am still trying to think of a situation where I would need to use a plural form of status.

When talking about peoples statuses rather than just a status

Of which cactus is one.

Or, at least, that's what I've been able to glean from a number of exhaustive searches. I could be wrong on this, but ultimately the point is moot. Cactus is pluralized according to the rules of biological nomenclature, and as such cacti is the proper plural.

"Cactus" is Latinised from the Greek "kaktos". You cannot apply Latin plurals to Greek words. Cacti is incorrect. Cactuses isn't.

<My Final Fantasy character> fought a Malboro and and got inflicted with multiple statuses.

Fighting cigarettes? Dude, it's LIGHTING.

"Cactus" is Latinised from the Greek "kaktos". You cannot apply Latin plurals to Greek words. Cacti is incorrect. Cactuses isn't.

Cacti is correct.

"Cactus" is Latinised from the Greek "kaktos". You cannot apply Latin plurals to Greek words. Cacti is incorrect. Cactuses isn't.

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus), both terms are correct. So, no, cacti isn't an incorrect way of referring to it.

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus)

Please do not call Wikipedia "Wiki." It is not the only wiki around; there are literally millions.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative reference.

Please do not call Wikipedia "Wiki." It is not the only wiki around; there are literally millions.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative reference.

If you're to be so anal about it, here's another source.:rolleyes:

And, finally, there are nouns that maintain their Latin or Greek form in the plural. (See media and data and alumni, below.)

more than one nucleus = nuclei
more than one syllabus = syllabi
more than one focus = foci
more than one fungus = fungi
more than one cactus = cacti (cactuses is acceptable)
more than one thesis = theses
more than one crisis = crises*
more than one phenomenon = phenomena
more than one index = indices (indexes is acceptable)
more than one appendix = appendices (appendixes is acceptable)
more than one criterion = criteria

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm

When talking about peoples statuses rather than just a status

In any given context people only have one status as far as I am concerned. So marriage status, social status, alive or dead, are all attributes of a person that have particular values but I am not going to refer to them collectively.

A: I have difficulty believing a community college in Connecticut on matters such as this
B: I wasn't actually disagreeing with the substance of your argument anyway, just with what you were using to back it up. The substance of your argument is correct; you just need to learn research skills beyond "typing it into Google and seeing what comes up." Whatever happened to getting off your ass, going to the library, and opening up a book?
C: Getbrett, your argument is fundamentally flawed. When Latin adopted a word from another language, the sound was adopted for the stem, but it was still regularized to fit the patterns of Latin morphology and inflection. So when it was used in Latin, it adopted endings like any other Latin word--with a language as strongly inflected as Latin, it would have been impossible not to. So, yes, "cacti" is the proper Latin plural of "cactus" in the nominative.

And if that's how the plural passed into English, then "cacti" is the (or at least a) correct plural form. Since English is positional rather than inflected, morphological regularity isn't nearly as important. Most nouns do follow a regular plural form, but some nouns passed to English using the plural form of their original language. While "status," "stadium," and "forum" are not among those, "cactus" and many others are.

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus), both terms are correct. So, no, cacti isn't an incorrect way of referring to it.
Even so, I implore you, appealing to your tender compassion, your very humanity, do not succumb to the temptation to use the Latin form! “Cacti” is the usual plural in scientific discourse, but very few of us are botanists and fewer still should rely on this excuse. In common parlance, stick to English!

There is this insidious, insecure and anti-intellectual perception that Latin or Greek words are more sophisticated than Anglo-Saxon ones. Unless you’re engaged in systematics, “antirrhinums” should always be “snapdragons” and the “slipper flower” should replace the “calceolaria”. Likewise nobody ever tries to maintain that in English the correct plural of a “kindergarten” isn’t “kindergartens”.

Ok now this is a question that has puzzled me over the past few days, what is the plural of status?
Statuses.
So since we have a few grammar Nazi's around here perhaps they can give me the right answer as well as a detailed explanation.
Statuses is the correct answer - but I'm afraid I cannot give you a detailed explanation, unless "My dictionary says so!" counts.
Please do not call Wikipedia "Wiki." It is not the only wiki around; there are literally millions.
Seeing as she not only said "Wiki" but also linked to the Wiktionary entry in question - what's your problem?
Furthermore, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative reference.
Seeing as it's not the only reference given in this thread, and all others agree with wikipedia - again, what's the big deal, eh?
Wiki is as good a source as many others - and more than good enough for NSG, I say!

In any given context people only have one status as far as I am concerned. So marriage status, social status, alive or dead, are all attributes of a person that have particular values but I am not going to refer to them collectively.

I phrased it wrong, I am rather talking about people rather than a person.

Does this make sense?

I phrased it wrong, I am rather talking about people rather than a person.

Does this make sense?

But then I am only going to refer to people who share a common status.

In any given context people only have one status as far as I am concerned. So marriage status, social status, alive or dead, are all attributes of a person that have particular values but I am not going to refer to them collectively.

"His status is married"
"Her status is dead"
"Their statuses are mostly upper-middle class"

You might be referring to more than one person.

But then I am only going to refer to people who share a common status.

How about, "The various statuses of the working classes."?

Even so, I implore you, appealing to your tender compassion, your very humanity, do not succumb to the temptation to use the Latin form!

Generally, you're right.

But in some instances, words that came from or were derived from Latin did not undergo any sort of regularization as they passed even into the mainstream, everyday registers of English--and in such cases, Latinate forms are quite proper.

Now, that's not to say that this regularization will never occur sometime in the future--it might, since languages are defined not by prior rules but by common usage, which changes over time. But for some words, that regularization has not happened yet, and so to say Latinate forms for those particular words are improper is quite incorrect.

"His status is married"
"Her status is dead"
"Their statuses are upper-middle class"

You might be referring to more than one person.

As far as I know both Status and Statuses are fine.:D

Seeing as she not only said "Wiki" but also linked to the Wiktionary entry in question - what's your problem?
Calling it simply "wiki" is ignorant, for it implies that it's the only wiki in existence--which it most certainly is not.

Seeing as it's not the only reference given in this thread, and all others agree with wikipedia - again, what's the big deal, eh?
I think you need to pay attention to what I actually said.

Wiki is as good a source as many others

Yes, it's as good a source as the deluded rantings of a lunatic, it's as good a source as "Goodnight, Moon" is on lunar cycles, it's as good a source as "Indian Bunny" on the ritual practices of Plains Indians, etc.

I say this as a devoted contributor to Wikipedia--I contribute because I enjoy writing factual prose and Wikipedia provides me with an outlet for that, and because maybe someday it will be a worthwhile source. But it's not there yet.

Calling it simply "wiki" is ignorant, for it implies that it's the only wiki in existence--which it most certainly is not.

Meh not really, I mean you knew what he meant, and I guess so did everybody else.

Shorting a word is not ignorant, it is senseible.:D

"His status is married"
"Her status is dead"
"Their statuses are mostly upper-middle class"

You might be referring to more than one person.

Personally I would say "Their status is mostly upper-middle class" as it is a group of people sharing a single status that of being upper-middle class.

Likewise nobody ever tries to maintain that in English the correct plural of a “kindergarten” isn’t “kindergartens”.Well, on this side of the pond we'd normally say "kindergarden" & "kindergardens"...

Well, on this side of the pond we'd normally say "kindergarden" & "kindergardens"...No, "Kindergarten" and "Kindergärten", actually. In the pond is where they refer to it like that.

The -i plural suffix is grossly misused. The plural of octopus is octopuses (or octipodes), not octopi; the plural of cactus is cactuses. The -i plural is only applicable to nominative, Latin second declension, plural, masculine nouns. It's a very, very small subset of words.

So would many Jesuses be Jesi?

But for some words, that regularization has not happened yet, and so to say Latinate forms for those particular words are improper is quite incorrect.
And I would never suggest one should engage in a kind of adventurist, activist usage in some misguided attempt to further the guerrilla assimilation of words to the grammatical and phonological patterns of English. To speak of anything but “phenomena”, for example, would be barbarous. Merely I would suggest (and I think on this we both agree) that, where native English plural forms exist, they should be preferred.

The -i plural suffix is grossly misused. The plural of octopus is octopuses (or octipodes), not octopi; the plural of cactus is cactuses. The -i plural is only applicable to nominative, Latin second declension, plural, masculine nouns. It's a very, very small subset of words.

I'm speaking English myself, not Latin :p

Well, on this side of the pond we'd normally say "kindergarden" & "kindergardens"...
How would you know? It would seem you’ve never been to either.

guerrilla assimilation

Instant classic...

"Cactus" is Latinised from the Greek "kaktos". You cannot apply Latin plurals to Greek words. Cacti is incorrect. Cactuses isn't.

It was Latinized as a second declension male noun. And even if it was not, it is not pluralized by the rules of Classical Latin. It is pluralized by the rules of biological Latin. The correct plural is cacti. Cactuses is a plural invented by people who, misunderstanding the method by which plurals are created, wished to appear more knowledgeable than they were. If you insist on using "cactuses", you are every bit as guilty as those who erroneously use "octopi".

I say cactaceae

I say cactaceae

I say green plants that can prick you and thrive in desert conditions.

I say green plants that can prick you and thrive in desert conditions.

I think you are confusing them with aloes...

Calling it simply "wiki" is ignorant, for it implies that it's the only wiki in existence--which it most certainly is not.
She did not "simply" call it "wiki" - she linked to wikipedia. That's not ignorant, that's as precise as you could be.
I think you need to pay attention to what I actually said.
Right back atcha!
Yes, it's as good a source as the deluded rantings of a lunatic, it's as good a source as "Goodnight, Moon" is on lunar cycles, it's as good a source as "Indian Bunny" on the ritual practices of Plains Indians, etc.
Nonsense.
I say this as a devoted contributor to Wikipedia--I contribute because I enjoy writing factual prose and Wikipedia provides me with an outlet for that, and because maybe someday it will be a worthwhile source. But it's not there yet.
Somehow I doubt that with your help it will ever get there.
Meh not really, I mean you knew what he meant, and I guess so did everybody else.
Psst - he's a she...

I think you are confusing them with aloes...

Umm no. :confused: Because they are plants that can spike you but have large fleshy leaves.

Even so, I implore you, appealing to your tender compassion, your very humanity, do not succumb to the temptation to use the Latin form! “Cacti” is the usual plural in scientific discourse, but very few of us are botanists and fewer still should rely on this excuse. In common parlance, stick to English!

You seem to forget, again, that both terms are correct (cactuses and cacti), and I will use both for their propriety.

There is this insidious, insecure and anti-intellectual perception that Latin or Greek words are more sophisticated than Anglo-Saxon ones. Unless you’re engaged in systematics, “antirrhinums” should always be “snapdragons” and the “slipper flower” should replace the “calceolaria”. Likewise nobody ever tries to maintain that in English the correct plural of a “kindergarten” isn’t “kindergartens”.

Correctness is what concerns me, not wether you think cacti sounds prissy and Greek-Latin pseudo-intellectual wannabe. Both terms are, in English, proper and can be used at discretion. They both can be used in both written and spoken language. I don't know why this has gotten some people in a hissy-fit.

Calling it simply "wiki" is ignorant, for it implies that it's the only wiki in existence--which it most certainly is not.

You've assumed much there. Remember, she linked to the Wiki she mentioned. Also, I've noticed that Wiki has become a kind of collective noun. "Checking Wiki" means "looking up the various Wiki sources such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc." -- you need to relax. This is not a battle you'll win, or should even waste the time fighting.

Yes, it's as good a source as the deluded rantings of a lunatic, it's as good a source as "Goodnight, Moon" is on lunar cycles, it's as good a source as "Indian Bunny" on the ritual practices of Plains Indians, etc.

I say this as a devoted contributor to Wikipedia--I contribute because I enjoy writing factual prose and Wikipedia provides me with an outlet for that, and because maybe someday it will be a worthwhile source. But it's not there yet.

How's the weather up there on your high horse? Wiki is a good place to start looking for better sources. It's a clearing house, easily accessible, and if all one needs is a quick answer, such as, oh, I dunno, how about an online forum? -- it's an acceptable reference. Now, if someone demands more detail or more provenance, then it ceases to be an acceptable source. Seriously, what's got your panties in a bunch over this?

That and little gems like “viri” [sic] make me die a little inside.

Too bad "penes" is too ugly to actually use....

Actually, a preference for pluralisation according to the intuitive English rules for regular nouns (ie, endings in –s or –es) unless those forms don’t exist in English usage.

Hmm. I guess that's fair. No one does say "alumnuses."

it cannot excuse something barbarous

Your standard of "no alternative" saves you from the trap, so this is fair, too.

I hate plurals that end in i. I never use them. I add es

You seem to forget, again, that both terms are correct (cactuses and cacti), and I will use both for their propriety.



Correctness is what concerns me, not wether you think cacti sounds prissy and Greek-Latin pseudo-intellectual wannabe. Both terms are, in English, proper and can be used at discretion. They both can be used in both written and spoken language. I don't know why this has gotten some people in a hissy-fit.

I believe it may have to do with something about saying people are being pretenious when they themselves in getting in a hissy fit are acting it themselves.

Personally I only asked the question not so I could sound smart but rather so I can learn something new.

I believe it may have to do with something about saying people are being pretenious when they themselves in getting in a hissy fit are acting it themselves.

Personally I only asked the question not so I could sound smart but rather so I can learn something new.

I hope you know that my last was, in no way, dissing your search to understand the plural of a word you use in your language.

I hope you know that my last was, in no way, dissing your search to understand the plural of a word you use in your language.

Oh by no means Nantsu my post while talking to you was not talking about you. I was actually referring to Xirnium.

Oh by no means Nantsu my post while talking to you was not talking about you. I was actually referring to Xirnium.

My misunderstanding, mate. :wink::fluffle:

The -i plural suffix is grossly misused. The plural of octopus is octopuses (or octipodes), not octopi; the plural of cactus is cactuses. The -i plural is only applicable to nominative, Latin second declension, plural, masculine nouns. It's a very, very small subset of words.

Was going to say this. Never use -i unless you are sure it's correct.

No, "Kindergarten" and "Kindergärten", actually. In the pond is where they refer to it like that.Ouch!
(I'm tempted to change the 'Location' part of my profile accordingly...)

How would you know? It would seem you’ve never been to either.Flaming?

Ouch!
(I'm tempted to change the 'Location' part of my profile accordingly...)

lol it's just how it sounds when pronounced. I stress a d too.

As for cactus I think I just say cactus (hard to know since I rarely use it if ever.. so I'm forcing it).. ' Look at all the cactus! ' - ' I like a variety of cactus ' Cactus-es doesn't sound right now.

Calling it simply "wiki" is ignorant, for it implies that it's the only wiki in existence--which it most certainly is not.
Shorting a word is not ignorant, it is senseible.
Then shorten the word to WikiP, or another such phrase which makes a clear distinction between Wikipedia and wikis in general.

Flaming?

Surely not. Surely Xirnium was paying you a compliment, by suggesting that you leapt into first year without needing to bother with Kinder.

Because if he was flaming a passing mod might feel inclined to do something about it. So maybe it would be a good idea for him to not even appear to be flaming, eh?

Meanwhile, back on topic, I feel something I've just been reading fits. The hero of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files is explaining (in Death Masks) why he styles himself "Chicago's foremost collector of velvet Elvii":

'The plural could be Elvises, I guess,' I said. 'But if I say that too often, I start muttering to myself and calling things "my precious", so I usually go with the Latin plural.'

The sound of things eventually wins out over grammar, or Latin usage, or Greek origins. "Statuses" sounds like, and can only sound like, the plural of "status".

"Status-i" sounds like "status: I", or a social climber's affliction -- "status-eye".

And "statii"? If you pronounce status "staytus", then "staytii" sounds like a weird plural of "state"; if you pronounce it "status", then "stati" might be its plural, but it sounds a more likely plural for "stat"; and if you're a "stahtus" speaker, then "stahtii" sounds like several stahts -- which, for some of us, also sounds like "starts". Just plain confusing.

Then shorten the word to WikiP, or another such phrase which makes a clear distinction between Wikipedia and wikis in general.

We abbreviate lots of common-use words to prefixes and suffixes that are used in other contexts, too--e.g. "phone" and "photo", or "homo" and "hetero".

Since in all of those cases there is one dominant meaning in which the term is used, the usage is in no way confusing and I see no reason to consider it incorrect.

The plural is statuses, surely? And BTW there is no apostrophe in Nazis.

Was going to say this. Never use -i unless you are sure it's correct.

Why not? I'm not speaking Latin, I'm speaking English. Our rules for when -i is the correct plural are.....well, largely non-existent.

I find "penii" and its varieties most hilarious.
Is it not properly either penises or penes?

Statuses is the correct plural.

We abbreviate lots of common-use words to prefixes and suffixes that are used in other contexts, too--e.g. "phone" and "photo", or "homo" and "hetero".

Since in all of those cases there is one dominant meaning in which the term is used, the usage is in no way confusing and I see no reason to consider it incorrect.
First off, I'm not saying that calling it simply 'wiki' is incorrect, I'm just saying it's unwise.

Secondly, I think that using 'wiki' is confusing. No-one's going to confuse 'homosexual' with 'homo sapiens', for example, but I think many do confuse Wikipedia with the concept of wikis in general.

EDIT: Perhaps it's that both terms are pretty new. If they were established, recognisable terms in the language, then there wouldn't be a problem; context would assert itself whenever the term 'wiki' was used, just as 'homo' is.

Is it not properly either penises or penes?

Yes. Its Latin plural is akin to that of "basis." Though "penes" is ugly enough that you only see it in specialized contexts.

No-one's going to confuse 'homosexual' with 'homo sapiens', for example, but I think many do confuse Wikipedia with the concept of wikis in general.

I have not observed this. More to the point, I do not think any reasonable person familiar with Internet discussion could have read "Wiki" in the post in question and not understood it to refer to Wikipedia.

The plural is statuses, surely? And BTW there is no apostrophe in Nazis.

Should you not have NAZI in capital letters? Since it is an acroynm? Which would make it NAZIs.

And yes I am aware that I typed Nazi

In any given context people only have one status as far as I am concerned. So marriage status, social status, alive or dead, are all attributes of a person that have particular values but I am not going to refer to them collectively.

I have a lot of sympathy for this.

I would use "statuses" if I had to, and not object to its use ... but I don't like it. I'd try for "the status of each" or some form like that.

I'm not sure exactly why ... "status" seems to me not a characteristic only of a person or object, but of their wider environment. So if we were talking about the health status of two different people, the "statuses" tend to merge into one status.

I guess I'm just being old-fashioned, and not accepting the increasing use of the word to mean simply a characteristic.

==========

"His status is married"
"Her status is dead"
"Their statuses are mostly upper-middle class"

You might be referring to more than one person.

But couldn't it go
"Doctors and accountants are professionals
Their status is mostly upper-middle class" ?

If "status" is a characteristic of each, and you are referring to more than one characteristic, then yes you should pluralize.

If "status" is a classification within a broader thing which includes the individuals, perhaps not pluralize.

=========

Too bad "penes" is too ugly to actually use....

A shame indeed. Could lead to much hilarity when ordering Italian food!