Language desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 13[edit]

Is 'emblemism' a legitimate word?[edit]

If not, what is the correct term? Thanks Adambrowne666 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word which has rarely been used, but you don't say what you want it to mean. No doubt it has been given all kinds of meanings. In The Lower Niger and Its Tribes (1907) by Major Arthur Glyn Leonard, he used it to mean totemism. In that context, I should much prefer totemism. Xn4 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the OED, but it was good enough for Robert Frost.[1] It's my opinion that we are free to form words using affixes. The dictionaries don't list all the permutations. As Xn4 pointed out, though, it's not immediately apparent what "emblemism" means without context. The other Google hits I saw were mostly legitimate to my way of thinking. --Milkbreath 02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you - this is the context: 'the sight still sits in my memory with all the weight and emblemism of a Byzantine coin.' - where 'emblemism' means 'possessed of the qualities of something emblematic'. Adambrowne666 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would say "emblematic power", since it is reasonably short, and more likely to convey meaning to the reader. Hmm.. "emblem" is one of those words which quickly becomes silly when you repeat it... SaundersW 14:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like "weight and emblemism". I don't remember ever seeing a Byzantine coin, but I imagine it would be, well, byzantine. I'm getting a frenzy of emblems. --Milkbreath 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - maybe it's my ignorance, but emblemism feels a bit neologistic to me, and a bit like a word you'd see in a humanities thesis. Thanks, everyone, for taking my little difficulty here seriously, by the way. I'm now leaning, first thing in the morning, to 'preciousness and emblematic heft'. Adambrowne666 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this use of "emblemism" confusing. -ism coinages are usually things like beliefs. When I saw the word in the question title, my guess was that it was a derogatory term for something perceived as the political equivalent of idolatry. --Anon, 23:12 UTC, November 13, 2007.

Emblematism would be better Greek, and therefore better English, especially in a Byzantine context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"quo est" and "quod est"[edit]

How do you translate these two phrases when, for example, they refer to man as concrete being and man as humanity? Omidinist 15:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the entire sentence, at least, as context. Wareh 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This composition [hylomorphic composition] is found in every creature, since 'matter' equals potentiality, but a more fundamental composition, also found in every creature, is that between the quo est and the quod est. It may appear that this is the distinction between essence and existence, but it seems rather that the quod est refers to the concrete being, a man, for instance, and the quo est to the abstract essence, humanity, for example. In any case the distinction is a 'rational' distinction, since we can predicate the quo est of the quod est, in a certain sense at least, as when we say that this being is a man. (Copleston, vol.2, p.236) Omidinist 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Copleston is certainly right that the terminology makes it "appear" that the distinction is between matter and form; it is very tempting to take quod est ("what it is") as referring to a substance considered as matter and quo est ("by which it is") to refer to a substance considered from the point of view of its form. Assuming Copleston is right, and the terms are used as he states, they still make some sense, since the "abstract essence" can be taken as, in a sense, "how" (in terms of what) something is what it is, vs. the concreteness of what something is, simply considered. Surely the form/matter distinction is relevant at some level; the (terminological) confusion between "formal essence" and "abstract essence" probably reflects the syncretistic blending of Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics (which Alexander of Hales could have imbibed from Augustine of Hippo, not to mention such wonders as the Liber de causis). Wareh 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty convincing explanation, Wareh. Thanks. Omidinist 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Day[edit]

Can anyone explain in any meaningful way why the name of this holiday does not contain an apostrophe? That is ... why is it not officially named Veteran's Day or Veterans' Day? The Wiki article says nothing on this matter at all. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki, indeed, says nothing. But soon I will be adding this citation to the page:

Kristina Sherry (2007-Nov-9). "Apostrophe sparks Veterans Day conundrum". Columbia Missourian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) --M @r ē ino 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to produce parallels for the non-possessive "Veterans Day": "Groundhog Day," "Turkey Day," "Christmas Day," "Tom the Tornado Day" (ok, I made that last one up, but you have to admit you weren't tempted to add the possessive suffix). New Year's Day has an apostrophe (singular of course), and in February Americans officially observe "Washington's Birthday," so let's not worry about the presidents (plural). It's also worth noting that sometimes possessives well worn with age don't feel the need to dress up with an apostrophe. Wareh 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Washington's Birthday has been replaced by Presidents Day, although there is a discussion in the article about whether or not the apostrophe is correct. --LarryMac | Talk 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not been replaced officially; the article you link states clearly at the beginning that it is, officially, "Washington's Birthday," though of course it is known as Presidents Day in common parlance and in Wikipedia article title. Wareh 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, 11 November is known as Remembrance Day, mainly for the obvious reason but also for another reason. But we do have a Department of Veterans' Affairs and a Minister for Veterans' Affairs, although the apostrophe is often dropped, even by those who are aware of it. -- JackofOz 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't say Turkeys Day or Groundhogs Day, even though we aren't speaking of just one turkey or one groundhog (well you can argue about the groundhog), these aren't perfect parallels because they are not days meant to honor their subject. I used to frequent a park called 'Veterans Park', no apostrophe, and that always bugged me. I think Warehs last note about the apostrophe being dropped sounds the most likely, otherwise I think 'Veteran Day' would be more appropriate. -- Diletante 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and a nice hypothetical example would be "Children's Day," which because children is already plural (and, as you point out, "Children Day" sounds wrong) seems to prove that the forms are possessive, even if they've lost their apostrophe. (Perhaps it's the sentimental connection to old place names, but somehow this lost or never-acquired apostrophe, when it's not the result of simple illiteracy, seems to confer a certain dignity.) Wareh 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English Noun + Noun compounds, you have four choices for the form of the first (attributive) noun:

plain singular: woman-hater, woman doctor, catgut
possessive singular: woman's bicycle, butcher's shop, cat's eye, Saint Elmo's fire
possessive plural: women's tennis, All Saints' Day, buyers' market
plain plural: women doctors, complaints department, careers advisor

The plain plural is much less common than the plain singular. One scenario that makes it more likely is where the head noun is plural and the attributive noun's plural is irregular (as with woman>women); another is to emphasise the plurality of the attribute (complaints department), or variety of species of the genus (careers advisor). But there is a lot of uncertainty about whether an attribute is possessive, plural, or both, since the pronunciation is the same, and many compounds make sense either way: "dogs and cats home" or "dogs' and cats' home"; "Students' Union" or "Students Union"; "Jew's harp" or "Jews' harp"; etc. There are also cases like bridesmaid and menswear where the standard spelling now omits the apostrophe that logic would require; also many businesses (Harrods, but not Bloomingdale's). Perhaps, in the case of Veterans Day, the question amounts to whether the day "belongs to" Veterans (when they are honoured) or "pertains to" Veterans (when the nation honours them). Or perhaps it's just part of the ongoing decline in usage of the apostrophe. See also World Wide Words jnestorius^(talk) 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the "official" word on Mothers Day / Fathers Day? (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In the UK, it looks like Mother's and Father's Days [2] [3] (although the observant will notice a plural genitive with apostrophe creeping in the second example). Probably along the lines of an individual having just one mother and father, rather than several. Bazza 14:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, spelling, and there is language—and then there is logic. They are not necessarily the same things.
In the spoken plural especially, there is syncretism between veterans and veterans' : essentially, they have the same form.
This, interestingly, is in keeping with Joseph Greenberg's wonderful theories on Universal Grammar: the plural is the marked form, and marked forms appear to display a greater tendency towards syncretism than their unmarked counterparts.
Incidentally, marked forms also tend to be much less frequent than their unmarked opposite numbers, and this is in keeping with Jnestorius' remark above that [t]he plain plural is much less common than the plain singular.
In sum: the confusion between veterans and veterans' will only increase as we grow older and as the language develops, because in marked forms (i.c., the plural), syncretism tends to strike root.
Al this has little to do with spelling and is quite unhelpful, and I apologize. Just could not curb my enthusiasm. Bessel Dekker 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled proverb[edit]

Today's Dinosaur Comics features various proverbs mangled by making them less concise (eg; "You are what you eat" becomes "You are what you ingest, figuratively and, in a sense, literally"). Most of them I can work out, but the last one "If there was a singular Dickens who had to pee, I would be SO like him right now", makes no sense no matter how I parse it. What proverb was this mangled from? Laïka 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of that is topically related is "I have to pee like a racehorse", but I can't work out how a racehorse would be "a singular Dickens." --LarryMac | Talk 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to pee like the dickens." "Like the dickens" is just a general expression of emphasis (see [4]). -Elmer Clark 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanianlish?[edit]

My question, basically, is what was this guy talking about in this chat? I googled a few of the stranger words and they seemed to be Lithuanian, but other than that I have no idea what was going on. Any ideas? Is there some kind of Lithuanian-English hybrid language floating around? Recury 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[NKOPAMTU] how they cia uzknisa me ask
[Recury] ok
[Recury] tell us how they cia uzknisa you
[NKOPAMTU] call craigy and codebox ask
[Recury] whats their number
[NKOPAMTU] no humans no understanding off (><)
[Recury] youre telling me
[NKOPAMTU] off copy paste veryfication
[NKOPAMTU] destroing level;
[Recury] yeah
[NKOPAMTU] what again kas anymotion destroing level
[Recury] doesnt codebox know?
[NKOPAMTU] you and me in powerfull program ment engine with shell on where is the banal language problem kam so say go space your self
[Recury] thats not very polite
[NKOPAMTU] no kas i get me go away then
[Recury] man whatever
[NKOPAMTU] who shell is boring mess off letters

My immediate impression was Basque - from uzknisa. No idea what any of it means, unfortunately. -- JackofOz 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recury, I think you could pass for ELIZA – thereby passing a reverse Turing test. --Lambiam 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who else do you think could pass for ELIZA? Recury 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(: Also, NKOPAMTU seems to agree (if I'm reading "no humans no understanding off (><)" right). It almost looks like they used babelfish, or similar, to translate their words and yours, and this possibly combined with poor typing and spelling/grammar in the first place. Babelfish sometimes leaves a few words untranslated. Skittle 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, he was going pretty fast and he kept it up for a long time and never slipped into his native language (I wish I would have kept the rest of the conversation; would have at least given us more to go on). If it weren't for that, I would think some kind of bad automatic translation was involved too. Recury 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He mentions a shell, you and me in powerful program [ment] engine, language problem, mess of letters, copy paste. I'm thinking homemade Linux shell intended for running translation. --Milkbreath 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay French Slang[edit]

When I was in Paris in the summer of 1970, the gay slang word for "butch" was "jules." From what character named Jules was this taken? Now that the gay community is not in the underworld in the major cities of the U.S., the lingo that I knew in the 1960's and 70's (especially in the South) seems to have disappeared except for some black communities. Has this also happened in Paris? LShecut2nd 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais pas, but Jules et Jim, perhaps? -- JackofOz 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 70s, early 80s "jules" was also straight French slang for a boyfriend. SaundersW 08:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SaundersW is right, this is imported from straight slang, where Jules meant boyfriend or husband (it still does mean that for my grandma).

Where does it come from originally though is unknown to me, but my guess is that it was a common male name at that time, (while Julie was a common female name), The French wikipedia/wiktionary do not help in confirming that. In modern gay slang, though it would not be used any more (I am French and gay and I've never heard it).

If it was used today, I would understand it as meaning boyfriend, not butch. So I think you are right, the de-undergroundisation did kill-off some of the slang in France too. --Lgriot 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! straight back to 'Round the Horne' to the Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick sketch. "Ooh, hello, my name's Julian an' this is my friend Sandy" done in a very camp style. I had often wondered why the name Julian had been chosen but had felt it would accentuate my naivete to ask! Richard Avery (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due apologies to all non-camp Julians out there, I think certain names are inherently camp. Julian would be near the top of the list. The very word "camp" is an extraordinarily camp word. There's no way of explaining this that I'm aware of. To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible. Mind you, camp is not a synonym of gay; although there are plenty of people who are both, there are many others who are one or the other, but not both. And I'm sure there are many Julians who are neither. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schadenfreude[edit]

Why is the word Hahn capitalized in this article?--Filll 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hohn, not Hahn. All nouns are capitalized in German. jnestorius^(talk) 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Hohn. ALL nouns? Hmm...--Filll 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all nouns (unless you count pronouns). This was also the case in English not so long ago. See Capitalisation#Nouns. Algebraist 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In German, all nouns and the 2nd ps. plural personal pronoun Sie are capitalized. In 18th century English, capitalization was frequent if slightly erratic: it was neither restricted to nouns nor invariably used with all nouns in the sentence.
Thus, William Collins (ca. 1746) has:

Sweet Peace, who long hath shunn'd my plaintive day,
Consents at length to bring me short delight
one noun capitalized, others not

but again, in Matthew Prior (1708):

Whate'er thy Countrymen have done
By Law and Wit, by Sword and Gun,
In Thee is faithfully recited:
And all the Living World, that view
Thy Work, give Thee the Praises due,
At once Instructed and Delighted.
nouns, pronouns and participles capitalized

Of course, English has one personal pronoun which to this day is written with a capital. Bessel Dekker 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]