Language desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3[edit]

Illegitimate bastard[edit]

I recently was puzzled by a quote that I read in a non-fiction book. It stated, essentially, "Not only was he illegitimate, but he was also a bastard." I always thought that the word illegitimate and the word bastard both meant the same thing (namely, one born out of wedlock). But the phrase that I quoted above has a construction that makes it seem like the two words have distinct meanings. What am I missing? Is there some subtle distinction that makes one an illegitimate versus a bastard? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reads to me as though the author is playing with the words and using bastard in its other meaning i.e. "not a nice person", in the manner of "The bastard was a bastard" - X201 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is definitely meant as a joke on the word's two meanings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funny, I never thought of that ... that the author was playing on the words for humor. So, as far as being born out of wedlock, "illegitimate" and "bastard" mean the same thing and are essentially interchangeable? Is that correct? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, the definition is the same, and only the emotional content is different-- 'bastard' is much ruder. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are quite the same, in that one is a legal term, the other a factual. In Germany, for example, the child of a married mother is legitimate unless this status is explicitly challenged, and only very few people can challenge this status. The child can still be a bastard (both senses), though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Jewish law recognizes multiple forms of illegitimacy and only one of those forms is a bastard (ממזר, mamzer). Bastards are born of the biblically prohibited incestuous relationships, such as a man and his mother, daughter, sister, etc. Rabbinically prohibited incestuous relationships produce offspring that are rabbinic bastards (a man and his grandmother, granddaughter, etc.). If a man commits adultery with another man's wife the child is also a bastard. But being born out of wed-lock does not give one the status of a bastard. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related question[edit]

When one is referred to as illegitimate or bastard, does this refer to when the child is actually born? Or when he is conceived? In other words, say that an unwed man and woman conceive a baby. During the nine months of pregnancy, the unwed man and woman decide to marry each other. By the time the baby is born (nine months later), the parents are wed. Is that baby illegitimate or a bastard? If not, what would be the correct term? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

From the legal standpoint, that might vary from state to state and nation to nation. However, in general, the old axiom would be, "The first one can come anytime, the second one takes nine months." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely a moot point. Illegitimacy is primarily important with respect to inheritance; if the father dies before the child reaches majority, any questions of legitimacy for the purposes of inheritance will be handled by its mother. --Ludwigs2 13:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is probably right that the specifics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general I think as long as the parents are married when the baby is born, it's considered legitimate. This is why, back in the days when childbirth out of wedlock bore a greater stigma than it does today, there was often such a rush for the parents of a child conceived out of wedlock to get married before it was born. I remember Miss Manners once saying that people used to derive entertainment from calculating the number of months between a wedding and the birth of the first child, but that nowadays no one really cares anymore. +An gr 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it backwards. The rush to marry wasn't so that the child would be born in wedlock, it was to make it seem that it was possible that the child was merely conceived on the honeymoon and delivered early. Hence, the pre-occupation with counting backwards nine months. Conception is when bastardhood is determined. My own grandmother left her hometown simply because she gave birth to a nine-pound baby at "seven months, honest". Nobody cared she delivered while married, but the stigma of conceiving before wedlock was too much to bear. Matt Deres (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the legal situation (which may vary as already said) - but the old expression "born out of wedlock" comes to mind. It sort of infers that legitimacy has generally referred to birth rather than conception. Gurumaister (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs' axiom ("The first one can come anytime, the second one takes nine months.") went straight over my head. Can anyone explain? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's a jocose reference to marrying while pregnant. By the way, under traditional Scottish law, children born "out of wedlock" could be retroactively legitimated, if the couple subsequently married (with some limitations). AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I still don't get it! Sorry to be hard-headed. "The first baby can come anytime, the second baby takes nine months." Is that what it means? If so, what does that even mean? I don't get the joking reference to marrying while pregnant. I just don't get it. Please spell it out for me. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The joke is that if you 'assume' (as is proper) that the couple first had sex on their wedding night, then their first baby must have only needed 5 (or 4, or 3) months after conception to be born. second babies are different, requiring the full 9 months. a fascinating and oft replicated fact of human biology. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Normal human gestation is 9 months. If she gets pregnant prior to the wedding, there's a good chance the first one will take less than 9 months after the wedding. But the second one is likely to take a full 9 months. This axiom does not apply to true premature births, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it! Sorry to be so hard-headed. At first, it went right over my head. That joke/axiom is rather funny, actually. Thanks for the explanation! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Earliest acronym?[edit]

I'm always amused at the urban legends of "acronym" words like golf, posh, drag, nylon, tip, phat, cop, f*ck, and others. The earliest acronym I can recall is RADAR. It only goes back to the 1940s and is science or military based. Rhetorical question: why do people believe these false etiology of acronyms? They are almost always too cleverly coincidental. Real question: Are there *any* pre-1900 acronyms that would still make sense to us today? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean acronym in the narrow sense of an acronym that is pronounced as a single word, as opposed to an initialism. The earliest initialism I can think of is SPQR (though there may well be earlier ones). Tanakh is an acronym in the narrow sense, and I assume that name is older than 1900. But neither of these examples are English; did you want to restrict answers to English? +An gr 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Acronym and initialism#Historical and current use gives more discussion on the history of acronyms. Another early example cited there is ΙΧΘΥΣ. +An gr 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant well known words pronounceable in English. I wouldn't consider SPRQ or Tanakh. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on your rhetorical question is Backronym, and it gives a few possible reasons in passing, but doesn't confront the "why" question head-on. That article also cites a book that states that acronyms were "rare" prior to the 20th century, meaning there must have been some; but the article doesn't elaborate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest I can find any information about is the Egyptian hieroglyphic acronym ankh wedja seneb --

-- containing the first symbols from the three words for life-health-strength. Looie496 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spurious acronymic explanations are but a small part of the range of etymythology documented for example by Michael Quinion at http://www.worldwidewords.org. I suggest that their popularity is a particular case of the human penchant for narrative discussed at length by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart in their Science of Discworld books and elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also S.V.B.E.V., a common Latin greeting in personal correspondence. "If you are well, that is good, I am well." One I named a system that and users learned to say it as a single word. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it as a single word is easier when you remember that V in Latin was both a vowel and a consonant. SVBEV would be pronounced simply subeu. +An gr 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name - Chinese/Japanese Translation[edit]

I made an English version for an article that exists in Chinese and Japanese for something called 葛根湯 (Mandarin: gěgēntāng, Japanese: kakkontō). I cite an English article referring to it by its Chinese name and another referring to it by its Japanese name. What should the name of the article be? One website said the English version of the name is "Kudzu decoction" so that's what the article is named for now but that sounds a bit funny. What's a good English version of the name? Or should I refer to it as Gegentang because it originated in China? Thanks for your help.Rorrima (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antifebrile infusion? In fact, I have only ever seen it called 'kakkonto' in texts in English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kagetora. That sounds like what you'd see on a product in a store. Although, since it doesn't mention kudzu in the title and I was hoping for a really loyal translation I may need another name...Rorrima (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, our naming conventions mandate that the most common name of the subject in English should be the article's title. Typically, the name that is most prominent in the English-language references cited in the article, would be the most appropriate article title (unless a different name is demonstrably more common). The fact that the product originated in China would only be relevant if there was no established usage in English-language sources. decltype (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decltype, thank you! The article is now at kakkonto. Rorrima (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)108.3.173.100 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved