Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 13

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.

March 13

is it possible to give most male readers an erection with 20 English words?

Is it possible to compose 20 English words such that reading them would give most male readers an erection? What would be an example? (You can blank out some words so they are still unambiguous, but leaving the sentence without the erectory effect). 82.113.121.104 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is aroused by different things, indeed at different ages, and depending on degree of sexual self-awareness, what specifically turns them on, etc. Women are stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the written word, as opposed to men stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the visual, but that is not always true or that narrow. Have you done any research on this in Google? The internet is like hog heaven for purveyors of porn of all types, so I should think there would be no problem finding a flood of opinions on the matter, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Although this also sounds a bit like a sequel to Monty Python's "funniest joke in the world" sketch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If the blanked out words are unambiguous then surely they would have the same "erectory effects"? It will be the meanings of the words, not the letters that make them up, that arouse people. As Bugs says, arousing someone with written words is more likely to work on women than men. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This one is from Henny Youngman: "A scantily-dressed young woman came up to me on the street the other day, and said for a hundred bucks she would do anything I could describe in three words or less. I gave her the hundred and said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

XD...Anyway, afaik there must be a reason why guys watch porn and girls read it. So probably not... but then, I'm not a guy. I can, however, vouch for the effectiveness of the written word over visuals on females. Go on, read into that. I dare you. :) SS✞^(Kay) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You write porn. *gasp* ...Now that we've got over that, how do you know girls read it while guys watch it? Most of my females friends admit to watching it. And the one I live with has a list of websites in a small book next to her computer. (Why she can't bookmark them, I don't know.) Anyway, I always thought that girls simply didn't admit to things like watching porn. The numbers on this would be nigh-impossible to find; everyone lies. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequent parts of the Internet where women talk pretty openly about their kinks and sexual practices, as well as their fantasies. The general thing seems to be that they don't watch porn, although they do watch things that turn them on. These things are often the sort of thing that can be broadcast fairly openly, almost dog whistle porn, when there is reason to believe the creators intentionally played up the 'hotness' of the scene (for example, gratuitous use of bondage imagery, as seen in the llatest installment of Doctor Who). But this is not because they do not have a taste for more explicit stuff: much fanfic is most fandoms is pornographic, frequently very explicitly. These women read porn fics, they might even look at pornographic fanart, but they don't tend to look for straightforward porn to wach. Non-fen clearly read things like Mills and Boon, or their personal favourites from 'normal' books: there are some who are turned on by Heathcliff, some by Mr Darcy. I do wonder if it's a question of characterisation: in my personal experience, women are more open about crushes on entirely fictional characters, and often enjoy porn (or porn-a-like) featuring these characters who already have established characterisation and motives. Even Mills and Boon give some characterisation and outside motive, some emotional context for the sex. That's probably easier to achieve in writing: it's certainly easier to achieve in a fanwork that relies on the reader bringing context from the main work. There is an increasing trend for teenage girls to watch porn online, but surveys I've seen indicate it is driven by curiousity and a desire to see what normal grown bodies look like (sadly, porn is a poor source for this). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the latest instalment of Doctor Who? Different episodes are shown at different times in different places. The most recent one shown in the UK (which gets them first) was The End of Time, which I don't recall having any bondage imagery. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you didn't even notice: it was nowhere on your radar. Meanwhile, the Internet is full of screencaps of and squeeing over The Doctor being tied up and gagged, The Master in his dog collar, etc. Yes, in The End of Time. It looked very deliberate, and Rusty is quite attuned to such things. To many women, those scenes were pornographically hot: personally I thought they were rather overdone. You didn't notice them, as was the intention. Do we have an article on fanservice? This is a textbook example of one definition of that. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noticed people being bound. I wouldn't consider every binding to be bondage imagery, though. It's not like he was bound with a studded leather belt or anything, was he? --Tango (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend rewatching. Notice the ridiculous use of an actual dog collar and chain on the Master. Note not only that the Doctor is bound and gagged, but the way the Master is interacting with him at the time. I wouldn't normally recommend rewatching those episodes (they really were awful), but it really is there. You can google with the right terms and find endless women saying variations of "unf" in response. Endless icons and avatars from those scenes, endless motivational posters, endless picspams. This is how a certain target demographic received and interpreted those scenes, and Russell T. Davies is very familiar with this group, frequently playing with them. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question; you could probably give a fair number of males an erection with twenty words quite easily - in the right settings. It's embarrassingly easy to do. Five words would probably be enough. But I doubt anyone has done studies of this for us to reference. Um, have they? Vimescarrot (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a specific study through a quick Google (for some reason I'm grateful that I didn't...), although I came across this Telegraph article: All men watch porn, scientists find. I think that is a leading candidate for "Most Obvious Study Finding Of All Time."

Regarding the actual question, though, I have to agree with you, Vimescarrot: I think pretty much any man, especially younger men, could be aroused by a sentence or two, but exactly what that sentence contains may have to differ -- it might have to be a full 20-word description for some, but for others a name of a woman they found or find attractive might suffice. Xenon54 / talk / 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How about 7 numeric digits and zero words. I get an erection if my phone rings and a certain number is on the caller ID. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I once (unintentionally) gave my boyfriend an erection by saying just three words: "I love you". +Angr 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to that expression, as with anything else, depend on the individual. To many, the response to that statement is, "Run away! Run away!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To Vimescarrot above: Um... let me rephrase. I think girls are more aroused by reading that sort of stuff, than looking at porn, from personal experience. To me, big deal. It's just another picture/clip. In general, guys are more straightforward; girls have to... feel some kind of connection, I think. But then I'm not exactly average, so yeah. SS✞^(Kay) 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld once said that for men, sex is like being a fireman - they can be ready in a few minutes; whereas for women, it's like fire - they can get very excited, but the conditions have to be right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A word that denotes the concept of incorrectly claiming (illegal) discrimination

I'm looking for a word that denotes the concept of incorrectly claiming (illegal) discrimination when some other (legitimate) factor was the cause. Consider these scenarios of legitimate discrimination claims:

• An Australian Aborigine applies for a job but the white caucasion boss doesn't give him the job simply because the man is black. This is racism.
• A woman applies for a job, but the male boss doesn't give her the job simply because she is a woman. This is sexism.

Now consider these cases (and assume that no affirmative action policies apply):

• The Aborigine applies for a job as an engineer but doesn't get it because he only has two years experience. Instead, a white applicant with ten years experience (ie better qualified) gets the job. The Aborigine claims racism, incorrectly assuming that he did not get the job because he is black.
• A woman applies for a job as an accountant at a large bank, but does not get it because she only has experience with a small family business. The job goes to a male applicant with several years experience at another large bank (ie better qualified). The woman claims sexism, incorrectly asserting that she did not get the job because she is a woman.

Is there a word (or phrase, if there is no single word) that describes these erroneous assumptions or claims of racism? The claims of racism/sexism may be honest (the failed applicant genuinely believes s/he didn't get the job because of colour/gender) or they may be deliberately "fraudulent" (applicant knows s/he is not the best for the job, and thus not entitled to the job, but attempts to get the job anyway, by shaming or taking legal action against the employer). Is there one word covering both (honest and fraudulent claim) situations, or a different word for each? Political correctness occured to me, but I don't think that this is correct. PC would describe the scenario where the employer hired the less qualified black/woman so as to avoid the claim of discrimination, but I'm looking for a word to describe the erroneous claim itself (or the concept thereof). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Claiming victimhood" (Google search) seems to be fairly frequently used, but perhaps most often by people who are assuming that the claim is self-serving or inaccurate. Deor (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's such a specific concept with little enough public discussion on it that I'd be surprised if there were a single phrase that was commonly used. "(Actions) misconstrued as racism/sexism" might work well to clearly articulate what you're talking about, for example:

• A pygmy applies for a job as a police officer but doesn't get it because he has a DUI on his record. Instead, a Swedish applicant with ten years experience and a congressional medal of honor gets the job. The pygmy misconstrues this as racism, thinking that he did not get the job because he is black."

Incidentally, one could argue that systemic racism contributes to fewer opportunities for people of color so that, even if one actually is less qualified, the lack of opportunities for them to become so would itself be characteristic of a racist system. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It could just as easily be "heightism" in that example, unless there are specific regulations about policemen having a minimum height. The various "isms" apply when the nature of the job does not justify the "ism". For example, Queen Latifah might be a reasonable candidate to play in a film bio of Aretha Franklin, but would probably not be the first choice for a film bio of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More generally, List of fallacies mentions Appeal to probability. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lenny Henry did a number of sketches on this theme. Here's one: [1]--TammyMoet (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've heard making complaints about racism when there isn't really any evidence of it being called "playing the race card". --Tango (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

^^^"Playing the race card" was the first term that came to my mind, but it would really only apply to cases in which the aggrieved party claims discrimination based on race knowing that race is not the real issue, or is a side issue at best. The card metaphor connotes a calculated gambit to achieve a particular goal. Someone who honestly believes he or she has been discriminated against based on race and raises the issue would not be playing the race card, though he or she might be perceived as having done so by others. My own understanding of the term and a quick google search for examples of its use suggest that the term is generally directed toward another person, and is a pejorative; the person who claims, whether correctly or not, that discrimination has taken place could be accused of "playing the race card," but that same person would not be likely to say "hmm...my appeal to reason didn't work; maybe I'll try playing the race card." You end up with a sort of circular argument where one person is trying to distract attention away from the main issue by claiming the other is trying to distract attention away from the main issue (there's probably one o' them fancy Latin phrases for that, but I don't know it, or where to look for it right this second). "Playing the race card" also doesn't apply exclusively to the situations Mitch Ames describes above; it would apply to any situation where race is introduced in an attempt to influence opinion, belief, or outcome. Appealing to a group's (hidden or open) racism in order to convince them to do something would also be playing the race card. "Assumption of racism" per below or "perceived racism" would be closer, I think. Or if you're talking about some other type of discrimination, "assumption of" or "perceived" that. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would probably use the term "assumption of racism" or "false racism", but I don't know if such phrases are used by other people. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

More generally, there is victim playing. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparative in English

Is it always correct to form the comparative by using the word "more"? For example: "Anne is more pretty than Jane" instead of "Anne is prettier than Jane." I realize that many adjectives do not add "er" or "ier" in the comparative, such as "beautiful", so the word "more" is necessary. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant comparative, not plural!!208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in some cases, using "more" rather than "-er" sounds quite odd, if not absolutely ungrammatical. For example, I don't think a native English speaker would ever say "My brother is two years more young than me." I'm hesitant to call it flat-out ungrammatical, but it's definitely unidiomatic, and I wouldn't recommend saying things like that if you're learning English as a second/foreign language. +Angr 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Offhand I think you would use "more" when you're dealing with something that can't end in "-er". Example: Applicant A is more qualified for the job than applicant B is. You could say "more pretty", but it sounds funny to a native speaker. Then there's the clearly ungrammatical, "That woman is more prettier than her sister is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I messed up the title when I tried to correct it. What I meant was: If an adjective can form the comparative with "er" or "ier", is it also usually acceptable to use "more" with the positive form? I agree that it sounds strange to say: "My sister is three years more young than I". I also agree that some adjectives, such as "qualified", must use "more." But how about these examples: fast, strong, silly, ugly? Thanks. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a spectrum of acceptability. There are some adjectives, like "stupid" and "clever", that sound fine with either "more" or "-er", and there are others, like "young", where using "more" sounds distinctly odd. I'd say the examples you gave fall somewhere on the spectrum between "young" and "stupid". To me, "more fast" and "more strong" sound fairly odd, and are worse than "more silly" and "more ugly", although those themselves sound worse than "sillier" and "uglier". My answer to your question is: If an adjective can form the comparative with "-er", it is usually unidiomatic (to varying degrees, depending on the adjective in question) to use "more" with the positive form, but not flat-out ungrammatical. +Angr 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my sense as well. Also, I think there is some drift over time. For example, I think that "commonest" sounds very strange, but I think someone with a more classical education would probably have been taught that "most common" should be avoided. The same goes for "cleverer". Also see [2] — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that I read somewhere that "er" and "est" are used with adjectives of one syllable, "more" and "most" are used with adjectives of three or more syllables, and adjectives of two syllables can form the comparative and superlative forms by using either of those two methods.

(Of course, "er" and "est" can not be used with participial adjectives, which end in "ing" and "ed".) Unfortunately, I do not have a source.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a learner of English, and I can tell you what I was taught. Monosyllabic adjectives always take -er and -est. Adjectives with more than one syllable take "more" and "most" unless they end with -y, -ow, -er, -el, -le and maybe a couple of more endings that I can't recall now. And the adjective "stupid" (and maybe some more) can take both: "stupider, stupidest", or "more stupid, most stupid". About the examples you suggested - following that rule, they should be "faster", "stronger", "sillier", "uglier". --Магьосник (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid trying to learn such rules for English and just learn how each word works. There are so many exceptions to the rules that it is actually easier just to learn each word separately. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, for your help. Seems to me that here in northern Ohio we use the "more" method quite a lot. BTW, people here often pronounce "both" as "bolth"; just for your amusement. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for "adjective comparative superlative er est more most" (without the quotation marks) found http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv268.shtml. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting case is that some people now seem to prefer "more well known" to "better known". - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The expression "well known" (or "well-known") is ambiguous, because it can mean "widely known" or "favorably known".

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard "well known" used to mean "favourably known". I would say "well regarded" or something if I wanted to say "favourably known". Wiktionary says (wikt:well-known) that it can also mean "renowned", which has connotations of favourableness, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suffixes and Other Word-Final Elements of English, by Laurence Urdang (1982, Gale Research Company) says that -er is derived from Old English -or in the case of adverbs and through Middle English from Old English er, ere, re in the case of adjectives, and states: "By convention, the suffix is used chiefly with one-syllable words, sometimes with two-syllable words, and never with those of three or more syllables. In adverbs and adjectives of two or more syllables, the convention is to precede the modifying word (unchanged) with more." Webster's 3rd says: "used to form the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs of one syllable [examples snipped] and of certain adjectives and adverbs of two syllables [examples snipped] and sometimes of longer ones; regularly accompanied by a coalescence with final e of the base word, changing the postconsonantal y of the base word to i, or doubling of the final consonant immediately after a short stressed vowel; see ²more." of ²more it says says: "often used with adjectives and adverbs to form the comparative <some of her ~ remarkable sons and visitors -- J. P. Marquand> <the ~ learned the writer...the harder it is -- W. T. Jones>" The only usage I can think to cite of "more" being used with a one-syllable word rather than "-er" is "none; none more black." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Italianate

'Italian' seems to be the only demonym to which one can add the suffix –ate to make a different adjective ('Italianate'). There's also 'German-ic' and 'Frank-ish', and perhaps a handful of others, but only 1 example of an –ate adjective formed from a demonym.

How did this word arise, and why don't we talk about things being Hungarianate, Russianate, Romanianate, Americanate, Canadianate, Australianate, etc? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we mainly use the "-esque" suffix in such cases, I would guess... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's supposedly an old Italian saying which goes something like Inglese italianato è diavolo incarnato ("An Italianized Englishman is the devil himself")... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

-esque? Can you give me an example of an -esque word that relates to a country or a people?

-Esque is pretty much linguistically "productive" (in the technical meaning of that term); there's nothing to prevent anyone from using the words Hungarianesque, Russianesque, Canadianesque, Americanesque etc. on the spur of the moment (whether those words have been used before or not). AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, "Italianate" can be used as a verb, a synonym for "Italianize". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanesque? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's one. Wiktionary tells me that most –esque words are named after people, such as the extraordinary word Schwarzeneggeresque! Hollywood, London and Rome are apparently the only places that have recognised –esque forms, but the last one is about Roman kinds of things, not necessarily specifically about Rome herself, and hence R/romanesque can appear with or without a capital r. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Italianate" is a slightly fancier way of saying "Italianize(d)". Where I've heard it in reference to Italianate architecture, a very popular 19th century style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - "Italianized" would describe something that had been made "more Italian" than it had previously done, whereas "Italianate" implies something initially made stylistically Italian. Not really germane to the OP, though. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're disagreeing with Webster's, which redirects the reader from "Italianate" to "Italianize". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary agrees with Baseball Bugs here. Something can be Italianated, meaning made into an Italian style = Italianised. But these are very uncommon words, and the predominant meaning of Italianate is the adjective. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found Genevate, Hispaniolate and Spaniolate in the OED but these are verbs, the only adjective was Tegeate. The choice of suffixes is often more to do with which are popular, and Italiante probably less meant "in the Italian style" and more likely meant "in the finest style of the time" which happened to be Italian when it was coined in the late C16th. Italianated is actually recorded earlier. The OED lists various cacophonous -esque words such as Americanesque, Greekesque and Japanesque. meltBanana 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Latinate? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is potassium ferrocyanide, also known as yellow prussiate of potash. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. The form I'm after would have to be Prussianate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the origin of the form, the OED says it's from Italian italianato. Only some Romance languages are likely to have that specific form.

To my mind, the meaning is very specific: in an Italian visual style, especially architectural. (The OED doesn't agree with me, not mentioning this restriction; but it hasn't an example more recent than 1894: this is an entry which has not yet been updated from the second edition). Googling '"Italianate" -definition" gives 681 000 ghits, while '"Italianate" -definition -architecture' cuts it down to 423 000, and '"Italianate -definition -architecture -style' cuts it down to 285 000, which weakly supports my position, which is that it is not generalisable because it has a rather specific meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, a prussiate is a salt of prussic acid (and I am surprised to find that it is prussiate not prussate). --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the acid should have been called Prussianic acid (cf. Germanic, not Germic). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The "an" in "Germanic" is not a suffix but part of the root. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for, as always, an interesting and enlightening discussion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PIGS

Why is the term “PIGS” offensive? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because pigs (the animals) are considered dirty. See Cultural references to pigs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But it probably relates more to "greedy" than "dirty", another connotation of "pig". - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen to the Beatles song about "Little Piggies" for a good analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)