Language desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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

July 7[edit]

Philandrous philanderers[edit]

A philanderer is a man who is generous in his affections for others, those others almost always being construed as members of the female sex. That is, a philanderer, absent any contrary context, is a straight man, even aggressively so.

Philandry, on the other hand, is a love for men. A man who exhibits philandry would probably be homosexual.

I'm very curious that these two words, which derive from the same Greek roots, have come to be associated with very different groups of men. Can someone explain this to me? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the first word ἀνήρ is apparently a "subject" of φίλος ("man of love, lover man"), in the second it is an "object" ("love for men, love of men") Basemetal 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it could have been "androphilia", and the meaning would have been obvious. But I suppose "philandry" reflects the order of the components in Greek? --76.69.47.228 (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The Greek word is φιλανδρία. In Greek it can also mean "love for one's husband". The words ανδροφιλία, and (in English) wikt:androphilia also exist but I don't know if the Greek word is a genuine ancient Greek word. Could be a modern coinage which is now used in modern Greek. It is apparently not known to Perseus and I can't think of other net resources to check. If anyone's got an ancient Greek (paper) dictionary within easy reach they'd be able to check. Basemetal 09:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to back[edit]

The expression is common in sports coverage, meaning two consecutive instances of something - championships, home runs in baseball, etc. used a bit in other areas too. But how did it come to mean that?

The first four cites of back-to-back in the OED (1845 to 1940) refer to houses. The first OED usage in the sense you are asking about (and without the hyphens) is from the New York Times of August 24th 1952: "Back to back doubles by Gene Woodling and Joe Collins off Early Wynn in the fourth inning produced the only tally of the day." The OED implies an American origin for the sports usage, but doesn't give any more detail. Dbfirs 19:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "back-to-back" referring to houses is worth taking a moment to explain, because they don't build them like that any more, or at least not in places I know about. You know how some streets have row houses, also called "townhouses" and other names? Each house shares a common wall with the next one, so that (except at the end of the row) only the front and back walls are exterior walls? Well, in back-to-back housing the back wall of each house is shared as well—only the front wall is an exterior wall. Two houses are literally back to back. And hence the use of the phrase to mean "adjacent". --76.69.47.228 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that seems a fair stretch from the way it's used in sports commentary today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"thin-faced"[edit]

"This is partly because the idea of legalizing sex work is unacceptable to many thin-faced Thais who judge the profession to be a foundation of vices."[1] What does "thin-faced" mean? Is that a physical description of a face? A figurative use of "thin-faced" to mean something of which I may not be knowledgeable? In my brief perusal of the vast Internet I am not finding any allusions to "thin-faced" as signifying for instance any character trait. What is the likely significance of this? Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fine Dictionary just defines it as meaning "having a thin face", says it's from Shakespeare (it's from Twelfth Night), and leaves it at that. Everything I'm seeing so far just supplies a similar straight-forward explanation, with no connotations. Absent that, I'm reminded of both "thin-skinned" (sensitive to criticism) and the "lean and hungry". Maybe there's some particular Thai slang that ties into it? Matt Deres (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be some sort of mistake for "narrow-minded"?--Khajidha (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on an association between physical thinness and being morally judgmental. Not common, but intuitively clear, I would have thought. For a couple of more examples, see e.g. here and here. Henry ^Flower 19:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Mona Lisa could be said to have a thin-faced smile. Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the association is between abstemiousness and thinness and puritanicality vs. jolliness and fatness and licentiousness. Apollonian vs. Dionysian. - Nunh-huh 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rider (legislation)[edit]

Does anybody know the actual etymology to this legal meaning of "rider"?--Neufund (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it is from the expression "along for the ride". --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's kind of implied from the EO discussion of "rider".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha and Baseball Bugs: Thanks a lot for your comments! However, I'm afraid I probably still didn't quite get the connection: What exactly does the original meaning of "rider" have to do with the figurative one in question?--Neufund (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A rider is a piece of legislation attached to an unrelated piece of legislation. When the main bill is passed it is carried "along for the ride". The rider might not hazve support on its own, but the bill it is attached to is considered to be so important that it is felt to be better to just pass it (and the rider) than to take the time to argue.--Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Spanish and Portuguese: definite articles[edit]

In the "Comparison of Spanish and Portuguese" essay, I was disturbed to read that Spanish has three genders/definite articles: la (feminine), el (masculine), and lo (neuter). Spanish has only two genders/definite articles: la (feminine) and el (masculine). For example, see la mujer (the woman), el señor (the man), la manzana (the apple), el perro (the dog). No word in Spanish has the definite article/gender lo. The plurals of the genders/definite articles are las and los.

In contrast, German has three genders/definite articles: der (masculine), die (feminine), and das (neuter). For example, see der Hund (the dog), die Katze (the cat), das Zimmer (the room). The plural of all genders/definite articles is die.

Anyway, please look into this matter, and please change the information on Spanish genders/definite articles. Thank you.Hazel2018 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You use lo with adjectives, but I'm not sure if they are considered nouns in that case or if it has anything to do with the neuter historically. --94.134.89.127 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This writeup[3] explains how the singular lo is used in Spanish. It's generally neuter, and is used in phrases which might not specify a particular noun, hence the gender might be unknown. An obvious usage is lo que, usually read as "that which". But as Hazel said, there are no direct nouns (none I've ever heard of, anyway) which are prefixed by lo instead of either el or la. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can handle Spanish, the Real Academia site will give you the word origin for any Spanish word.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The neuter article "lo" does turn the adjective/adverb into a noun. Some good examples:

lo grande (the largeness), lo triste (the sadness), lo justo (the just), lo amargo (that which is bitter), lo absurdo (the absurd), lo bello, lo feliz, lo importante, lo mismo, lo bonita, lo mejor, lo dificil, lo rápido, lo azul, lo bueno, lo pobre, lo malo. —Stephen (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say lo bonito? As with the song called Lo Bonito Y Lo Feo, which translates as "The Pretty (or Cute) and the Ugly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in Spanish you have lo bonito, that works exactly as you have described/translated, but also lo bonita as in "Me impactó lo bonita que era" (i.e. "I was shocked by her beauty". This last construction uses a femenine adjective following the neuter definite article, and can be called in this case an emphatic use of the article. Pallida Mors 04:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish has three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Spanish nouns work under two genders (masculine and femenine), although there are some human beings that have argued for a neuter noun stance.
Articles assume a neuter gender when they follow the neuter article lo. As indicated above, this tipically convey an abstract idea (lo malo≈la maldad). There is a neuter article (lo), some neuter demonstratives (esto, eso, aquello) and some neuter quantifiers (mucho, tanto, cuanto, poco). The Nueva gramática de la lengua española has this very neat example: "Sé que hay en mí mucho bueno y mucho malo". Both mucho bueno and mucho malo are neuter nominal constructions, made of the form neuter quantifier + (neuter) adjective). Pallida Mors 04:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]