Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2021 January 21

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.

January 21

Poop

Human poop is typically emitted in tapered cylindrical segments colloquially called "turds". Turd is a count noun, while poop, feces, scat, and all the other such words I can think of are mass nouns or have a somewhat different semantic meaning. Is there a more formal scientific or medical count-noun equivalent of "turd"? Yes I have an actual reason for wanting to know this. I am not seeking medical advice, however. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stool? --79.31.10.126 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm maybe, though I don't think one would speak of 1 stool, 2 stools, etc. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a professional but possibly Human feces#Characteristics or Bristol stool scale can help.? --CiaPan (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So one bit is a "fece"? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, one bit would be a faex, although the Wiktionary examples of faex's use in English suggest that it has been used both as a count noun and as a mass noun. Deor (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Male sure it's the real thing, and not faux faex.  --Lambiam 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So is this not the answer to the question: Yes, there is a more formal scientific count-noun: faex. One faex, two faeces. (As to the suggestion of use as a count noun: In three of the four quotations the term is unambiguously a count noun. In the first, used in "infection by [...] faex", it is ambiguous; the use of "infection by bite and faex" shows, though, that it is probably a count noun here, since "bite" is a count noun; compare also "infection by hookworm"^[1] and "infection by injection",^[2] where the infectious causes are identified with singular count nouns. In any case, it is sufficient that the term can serve as a count noun.  --Lambiam 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the expression "found in the intestine and faex and blood and tissues of man" at the end of the first quotation clearly shows usage as mass noun. Deor (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've heard more than one person use stool as a count noun, even medical-type people. It sounds wrong to me, but I don't think you could say it's technically incorrect. Go with that if you must. 170.249.94.117 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In more formal contexts, the word "dropping" for a single turd and "droppings" for multiple turds is well attested. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure. I'm really caught between two stools here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, I thought a dropping was something left on the ground. If a turd is deposited the usual way into a toilet bowl, calling it a dropping sounds odd to me. Is dropping really used that way? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As an irreverent aside, In the UK a humorous grafitto is sometimes seen in public WC cubicles, and may appear as a printed sign in pub toilets, to the effect that "Turds weighing more than one pound should be lowered and not dropped." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As a perfectly reverent aside, I can attest to seeing, during a visit to a certain British Army camp in West Germany, during the 1970s, a very similar instruction, inscribed on a brass plate, reading: "Turds weighing more than one pound should be lowered by hand." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Who weighs turds? Is that an official duty in the British Army? If you fail at potato peeling, you get demoted to turd weigher, perhaps. - 2603:6081:1C00:1187:6CD8:6290:AF01:88E3 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See British humour. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Or better still, see ARRSEPedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Poo tin or Trump Brush... you choose! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The Nuclear football

I have just learnt about the existence of this interesting "thing". Can anyone explain, ideally with a source, why it's called a football? I have asked on the article's Talk page, but that sees minimal activity, so I am asking here as well. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It states in Nuclear football#History "An Associated Press article stated that the nickname 'football' was derived from an attack plan codenamed 'Dropkick'." And it is sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I missed that on my careless reading. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Dobbs, writing for Smithsonian, the journal of the Smithsonian Institution (which has a retired Football on display), ascribes the information that an early version of the Single Integrated Operational Plan was code-named "Dropkick" to Robert S. McNamara.^[3] However, an article on the website of the National Security Archive hosted by George Washington University has a footnote questioning this: "There is no evidence of a U.S. war plan code-named Drop-kick, although a special study of war planning requirements was code-named DROPSHOT while the code-name of another one, OFFTACKLE, referred to a football play. The only place where a reference to “Drop-kick” can be found is in a statement by General Buck Turgidson in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 black comedy Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."^[4] Perhaps McNamara got his information straight from the General's mouth. Before McNamara's days in office as Defense Secretary, Operation Drop Kick was conducted, a test of a sick military plan to use yellow fever-infected mosquitos as a weapon.  --Lambiam 11:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily a definitive answer, but I went looking for the term in Newspapers.com (pay site), and the first occurrences I found were in a November, 1968, article which was reproduced across a number of papers. The article talked about the JFK assassination 15 5 years earlier, with recollections of those who were present. It referred to transferring the nuclear-kickoff "football" to the custody of LBJ, also facetiously referring to the one who actually carries it as a "bagman". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Either "November, 1978", or "5 years earlier".  --Lambiam 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! 5 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Latin translation please

Can somebody please translate a passage by Victor Vitensis about the death of Huneric:-

"Tenuit sceleratissimus Hunericus dominationem regni annis septem, mensibus decem, meritorum suorum mortem consummans. Nam putrefactus et ebulliens vermibus, non corpus sed partes corporis ejus videntur sepultæ. Sicut ille legis datæ trangressor rex quondam, ut asinus sepultus est, ita iste in brevi simili morte periit."

I have pasted it directly from Eaten of Worms (p. 11), so some of the characters may not be right. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My attempt: "The infamous Hunericus ruled for seven years and ten months and suffered an end fitting his deserts. For he rotted and produced an abundance of worms, and it was as if not his body but single parts of his body were buried. Like that king of old who broke the law and was buried like an ass, so he, in short, suffered a similar death." (I've also corrected some of the scanning errors above.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Another piece in the puzzle for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Who was Honoricus (the one eaten by worms)?. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Older editions have "videntur esse sepultae":^[5] "and not his body but body parts were seen to be buried".  --Lambiam 21:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense; the 17th-century paraphrase has "worms and lice so gnawed his flesh that his whole body became putrefied, one member dropping off after another, so that he was buried piece-meal, thus coming to a horrible and not less ignominious end". Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a semantic difference between "videntur sepultae" and "videntur esse sepultae" in Latin. The passive forms of "video" ('see') are all typically used in the sense of 'seem'/'appear', and the "esse" linking the dependent predicate is optional, as far as I remember. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Hot" wire

In this discussion on the Misc desk, several people have referred to the "hot" wire in an AC electric supply, and nobody referred to it as "live". In fifty years of messing about with electrics in the UK (not professionally, but I've done my share of tech work in theatres) I have never once heard this use before: it is always "live" (as opposed to "neutral" and "earth") - usually nominal, as "I connected the neutral and then the live". I see that Electric power distribution uses the word "live" precisely twice, in this sense, and the first time it is glossed followed by "hot" in parenthesis.

Is this use of "hot" common in the US? --ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. Checking my 3-wire circuit tester, the descriptions printed on it for the various possible combinations of lights use the terms "hot", "neutral" and "ground". Hot is understood to mean live. "Earth" would be a Britishism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• See Electrical wiring in North America. WHAAOE. --Jayron32 17:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, in AmEng, "earth" is called "ground" in an electrical context. Neutral is still just "neutral". --Jayron32 17:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought there must be a suitable article, but didn't think of looking for one so specific. I knew about "ground": I've never come across "hot". --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To my North American mind, a "live" wire is one that actually has voltage on it. If you disconnect the power supply, the black wire is still the hot wire, but it's no longer live. But, having said that, I'm not sure that others would make the same distinction. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to hold a similar distinction colloquially in my mind. A "live" wire is a non-technical term for any wire that can deliver an electric shock, the "hot" wire is specifically a specific wire from a wiring scheme; ideally your "hot" wire should not be "live" when you're hooking it up to something, or you're going to have a bad day. --Jayron32 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I was also taught that, while black is a usual color for a "hot" wire, anything except white and green could be used depending on how a particular device is set up; white is a neutral color, green for ground, and all other colors are used for hot wires. But I could be wrong about that. I'm not much of an electrical expert.--Jayron32 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If any of the wires in your home are hot you should turn off the electricity and call an electrician. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Australian terminology, probably following the British, is Active, Neutral, Earth, with color coding brown, blue and green with a yellow stripe. Before this (international) standard, our colors were red, black and green respectively. Installing imported equipment could be tricky, with black being the American active wire and red being the German earth. Doug butler (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, British wiring used to be red for live, black for neutral and brown for earth. We had to learn how to wire a plug when I was a Cub in the 1960s, attitudes to risks for children being rather different. Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It changed around 2004/2006: Electrical_wiring_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wiring_colours. Iapetus (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I just tripped over This helpful graphic. It has standard wiring colors for different regions and countries around the world. --Jayron32 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, in Britain it used to be the case that appliances were routinely sold without plugs because various designs of socket were widely used; so wiring a plug was not an occasional thing, but something that everyone had to either do themselves or have it done for them. But I have no personal experience of this. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was taught to wire a plug as a Cub in the late 70's. Plugs didn't start to come fitted until the 90's following a campaign by Lynn Faulds Wood and BBC Watchdog. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the L terminal in a plug is Line, not Live (see link from Iapetus above), though there's obvious scope for confusion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you're wrong. You need to qualify your statement with a location. Where I am, L=live. Bazza (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears you may be wrong, Bazza 7. AndrewWTaylor is also apparently in England, and besides the article Iapetus cited above, AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types confirms what Andrew says. I have not found the text of BS1363 (BSs are sold by the BSI, not made available free), but this non-authoritative source says "BS 1363-1 specifies requirements for 13 A fused plugs having insulating sleeves on line (or always quoted as live)". I am even more surprised than I was by "hot" on Thursday. --ColinFine (talk)

@ColinFine and AndrewWTaylor: As our world of wiring has apparently crumbled worryingly, I am keeping my glass half full. We are both obviously right: I with a reliable source and shared WP:COMMONNAME; and AndrewWTaylor (apologies for not checking your location) et al with direction via the article to a probably equally reliable source. I'll try to remember to use "line" next time it crops up in everyday conversation with my similarly pedantic friends and see what reaction I get! Bazza (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I was in that discussion too. Usually I refer to the wires as earth, neutral and phase, but someone else had already used hot, so I used that to avoid any confusion. I'm a non-native speaker of English and, being European, I mostly use British English, but sometimes I don't know what's British and what isn't. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about English syntax

Is the name of this new article: Index of ancient Greece-related articles correct in the English language? If English had the same syntax rules about compound words as Finnish, it would mean an index of Greece-related articles that are ancient. The proper syntax would be "Index of ancient Greece -related articles". But what are the syntax rules in English? JIP | Talk 20:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally, the Finnish "rule" you cite would be observed in English as well. The usual way of treating a compound adjective in which one element consists of two words—like "ancient Greece" in this case—would be to use an en dash rather than a hyphen, thus: "Index of ancient Greece–related articles". See MOS:PREFIXDASH for an analogous use, though our MOS doesn't seem to cover this exact usage (note, however, the example "Turks and Caicos–based company" in the MOS section I've cited). Deor (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalising "Ancient" would avoid the confusion for readers. To avoid confusing listeners you would need to recast the title as "Index of articles related to Ancient Greece" - nobody can hear the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen, or a capital and a lower-case letter. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing "ancient" would conflict with the usage throughout the article Ancient Greece (except when it begins a sentence) and with normal usage elsewhere. I agree that a move to "Index of articles related to ancient Greece" or similar might be advised, but that's not exactly what JIP asked. Deor (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We also do not capitalize ancient Greek (the language), but Wiktionary does. In a kafenio on Ikaria I observed some ancient Greeks discussing contemporary politics.  --Lambiam 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient_Greek_dialects capitalises both "Ancient Greek" and "Modern Greek". Old English also capitalises the "Old" (for English, and for other "Old" languages). This sort of capitalisation would seem both normal and appropriate if referring to the actual named languages, as its a proper noun. On the other hand, if you are talking about "Greece in ancient times", then "ancient Greek" would be analogous to "medieval England", which isn't capitalised in England_in_the_Middle_Ages, and probably wouldn't elsewhere. Iapetus (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "normal usage elsewhere" - perhaps "the current fashion on the internet". I am aware that the MOS deprecates the use of capitals, for reasons which are obscure. It depends what JIP means by "correct" - if "clear and understandable" then the title is - clearly - incorrect. If "abides by certain rules used by certain people" then perhaps it is correct. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my Iphone capitalizes Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. So we'll continue seeing more of that. Not sure if it's right myself, but not a matter particularly worth caring about outside examples like this (where it does aid clarity.) Temerarius (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JIP: There has been a #1 hit song about ambiguities of this general type: Purple People Eater. "Ancient history professor" could be a joke -- is that person an ancient professor of history, or a professor of ancient history? AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)