Language desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25[edit]

"have sex"[edit]

Why is it more common to say "I had sex" rather than "I sexed"? It seems like the first one is describing an action using a noun . Would sex be noun in the first one? Are there any other verbs / nouns used like this? 68.231.151.161 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, we not only have our sex, but also our breakfast. We have a talk, have a look, have a swim... and what not. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say "I sexed" because "to sex" is not a verb. (Well, it can be, but not in the sense you mean. Interestingly, in the English language, there is no way to express the act of sexual intercourse using a transitive verb that is not considered vulgar (or, at best, slang). In polite society, the best we can do is make love to or have intercourse with someone. If I want to be direct, I have to fuck them. (Or bone, or screw, or just plain do them - none of which are considered polite terms.) - Eron ^Talk 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we have a way to express the act of sexual intercourse using a transitive verb that is not considered vulgar: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived... (Genesis 4:1) Ok, I know it's archaic...--K.C. Tang 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the lack of non-biblical transitive verbs reflects that having sex is not about doing something to someone, but doing something with someone. -- JackofOz 02:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general terms, I couldn't agree with you more. (Well, most of the time.) But I was thinking about the one specific action whereby one partner penetrates the other. - Eron ^Talk 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that may well be a different thing. "He was fucking me" is quite specific - it's about penetration. "We were having sex" does not necessarily mean that anyone was penetrating anyone else - it could be a whole lot of other sexual activities. To "sex somebody up" and "got me all sexed up" are fairly commonly heard. These suggest a precursor to actual sexual activity, a sort of ante-fore-play. JackofOz 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the verb used in the original Genesis in Hebrew transitive as well? Does God think that having sex is doing something to someone or with someone? A.Z. 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, indeed the OED comments that this usage of know is "Chiefly a Hebraism which has passed into the mod. langs., but found also in Gr. and L. So Ger. erkennen, F. connaître."--K.C. Tang 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For further nouns and verbs, see also Wikisaurus and more Wikisaurus. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some novel I have seen "sex" used as a verb in the way that the original poster is asking about. The sentence was something like "we sexed perfunctorily" or "we sexed desultorily". But I agree that it's not a standard usage. It might have been a science-fiction novel, but I don't think the expression came up in dialogue, just the narrative and I think just in this one place. Perhaps by reducing the expression to a single non-vulgar syllable the author was trying to deemphasize the act in order to fit with the adverb. --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, October 25, 2007.

Smoove B will often say things along the lines of "Never before will you have been sexed like I will sex you then. I will sex you wild." when sweet-talking his lady. --Sean 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's "I Wanna Sex You Up". Corvus cornix 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using sex as a verb often implies something not involved with intercourse. If you are 'sexing chickens', you're not performing a disgusting act, per se, but rather determining their biological sex. Another version of this is Lady Macbeth's 'Unsex me here', pleading to have her femininity taken away. It implies that 'sex me here' would have someone having sexual traits placed upon them. Steewi 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

latin sentence[edit]

Would you please translate this sentence for me: "secundum indifferentiam et secundum identitatem eiusdem prorsus essentiae".Omidinist 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with William of Champeaux and his indifference theory of identity, and is not a whole sentence in itself. According to William, when we say two entities are the same we may mean either of two different things. Firstly, they may be the same in that they are not different in some respect, for example Socrates and Plato are both men and thus the same secundum indifferentiam, "on grounds of indifference". Secondly, they may be the same in that they are identical, have the same essence, for example Saul and Paul are the same thing secundum eiusdem prorsus essentiae, "on grounds of the same very essence". Or something like that, I hope a latinist shows up to give a better translation. But that's the general idea. See also William's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.--Rallette 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the whole sentence (or the essence of it) is "Vides (idem) duobus accipi modis, secundum indifferentiam et secundum identitatem prorsus ejusdem essentia; secundum indifferentiam, ut Petrum et Paulum idem esse dicimus in hoc quad sunt homines . . . sed si veritatem confiteri volumus, non est eadem utriusque humanitas, cum sint duo homines", which can be found here (in a note at the bottom). Assuming that the webpage's "essentia" should be "essentiae" as in Omidinist's original quote, and that "in hoc quad" should be "in hoc quod", I would say that means "You see that this is understood in two ways, according to indifference and according to identity entirely of the same essence; according to indifference, as we say that Peter and Paul are the same in the sense that they are men...but if we wish to speak the truth, the humanity of both is not the same, because they are two [different] men." The main bit of the webpage about William explains that he "formulated a new thesis in which he maintained that the universal is in the individual, not in the entirety of its essence, but by reason of its particular or individual modifications." So basically, what Rallette said is right on! Adam Bishop 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. It's understandable enough. Omidinist 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to Adam Bishop[edit]

And thank you, Adam, for your useful explanation. Omidinist 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet phonetics[edit]

Is there anyone here who understands Henry Sweet's phonetic labels and can translate them into the terms currently used? I mean things like vowels described as "mid-back-wide-outer" or "low-in-mixed-narrow". Does anyone know what those descriptions actually mean? —An gr 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did he use his own symbols? Pullum and Ladusaw's Phonetic Symbol Guide just might cover them. --Kjoonlee 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did use his own symbols, but they aren't in Pullum and Ladusaw. However, I have found online copies of two of his books where he goes into more detail about his terms and I think I can translate most of them, although some of his ideas don't correspond to anything in modern phonetics. His "wide" and "narrow" correspond to modern "lax" and "tense" respectively (although those terms are usually only used by phonologists, not phoneticians nowadays); "outer" apparently means "with exolabial rounding"; "mixed" means "central", and "in-mixed" means something like "retracted central/back but with the tongue shape of a central vowel", whatever that's supposed to mean. —An gr 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper English grammar[edit]

We are putting an advertisement together for our little cottage rentals business and having trouble agreeing with the ad designer on a small grammar issue.

Part of a package we are promoting is described as : "Four nights accommodations." The ad company wants to put an apostrophe after the "s" in nights. We say there should be no apostrophe as "Four nights" is a description of, not showing ownership of, "accommodations. Furthermore, they say, if it was "One night's accommodation", the apostrophe would be placed as in this sentence, before the "s".

Who is correct? Leslie Price 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "Five-night accommodations"? Does the phrase stand alone like a heading? --Milkbreath 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like "four" and "night" are adjectives for the noun "accommodations". No contraction meaning "it is" or possession involved. The adjective should agree with the noun. "Accommodations" is plural, as is "four" and "nights". I think you are right. (A printer once wanted to change my spelling of Berkeley, CA. He was wrong.) Steve Pastor 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But when nouns are used as adjectives they're nearly always singular. —Tamfang 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "four nights of accommodation"? Then it's unambiguous. —An gr 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider analogies. Why don't you prefer "one night accommodation" to "one night's accommodation"? Would you say "this task will take an hour work"? —Tamfang 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be either "four-night accommodations", "four nights of accommodation", or "four nights' accommodations". "Four nights accommodations" would be incorrect, except in the special case mentioned below. If you see "four nights" as modifying "accommodations", the correct form would be "four-night" because this is a compound (and therefore hyphenated) modifier, which is nearly always in the singular form when the first element of the compound is a number (e.g. "ten-foot pole"). "Four nights of accommodation" is unproblematic, I think. As for "four nights' accommodations", think of the case of accommodations for a single night. A natural way to describe this would be "one night's accommodations". It would not be "one night accommodations" (unless you wanted "one night" to be a compound modifier, in which case it would be "one-night accommodations"). It is "one night's accommodations" because it is accommodations for one night, or of one night. This is a possessive usage. By analogy, "four nights' accommodations" requires the apostrophe. The form "four nights accommodations" without the apostrophe sounds like the kind of shorthand you see in recipes and lists: "ten cups sugar", "five pairs socks", etc. That form is okay for lists but not for promotional literature. Marco polo 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an apostrophe. See Genitive case#Objective genitive; classifying genitive. Lynne Truss in her (admittedly flawed) book Eats, Shoots & Leaves laments the absence of an apostrophe in the film title Two Weeks Notice.

It should be

one night's accommodation, two nights' accomodation, ... (British)

or

one night's accommodations, two nights' accomodations, ... (American)

The singular/plural accord with the number is only on "night", not on "accommodation".

If you think that with the apostrophe it looks fussy and will put people off, be aware that omitting it will tick off a lot of grammar pedants in your potential customer base. So a rephrasing may be the best solution to please everyone; though I find most suggestions so far sound terrible (no offence, everybody). jnestorius^(talk) 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can divide the population into 4 groups: (A) Pedants; (B) People who couldn't give a flying f*** about the absence, presence or very existence of apostrophes; (C) People who are aware of them, but are not sure of the rules for their use, and sometimes put them in where they're not required, and vice-versa; and (D) People who are aware of them, and are very sure of the rules for their use, without being pedantic about it. The only group who might be upset by the correct inclusion of an apostrophe would be group C. I belong to group D, naturally. :) I see it as Group D's role to educate B and C by example. So my advice is to apostrophise merrily away whenever the occasion demands. You probably won't win the Nobel Prize for Correct Apostrophisation, get your name on TV, or be noticed at all. But then, virtue is its own reward. On the other hand, if you are challenged, you've got all the ammunition you need to defend yourself, and put some other human being on the road to a happier and more fulfilling life. So, everyone wins in the end. Isn't that what apostrophes are all about, really? -- JackofOz 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the IPA?[edit]

Just a friendly reminder to those of us who know the international phonetic alphabet, there are currently 61 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with nonstandard pronunciation. Anyone have some spare time who wants to work on adding IPA to these articles? Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to try to help clear out that category, until I realized that most of the time I couldn't figure out what the correct IPA was supposed to be. So I gave up.

—An gr 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I am asking help. For example, I do not know French well enough to comfortably replace (shon-shorz vong-er-eesh'ten) with /ʒɑ̃ ʒɔʁʒ vɔ̃ŋɛʁiʃˈtɛ̃/ in the Jean-Georges Vongerichten article. However, when it comes to Tamil script, Berber languages, and the like, I am even less comfortable. I know what you mean.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "pupil" to mean a "student"[edit]

How did the word "pupil" come to be used to mean "student" and was it not previously common to have it refer specifically to students during the elementary school grades? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.248.83 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word comes from the Latin pupus, "boy", through French pupille, "orphan". All the earliest citations, starting in the 14th century, show the sense "orphan", "ward", "minor". I have found no source that explains how it acquired the sense "student", but its early uses in that meaning seem to arise from the practice of a tutor's taking on boys as "pupils" under their direct care. One must suppose that there were very many more fatherless boys then than now, the most likely candidates for such an arrangement. Somewhat later citations for "pupil" in the sense "student" also refer to minors. It now can mean any student in respect to his or her teacher, though to my mind it still conjures youth. --Milkbreath 02:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, 'pupil' doesn't mean the same as 'student'. For instance, I've never heard anyone say "the pupils of a university", although of course a particular tutor or supervisor might have pupils, alluding specifically to his or her relationship with them. People say that a school (which in the UK doesn't include universities and colleges of further education) has so many 'pupils'. So as a general description of those attending an educational institution, the word 'pupil' is used only where the upper age is no more than about eighteen.

I think we need to recognize that there's a gap in the English language, which pupil came along to fill. Until the 19th century, most children didn't go to schools at all, while those who did nearly all went to single-sex schools. That meant that the schools could just refer to their 'boys' or their 'girls'. Once schools for all children became common, we struggled to find the right word. 'Children' is a comfortable word for small children - kindergartens will say they have so many children - but not comfortable at all for those who are old enough to join the armed forces. 'Students', on the other hand, has just the opposite problem. "University students" sounds all right, but "kindergarten students" sounds ridiculous. The Victorian census enumerators were instructed to use the word 'scholar' for everyone attending a school, but in everyday language 'scholars' suggests the holding of a scholarship. So I think 'pupils' came along and filled the gap. It still sounds awkward to me. Xn4 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But I bet the questioner is puzzled precisely by the correct use of "pupil" to refer to students in higher education (by virtue of the teacher-student "relationship," as Xn4 says). English speakers say "a pupil in Plato's Academy," "a pupil of Gadamer," etc. The OED's only example newer than 1958 under the only sense that covers students of any kind is, "2004 M. POTTER Set Theory & its Philos. ix. 165 Cantor conjectured a special case of Bernstein's equinumerosity theorem in his 1883 book..but it was his pupil, Felix Bernstein, who proved it." Wareh 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those undertaking pupillage are likely to be over 21. Rich Farmbrough, 10:34 30 October 2007 (GMT).

At one time there was a distinction in the UK between "student nurses" and "pupil nurses". No age differene was implied, but the former were studying to become State Registered Nurses (SRN), the latter were studying to become State Enrolled Nurses (SEN). Since then the status of SEN (the less prestigious of the two qualifications) has been abolished. --rossb 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Viking names of the Baltic states ?[edit]

I can't find what is... Garðaríki was Russia, Serkland was Arabia and Persia, Miklagard was Constantinople, Vendland was Pomerania, Saxland was Lower Saxony, Bretland was Britain, Valland was Flanders, Sikelm was Sicily, Holmgard was Novgorod... It's not Baltland, or Baltgard or Baltrike, that's for sure--victor falk 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]