Language desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 25[edit]

Need a 7 letter word meaning last[edit]

Playing a game with someone and looking for a 7 letter word pertaining to Nero being the last Roman emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. It must end in the letter h. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Last-ish'? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :) This online thesaurus gave plenty of words, but not a single one ended in '-h'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

through? impeach? seventh? ("No hairy seventh to him succeeds.")—eric 03:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "through" fits nicely. Made a shortcut to Dictionary.com. The solved puzzle then comes out as

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, fifth Roman Emperor of through with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, was held in disrepute over the same ruled mortals and produced a history segment as misrepresentation of all the emperors who were in a dilemma, a tasteless history record on the dynasty.

I think it makes sense. He's a really old professor playing these games with me.

Found reference to "No hairy seventh to him succeeds" in Google Books here. Thanks for help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it "makes sense", could someone translate it for me? It doesn't read like any English I know. Bielle (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an old game a very old professor is playing with me. I'll try to break it down to where it makes sense:

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, fifth Roman Emperor of through with the Julio-Claudian dynasty = last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty emperors.
...was held in disrepute over the same ruled mortals... = ruled the same people as Claudius.
...produced a history segment as misrepresentation of all the emperors who were in a dilemma... = left worst reputation of these emperors.
...a tasteless history record on the dynasty. = his rule is often associated with tyranny and extravagance.

The game involves coming up with appropiate words that end with certain letters and have a certain count. Examples:

7 letter word ending in h = through
7 letter word ending in s = mortals
7 letter word ending in a = dilemma

The English is not smooth as we are accustom to because it is a very old English game we are playing. He's teaching me some ancient Roman history. I think the gest of the small bio on Nero above is generally correct. Don't you agree?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the old English game would be below. See if you can solve:

_ _ _ _ _ _ s of _ _ _ _ _ _ a also, layperson and athlete, activity in the same _ _ _ _ _ a.

Answer ---> Perhaps of militia also, layperson and athlete, activity in the same tunica.

Keep in mind, this has something to do with ancient Rome that was around for about 1200 years.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the 7-letter one ending in "h" to refer to a finality, I'd have gone with "epitaph" rather than "through". Grutness...wha? 23:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like that better myself.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "of epitaph with" makes no sense in English (just like "through")? Admittedly, a replacement is elusive. Ignoring the finality meaning, I'd think perhaps "triumph". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, fifth Roman Emperor of triumph with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, was held in disrepute over the same ruled mortals and produced a history segment as misrepresentation of all the emperors who were in a dilemma, a tasteless history record on the dynasty.

Better yet, thanks! Otherwise does the short "bio" apply to Nero?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could do. Almost every emperor has his successes and failures. Even more so with Nero. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the last word has 6 letters, not 7 letters, so it looks like it comes out then:

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, fifth Roman Emperor of triumph with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, was held in disrepute over the same ruled mortals (of Claudius) and produced a history segment as misrepresentation of all of the emperors who were not in tunica (used toga instead), a tasteless history record on the ending of the dynasty.

Can someone that is expert on Nero confirm this outcome to be a description of him?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hair[edit]

What is the English term for the triangular extension of hair at the back of the neck? It is at the center of the back of the neck & is shaped like a triangle that is pointed downward and is most noticeable among hairy individuals.--68.215.227.182 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nape? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nape is just the back of the neck. English has no word for the hair there, to my knowledge. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When my barber cuts it that way, he calls it a "taper(ed) back", as opposed to a "square cut" that would go straight across. This is in Canada. And the fact that he just uses the word "back" suggests that there isn't any other word for that part of the hair. --Anonymous, 04:18 UTC, December 26, 2009.

Look up some photos of a Duck's Ass. I'm not screwing with you. Seegoon (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can confirm the above - it made a brief comeback in the UK in the 1970s when 50s retro was chic. Known in polite circles as a D. A. for obvious reasons. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dried eye fluid[edit]

When I wake up, I find that at the corners of my eyes near towards the nose bridge, there are solidified substances. What are they called?--68.215.227.182 (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes referred to as Rheum. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--68.215.227.182 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dried eye mucus is called "sleep". Paul Davidson (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to hear that stuff called "sleepers". It's fair to say that's probably a colloquialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkees Song Lyrics: "Daydream Believer": verse 1, line 5: "Wipe the sleep out of my eyes." Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eye boogers or eye crusties --Nricardo (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also sometimes called 'sand' (usually with the clarificatory addition of 'in my/your eyes), from folktale (and modernised) references to The Sandman. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question of the clinical term for "eye boogers" has been asked several times on various Reference Desks. Search the archive. It turns out that doctors usually just call it "matter". Despite what some websites claim, it does not appear that "rheum" or "gound" are commonly used as clinical terms for the dried, crusty stuff. I note that our rheum article is completely unreferenced, unless you count the external link to "Memidex free online dictionary and thesaurus."

In Spanish, the word lagañas exists to describe eye boogers. Lagañas has no good English equivalent -- it usually translates to "sleep." The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was little, my parents used to call them "Sleepytimes." Sounds kind of silly now, but that's what I grew up with. ^_^ Kingsfold (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards dictionary[edit]

Is there a way to find certain words with the letter they end with? For example, say I was looking for all 4 letter words that end with a. Or I was looking for all 6 letter words ending with an r. Or I was looking for all 10 letter words ending with s. Is there already such a program already out there someplace that provides this?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the many Hangman solvers can do this. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some solvers have limitations, but googling "Hangman solver" comes up with any number of them, so you're welcome to try them all out. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "crossword solver" might turn up some other tools. Also the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on CD includes tools for this. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evocative (on the question of syntax)[edit]

It is an old discussion. I thought someone would comment on this further, but that has not happened. Here is the OP: —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word to indicate that a word needs a subsidiary phrase. Eg Evocative or reminiscent which need the "of ...." Kittybrewster ☎ 16:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrasal verb seems to be what you're looking for. (But note that "evocative" can be used on its own, to refer to something that brings up emotions. (e.g. google {"very evocative" -"evocative of"} with the quotes, but without the curly braces). -- 128.104.112.94 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Evocative of" is not a phrasal verb, because "evocative" is not a verb. --Anon, 06:26 UTC, December 22, 2009.

Also see subcategorization, though the article is woefully exiguous. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Some languages might have evocative markers in their lexical or grammatical marking. In English, I doubt there is such thing; other than in poetical natures. However, if you can clarify this with a sentence, then it is easy to understand what you are saying. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of eg "It is evocative of the spirit of Manderley", "the smell is reminiscent of an abattoir". Kittybrewster ☎ 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That is better. My answer is then these words (which I have not read often in contexts but according to corpora) usually form as a nominal in a sentence (though the examples are adjectival here), i.e. by taking of a subsidiary phrase (usually a prepositional phrase, as you said). And as they are adjectives, they can function as adjectives.

And to a different question on whether a word needs a subsidiary phrase in phrasal categories, other than ‘Comp phrase’ which requires a phrase, all other words can stand alone within their phrasal categories.

However, you may be correct on the assumption that ‘evocative’ as a rhetorical marker needs a subsidiary phrase in discourses (not just mentioning the grammatical aspect). If that is case, I do know the word for such feature either. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Kitty's question was perfectly clear (to a native speaker) in its original form. I'm glad Kitty's examples made the question clearer to you, Mihkaw.

I'm going back to the first anon, in the very first answer. The phrasal verb is is evocative of or is reminiscent of, with is as the verb.

You can replace "is evocative of" with the verb "evokes", for example It is evocative of the spirit of Manderley: It evokes the spirit of Manderley. You cannot similarly replace "evocative" when is evocative is used intransitively, because the verb evoke is pretty transitive. For example: It is certainly evocative: *It certainly evokes (although I suppose you might try, it would always sound like it was missing something to me). The of transforms it from intransitive to transitive. Perhaps a linguist could comment. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are few new problems now, but I add one comment on the OP. The examples as stated above require first a noun phrase, though we see many such samples in English corpora. So I have to conclude that what we see in corpora are not correct as to their contexts in syntax, i.e. the word ‘evocative’ must be a noun or a modified noun before it can take a second AdjComp. One may argue however that the corpora are the most conventionalized speech patterns that give prominence to particular rhetorical elements than their syntax. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of pronoun "I"[edit]

What is the historical justification for capitalizing the word "I"? It doesn't seem to be serving any function in making English easier to understand, and no other word in English has this kind of special rule (except for the vocative "O", sometimes, and He, Him, His to refer to God). Also, is there any chance that this rule will drop out of English in the future? Thanks. 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to google and entered [why is i capitalized] and a whole bunch of entries came up, much of it appearing to be speculation. This one [1] seems to be a reasonably scholarly explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (pronoun)#Etymology says:"Capitalisation of the word began around 1250 to clarify the single letter as constituting a full word: writers and copyists began to use a capital I because the lower-case letter was hard to read, and sometimes mistaken for part of the previous or succeeding word."

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a proto-Germanic origin, what else could have been the reasons as such to emphasize the first person singular, while a special stress is given to the first person singular to be small letters in German (as though nouns are capitalized)? An example as I just got:

"..., über Deine Mail zum Christfest freue ich mich sehr. Ich bin gerne und immer Dein...."

It seems the stress in first person singular pronoun in English rather an accident (but conventionalized) than having an explainable etymological origin. Is there any linguistic prescription in modern English? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the better question why capitalization of "I" didn't stop when it stopped for other nouns? English used to capitalize all nouns. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns are not "nouns" in the relevant sense, anyway: German doesn't capitalize pronouns except for Sie (formal 2nd. person) and related forms. AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informal 2nd person pronouns get capitalized as well, occasionally. See above with "Dein". Rimush (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, only the pronouns of '2nd. person' are capitalized in German, than I thought as if they were common to all pronouns other than in the cases of ambiguities where a pronoun stress marker is necessary (like, plural ‘sie’ versus formal ‘Sie’). —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common folk etymology-ish thing is that the capitalization of "I" represents the individualist/navel-gazing nature of English speakers (i.e., we think we're so important we capitalize "I", whereas Spanish speakers capitalize formal "You", French speakers capitalize no pronouns, etc.). This is fanciful and groundless, so you shouldn't believe it...but people do try to say it from time to time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In blackletter script, "i" was just a single-minim unit, and so not very distinctive on the page. Of course, the letter "i" was sometimes swashed to "j" at the beginning of a word ("I" and "J" were not really distinguished until the 17th century, and were not always considered fully separate letters of the alphabet until the 19th century). AnonMoos (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once asked a teacher why the I was capitalized. She explained to me that it was simply a carry-over from the German Ich, which satisfied my curiosity (apparently I never thought to ask why Ich would always be capitalized) and I lived happily ever after... until the second week of German class a decade later. Matt Deres (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I would guess that I is capitolized simply in order to make it apparent that the use of the single letter is intentional. since a is not a pronoun, that would seem to me to explain the reason why it's treated differently. ...and, now that I read the rest of this, I see that Wavelength stated something similar, above.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any chance that "I" will stop being capitalized (as modern typography/handwriting makes it distinct enough for the capitalization not to be required), or will a lack of capitalization always be stigmatized (as wholly uneducated or childish, say) enough for the rule to continue perpetually? 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference desk, not the prognostication desk, so I don't think anyone here can answer that question. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]