Language desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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.

April 26

Is "welfare" aspirational or non-aspirational in your country?

A discussion at talk:Welfare leads me to take a straw poll among editors.

I am from the UK (though living in Finland currently) and to my understanding the word "welfare" these days is almost always used as a word is as an attribute to another noun (as in Welfare State, welfare payment) or as a noun preceded by a qualifier, as in Animal welfare, child welfare, social welfare etc.) and in every case I read the meaning of "well-being" into every example. A Welfare state is one where the government assures the well-being of its citizens, and welfare payments are intended to raise the well-being of the recipient and their dependents. The other examples are obvious. In the UK and in Finland, welfare is something aspirational because we want to experience well-being and we want our animals and children to have it too. Used on its own (i.e. not as an attribute or qualified noun, as in the phrase "It is for her welfare", the meaning of "welfare" could never be anything other than "well-being".

In the U.S. it seems to me, the word "welfare" has come to mean "government aid to the poor" and has almost lost its root in "well-being". As such, it seems to me that "welfare" in the USA is non-aspirational. Americans will say "living on welfare" and "welfare-to-work" in which the meaning of "well-being" cannot be read into welfare at all. Furthermore, welfare on its own does now, I think, mean "government aid" in most U.S. usage.

Some American usages have crossed the Atlantic so Brits might use "welfare fraud" though I still see that as shorthand for "welfare system fraud" and still see "well-being" as the root. But I have never heard a fellow Briton ever refer to the welfare system or welfare payments as simply "welfare".

So now I'd like to take a non-scientific straw poll amongst editors here to find out to what extent the American usage has spread. I'd like you tell us whether, in the main, you think the word "welfare" in your country is aspirational or non-aspirational. I'll reply to my own poll and maybe you can keep to the same format. 84.250.230.158 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it in your country? (part of "Is "welfare" aspirational or non-aspirational in your country?")

aspirational (UK) 84.250.230.158 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments (part of "Is "welfare" aspirational or non-aspirational in your country?")

Just wanted to point out that even in the US the word in a general sense retains the meaning of "well being", as in the first sentence of the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Pfly (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that only means that it retained that meaning back then. However, I agree that it can still be used in that way in the US, such as "we hope to improve the welfare of all concerned". StuRat (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wild conjecture: Perhaps the word "welfare" has a less negative connotation in the UK and commonwealth countries because there exists a separate word, "dole", which carries the grubby, derogatory associations. If someone in the UK wants to criticize the welfare state, he can speak of layabouts "on the dole". In the US, the only common locution is "on welfare", so the word "welfare" has acquired all the negative connotations that "on the dole" carries in the UK. LANTZY ^TALK 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anyone's idea of an ideal way to exist, but I don't think the so-called dole has quite got to the point of being grubby or derogatory in Australia. (But then, I suppose that, even though I ceased that role a month ago, I'm still viewing it from the perspective of an employment consultant all of whose clients were in that situation. More to the point, I'm viewing it from the perspective of a job seeker who has recently applied for it himself. How ironic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Jack of Oz says about Australia also applies in the UK. In the UK "the dole" is not used very much these days. The term predates WW2 but since the Welfare State there has been an Individual mandate that every working person,whether employed or self-employed pays National Insurance. An unemployed person gets Unemployment benefits (never called Welfare) by virtue of their contributions (=premium) history. Because it is insurance, there is no shame if you make a claim. Its your right cos you paid into the risk pool. The main stay against absolute poverty to meet general living costs in the UK is Income Support. It to is never called "welfare" in the UK. Whereas Americans say "living on welfare". I think the British equivalent would be "living on benefits", where "benefits is short for "Social Security Benefits". For decades the main source for these benefits was the Department of Social Security (a government agency administering the benefits system) and local government which provides more personal social services for the vulnerable such as home help, a personal social worker to act as advocate and adviser, and with powers to assist with housing costs and reducing the local taxation burden for the poor. Again, none of this is actually called WELFARE in the UK though it is part of the WELFARE SYSTEM (where the word welfare means WELLBEING and not "government handouts".) I am having some trouble convincing my fellow editors at Talk:Welfare that Welfare does NOT generally mean "government aid for the poor" in the UK. 84.250.230.158 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US also has multiple programs. The Social Security system is generally where you get back what you paid in, as is Unemployment Insurance (although there are exceptions). Other programs like the former AFDC and current Medicaid are more of your classic "transfer programs", where assistance is given to the poor. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the question is asked is somewhat skewed. Since you link the word 'welfare' to 'unemployment', the question almost seems to come directly from some right wing talk radio host, and clearly, almost anybody would say that 'living on welfare' is 'non-aspirational', as in, we don't think very many people, given the choice between a job (with a decent salary, interesting tasks and good work environment) would be better than 'living on the dole'. So, my reply, in essence, would be that it depends a lot on what people associate that word with. If people associate the word 'welfare' with unemployment payments, it's 'non-aspirational', if the context of the word is different, say in a discussion on 'animal welfare', it's probably 'aspirational', and might even be so for people who just ticked the box for welfare (the word on its own) being non-aspirational.

The second thing is that I don't know how well this question translates. From what you say, it translates into Finnish, but I would say that it does not translate into my native Norwegian. In Norwegian, the word for 'welfare', meaning 'well-being', is 'velferd', and is even included in the name of the welfare state - 'velferdsstat'. And clearly, that word is positive, as it simply means 'well-being'. That word, though, is different from the word for money that people get from the state at various points in their lives, which is called 'trygd'. (my stab at guessing the etymology would be that it's related to 'trygghet' meaning 'safety'.) As such, any stigma of 'being on welfare' is decoupled from the word 'welfare', as 'welfare' isn't the word for money given by the state when bad things happen to you. V85 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting to the core of the difference between US English and English as (I think) it is used outside of the US. The word came into Britain from Norway (presumably in the Viking era). I think everyone can see the similarity of welfare and verlferd. At Talk:Welfare you will see that a US dictionary published in 1913 only had the meaning of "well-being". So the usage in the US is new. My problem is that certain U.S. based WP editors are saying that the article about "government aid to the poor" should be titled "Welfare", because they argue, it is mostly known as welfare. My argument is that this is not the case. Brits do not use the word "benefits" or "welfare benefits" to talk about the money whereas the system that delivers it is called "social security". Its not called welfare simply because welfare means (in British English at least) "well-being". The compound word in Finnish is Hyvinvointi being hyvin + vointi (well + being) (vointi being derived from voida). And like Norwegian it is a very positive word, as I argue that "Welfare" still is in British English (and as some American editors have pointed out, can still be seen as meaning "well-being" in North America). And this word is never used to mean the same as government aid as it is in the USA.

StuRat hits on another linguistic understanding barrier. There is a big difference in the meaning of "Social Security" depending on where you live. In most of the world I believe Social security is "the general idea of government ensuring welfare (=wellbeing) for all", whereas in the U.S.A. Social Security is the title of just one program providing pensions for the retirees and the long term sick.84.250.230.158 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sort of personal essay near the top of the social security article along the lines you mention; this needs to be cleaned up (mostly removed) because it's just not encyclopedic as it stands.

As far as the term welfare in the sense of government assistance, it's not used that much even in the States anymore. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A trend in Australia is to use the somewhat derogatory term middle class welfare to describe governemnt benefits for people nowhere near the bottom of the income pile, such as a recent proposal from the Opposition Leader to provide assistance to families struggling to pay for their nannies. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like another case of attributive use with a meaning towards "aid" as in "welfare fraud". As an Australian, what does the word "welfare" on its own conjour up in your mind? "well-being" or "government aid"? Or is so ambiguous that neither meaning is certain? --84.250.230.158 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's unknowable without some context. If a group of schoolkids was asked to write a sentence demonstrating the meaning of the word "welfare", I'm sure you'd get examples of both usages. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for me, context would provide the meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this Hebrew wikipage of Welfare, which states the following:

In US and Canada, "welfare" usually connotes economic aid given to the poor people, due to their inability to care for that. In Europe however, this word has a broader sense, in the meanings of: universal responsibility and social solidarity. It's for the poor as well as for the rich, and acts to guarantee a reasonable quality of life and social support for all citizens, without the stigmatization of charity.

Btw, in Israel, the English term "welfare" is always translated into Hebrew: רווחה, and has both meanings, depending on the context. In phrases like "Welfare State", and "Welfare policy", it's always undersood as aspirational, whereas in phrases like "Ministry of Welfare" or "Welfare payments", it's always undersood as non-aspirational.

87.68.43.82 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on this point (part of "Is "welfare" aspirational or non-aspirational in your country?")

What would be useful in actually changing the encyclopedia we are trustees of, are Wikipedia quality sources, that can be use both as citations and to guide the editing and improving of Wikipedia. Please suggest some that meet Wikipedia's policies. Secondary and/or tertiary sources would be even more useful (note WP:PSTS). Lentower (talk) 15:19, 27 nApril 2012 (UTC)

I gave you three dictionary citations showing the meaning of "financial aid" as being primarily in North America but you seemed unsatisfied. Aspirational or non-Aspirational was just my way of pointing out that the North American usage had, in effect, turned the meaning of the word on its head by turning something that was positively desirable into something associated with dependency and shame. The discussion at Talk:Welfare is centered on this issue.84.250.230.158 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have discussed on Talk:Welfare. those three sources are inadequate for the change(s) you want to make based on them. Lentower (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon Conlang

Has the Book of Mormon been translated into a conlang? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a constructed language, it seems. Who knew people did this sort of stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the Book of Mormon has been translated into Esperanto, but according to this the translation was not sanctioned or approved by the LDS Church. I'd be very surprised if it had ever been translated into any conlang other than Esperanto, but I suppose anything's possible. Angr (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My next bet would be Klingon. Klingon speakers seem to like this sort of thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was translated from one! Ba-dump-ching! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it will be translated into LOLCat after they've finished with the Bible. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Ask and ye shall receive. tutlhobchugh, boHevlu'! Duomillia (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an Interlingua translation. (Illo non es un version official.) --Cam (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next question is, has The Book of Mormon been translated into a conlang? I bet it would make a gripping Klingon opera. Angr (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it's been translated into Marklar. - filelake shoe 09:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Sonn-”

What is “Sonn-”? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? In what context, what language? In German, it can mean sun-, ('Sonntag' means sunday), although 'Sonnen-' is far more common. - Lindert (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article 139 WRV. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's Sonntag with a line break. Bgfx (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of “an Sonn- und Feiertagen”. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's "Sundays and public holidays", just short for "Sonntagen und Feiertagen". - filelake shoe 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So that means 'on Sundays and holidays' (or more literally 'on Sun- and holidays'). - Lindert (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that English never regards the bit before -day of any day of the week as a prefix that can be separated in that way, so you'd never translate it like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are certain activities banned on Sundays and public holidays in Germany? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a language question, and since your IP address is from Germany, I assume you can read German. You may like to read de:Ladenöffnungszeit, especially the parts relevant specifically to Germany. Angr (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Jews in Germany still compelled to observe Sundays and public holidays, even if they wish to observe Shabbat and Jewish holidays? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, most people in Germany are free from work on Saturday, so observing Shabbat shouldn't be a problem. The fact remains that Germany has a Christian tradition to observe Sunday rest. A national work pattern is beneficial to society, and lets companies and the government work more efficiently than if everyone chose their own weekly pattern or even decided to observe an 8-day week or something like that. It is not possible to please everyone, (e.g. Muslims do not get off-time for Hajj). It is easy to see why the current system is observed as opposed to a Jewish or other system, as Christianity (even if only nominal) is by far the largest religion in Germany. - Lindert (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless trivia -- an 8-day week is a nundinum.
84.61.181.19 -- we don't have many "blue laws" in my area, but those of all religions (or none) are prohibited from buying bottles of liqueurs and fortified wines on Sundays. Just be thankful you don't live in certain Muslim-majority countries, where during the month of Ramadan non-Muslims often eat during the day strictly privately behind firmly closed doors, because in the past it's sometimes been known to lead to ugly scenes if non-Muslims publicly and visibly eat during the day.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not useless at all, Anon. I'm sure it would come in very handy if one were desirous of translating the Beatles' "Eight Days a Week" into Latin, as I'm sure most right-thinking people are tempted to do frequently. WHAAOE, but we do not yet have a Latin version of that page, so go to it, latinists. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries far away from Abrahamic religions also adopt a 7 day working week with Sundays being the primary day of rest and Saturday being secondary - Japan and China are just two examples. Most people in those countries, Jewish or otherwise, tend to observe those working weeks, and Christians are definitely minorities in those countries. It's a matter of social consensus, it's a bit of a stretch to call it "forcing" people to rest on Sundays. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Jewish stores in Germany still compelled to close on Sundays (except for a few shopping Sundays) and public holidays, even if they close on Shabbat and Jewish holidays? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions to answer your question:

Why are you asking about Germany alone? See Sunday shopping, which can answer most of the questions you can think of on the subject.
If you must ask these questions, why are you asking them at the language desk? If you must, indeed, ask, go to the Miscellaneous desk.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]