Language desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

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.

February 5

The word "but"

I don't understand the word "but". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.85.195.98 (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is a conjunction (grammar). Read that. See also "but" in Wiktionary. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP geolocates to South America. The Spanish equivalent is pero. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he means "butt" instead, then the nearest equivalent is probably culo. --Jayron32 06:08, 5 February 2013

Or 'colilla' if it's a cigarette butt. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

See more butts here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some ifs. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right! that's it, let's have no more ifs and buts. Richard Avery (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Seymour Butts ←[an actual article] ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yosser Hughes KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berry, bury, barry

What is it called when these all sound the same and what dialects do that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See English-language vowel changes before historic /r/#Mergers before intervocalic r, the "Mary–marry–merry merger". Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain it is the same? I can internally "hear" a difference in berry - bury (although I don't think I have one when I say it aloud, and have no idea how barry should sound) But I can never even imagine a difference between marry-Mary. Rmhermen (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Mary marry merry merger. Those sounds merger to Mary in the midwest US to the west coast. Philadelphia keeps the three vowels distinct, but unlike the rest of the US, merges merry and Murray. New Yorkers keep all four vowels distinct, and laugh at Philadelphians' "Murray Christmas" and the "Staten Island Furry". μηδείς (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'm not sure who Rmherman's question is for and thanks Alansplodge. Perhaps the reason why hurry and harry don't merge is the preceding consonant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be certain we are talking about the correct thing. The article is mary-merry-marry merger - not merry-murray-mary (as the questioner asked about) nor mary-merry-marry-murray as one respondent discusses. Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. There is perhaps a peculiar u-e-a thing going on in the b words but it seems reasonable that it could be related to the m word phenomena. I guess the question is are there similar generalized concepts to the m one referred to that give an account for these things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differently spelled words which sound alike are heterographs. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request on my talk page, in unmerged dialects:

Mary has the vowel of "may": /mɛɪ-/
Marry has the vovel of "math" /mæ-/
Merry has the vovel of "met" /mɛ-/
Murray has the vowel of "must" /mʌ-/

In most dialects with the Mary-marry-merry merger they take the /ɛɪ/, and sound like "Mary" to those without the merger; "Murray" stays distinct. In the greater NYC dialect all four vowels stay distinct. In the greater Philadelphia dialect, Mary, marry and Merry remain distinct, but merry amd Murray fall together into a reduced schwa, or even just a syllabic r, as most people would say "myrrh". μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary" did not usually have a phonetic diphthong [ɛɪ]; rather there was a [ɛː] type long vowel which only occurred before "r" (i.e. [ɛː] was in complementary distribution with [ɛɪ], so they could be considered the same phoneme)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are all sorts of complications with r coloration. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mom pronounces Sarah as /sɛɪra/ more or less. Is this the same issue? --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard pronunciation of bury is /bɛri/ (to rhyme with berry), the disjunction between the spelling and pronunciation is due to dialectal variation in Middle English.[1] I have heard some people say burry, to rhyme with Murray, but I assume this is a spelling pronunciation. So it's really not the same kind of merger as mary/marry/merry, which happened fairly recently, and only in certain dialects. Lesgles (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Trovatore, yes. In my dialect bury and berry would be homophones in either case--but yes, it is interesting that no one pronounces it buh-ry. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has enPR: -ârē, IPA: /-ɛəɹi/, X-SAMPA: /-E@ri/ for Mary, and this is standard in the UK (with regional variations -- my local dialect has the /ɛː/ mentioned by Anonmoos), not the enPR: mā, IPA: /meɪ/, X-SAMPA: /meI/ (as in May), though I'm not doubting that Medeis and Trovatore have this variant in their local pronunciations, in fact I think I've heard it in the UK. There seems to be a lot of variation. I think those who live in Bury (UK) pronounce their town /ˈbʊɹi/ (to rhyme with the northern pronunciation of Murray), though most of us pronounce the town /ˈbɛɹi/. Dbfirs 23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just a question of phonemes and how you choose to indicate them, not a strict phonetic transcription. British habits are different from American ones, and it also depends whether one treats r-colored vowels separately. In any case, in American dictionaries both May and Mary would be described as having a long a sound, even though they are not phonetically identical. In fact, /mey/ or /mej/ is more typical than /mɛɪ/ for an American transcription of the "may" phoneme. My use was casual to indicate the contrast, not a phonetic description, or, god forbid, argument, which would have come in [brackets]. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that phonemes are only approximate. I was just commenting that, in British English, the long vowels in May and Mary are different vowels, as well as being different in length. The vowel in Mary usually rhymes with "mare", "care", "fare", "rare", "bare" (& "bear") etc. not "may" in the UK, but there is considerable regional variation in its exact pronunciation. Dbfirs 08:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those all rhyme in the US as well, but they are also described as having a long a just like bake and cake. Are your examples like mare meant to be rhotic or non-rhotic or does it matter? μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was separating the vowel from the optional rhoticism, and just saying that there are three different "long a"s in British English: [mar, may, mare] [/mɑː(ɹ)/, /meɪ/, /mɛ(: or ə)(ɹ)/] (with rhoticism not changing the vowel). Dbfirs 10:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- they would be described as having "long a" in elementary-school classrooms, but many systems of dictionary transcribing symbols in the North American dictionaries have used different symbols for pre-r "long a" and non-pre-r "long a", because in most dialects they are phonetically fairly different. So I opened the AHD 3 just now (it was on top of the dictionary pile), and it has "ā pay", but "âr care). AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, elementary school classrooms, since they don't contrast, which is the sine qua non of phonemic...contrasts. Unfortunately my father threw out his 1967 Merriam Webster when he got a 2001 Oxford, and I have never needed a dictionary, so I can't say what real Americans think. If you want to insist that long a should be described as /ē/ rather than /ɛɪ/ (which was obviously a stupid and endlessly problematic concession of mine to the Brits) I am fairly certain I already conceded the point. Yet dictionary.com gives "care" as [kair] and "hate" as [heyt], regardless of which both have long a's. μηδείς (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In reply to Alanscottwalker's original question, the name "Barry" gets merged [ɛ] in my dialect, but if the heraldic term "barry" is felt to be connected with "bar", then it would have an [ɑ] vowel, just as "starry" does... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a minimal set (with a judicious choice of initial consonant) that covers the vowels of Mary-merry-marry-Murray and starry? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I was thinking of the name, so, I should have capitalized. Interesting, perhaps, the verb to mar doesn't merge either, rhyming with star, and not (horse) mare or with mere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Present (Physically there)

Is this a correct spelling /usage for the word present "You must be present to win"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.14.6 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is procreation a true synonym of conception?

The current same-sex marriage debate in Parliament has me wondering about some of the terms being used. Can 'procreation' be considered a true synonym of 'conception' or 'reproduction'? If not is there a correct verb to use for the entire process of creating and bringing up a child to adulthood? (I'd appreciate etymological answers rather than opinions on forms of marriage please) Blakk and ekka 13:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, procreation is synonymous with reproduction. Conception may refer to the actual giving life to the child. What is life? That is a debate, and not for this reference desk. I think the term you are looking for to refer to the entire process of creating and bringing up a child to adulthood is caregiving. 140.254.226.240 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question that an embryo or fetus is a living organism. The question is whether it's legally a "person". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procreation[2] is the "process of begetting offspring." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant human life or human personhood or sentience. 140.254.226.240 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs, so might a good synonym be 'beget' (although I think that sometimes that's taken as 'to father')? Does that relate procreation to the begetting of a child? What I'm looking for, I suppose, is the process of 'begetting an adult'?Blakk and ekka 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procreation may imply the actual sexual act intended to sire offspring, but whether or not there will be offspring is unclear. Begetting may refer to the process of creating the next generation, sexually or asexually. As I recall from Greek mythology, Zeus begat Athena from his head. I don't see it as procreated; I see it as begotten. I think the term you are looking for to refer to the process of "begetting an adult" is "raising a child to adulthood". Interestingly, it reminds of how Mary, the virgin, begat Jesus asexually. Hence the name, virgin. Whether or not there really was a virgin who had begotten a child miraculously is a matter of debate and not for this reference desk.140.254.226.240 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say procreation or reproduction is the entire process of generating young. I suppose some people may use procreation to refer to the sexual act itself, but this seems to me an imprecise usage. Conception, on the other hand, is more specific – I believe it means the point of the reproductive process when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. Sexual intercourse may take place but unless there is conception or fertilization no embryo (and, later, a fetus and a baby if the process continues) is formed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not synonymous. Procreation implies live birth. Conception is just fertilization of the egg. Normally the fertilized egg becomes an embryo and a fetus that then is born as a child, but it is not unusual for some stage of that process to fail (for example in a miscarriage), in which case conception has occurred without procreation. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most women have numerous spontaneous miscarriages very soon after conception, without any physical manifestations. Even women who've never had any children may have been pregnant many times but never knew it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus is that procreation begins with conception (or fertilisation) and ends with a live birth? Or would it include the sex act at one end (to coin a phrase) and some weaning/childrearing/education at the other as well? Blakk and ekka 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procreation includes the sexual act as that is integral to the reproductive process, but it ends at birth and doesn't include child-rearing, in my view. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the usage of the phrase "true synonym", and I'm guessing the answer hinges on what that means. The words mean different things: procreation is a wider act that includes conception, incubation, and frequently rearing of offspring, and can be used to refer to an ongoing process in an entire population. Conception is literally only the combination of two zygotes, and almost exclusively refers to a singular instance. They are synonyms in that they can be interchanged in some sentences and not fundamentally alter its meaning. So... depends on what a "true synonym" is. i kan reed (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He/she/it/they when referring to an unborn child?

What is the typical or standard usage when referring to an unborn child? Do English-speaking people automatically refer to it as he, she, it, or they (singular they)? What did English speakers automatically assume in the past centuries? What do English speakers assume now? I'm just asking, because it may useful to refer to an unborn child without causing a stir on correct pronoun usage or the value of human life or assuming bad faith of the person who says it.

"Congratulations you are pregnant! Concerning the child, how is it?"
"Congratulations you are pregnant! Concerning the child, how is she?"
"Congratulations you are pregnant! Concerning the child, how is he?"
"Congratulations you are pregnant! Concerning the child, how are they?"

Or perhaps, it may be easier to avoid the pronouns and go with:

"Congratulations you are pregnant! How is the child? Is it a boy or girl?" (Assuming that the unborn child has already gone through sexual differentiation inside the womb and assuming the question refers to how the child is going to be raised, not the biological sex, which, in some exceptional cases, can be quite blurry. For example, a baby girl may mean that the parents would train the child to go the women's bathroom and how to use the potty correctly.) 140.254.226.240 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all awkward. Try:

"Congratulations on your pregnancy ! How are you and the baby doing ?" StuRat (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stu, but on your main question, in BrEng, traditionally, unborn children were referred to with masculine pronouns. In more recent years, that practice has died down and "he/she" or even "s/he" is increasingly common. I have also seen material refer to unborn children in the feminine, but that is unusual and (OR) comes across to me as excessive political correctness. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's common in the US to use "it" before the sex is known, and either "he" or "she" afterwards. If the parent already knows and you want to find out, it would be common to say "Is it a boy or a girl?" In the old days when the sex was found out at birth, the doctor or nurse would say to the mother and then the father "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" Nowadays parents who have known for months which one it is will still put up a sign in front of their house once the baby has been born saying "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" Again, these are US observations. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My (extremely limited) experience tells me that midwives etc in the UK have created a new pronoun: "Baby". As in "Congratulations! How are you and Baby?" --TammyMoet (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use it for a baby whose gender is unknown, but oddly it seems unnatural to refer to a child or adult in the same situation. For the latter, I would say "he or she". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This particular it is not necessarily a personal pronoun. If someone knocks on the door, you say who is it?, not who are you?. Well, you could use the second form, but it somehow sounds aggressive. --Trovatore (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duoduoduo, you're more socially courageous than I am. My experience is that parents who know the sex of the unborn child don't always want the world to know just yet. Close family and a couple of friends, maybe. If they know, and they want you to know, they'll tell you. Now, some say that it's important everyone knows as early as possible, so that they can organise the appropriately coloured gifts. That would be at the utility/obligation end of the social relationship spectrum. Of course, that may be the last thing on the parents' minds, and they're just happy about this knowledge and want to share it. But let them share it, in their own way and in their own time, rather then putting them on the spot and maybe forcing it out of them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Congratulations on your pregnancy! Is he a boy or a girl?" Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current colloquial usage in the UK refers to an unborn child as "the bump". You might ask a friend; "How are you and the bump?". Obviously not for formal use though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of the singular they, but only use this if you are prepared for a debate on grammar and historic usage! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a fan of the singular they, but it seems to me that there are some subtle constraints on its usage. If someone is pregnant with a single child of unspecified sex, it would sound odd to me if someone said about it "How are they doing" or "Are they a boy or a girl?" Duoduoduo (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike singular they in anything but the most informal registers. But I don't get too bent out of shape about it as long as its referent is something like someone or anyone. I really dislike the usage some refdeskers have adopted of using it in reference to a named individual, apparently simply to avoid assuming anything about the individual's sex, and sometimes even when the name is something like "Steve". That usage is a pure PC-driven invention (as opposed to the refers-to-"someone" usage, which easily goes back to Shakespeare's time). --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what pronoun would you use in referring to me in the third person? "He or she" can easily lead to three or four increasingly awkward uses of "him or her", "his or her", etc. in the same sentence. The generic "he" when applied to an unspecified person could be right at least in some instances, but when referring to a specific person of unknown sex "he" is either 100% right or 100% wrong. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I would say he, and be right most of the time. Once corrected, I would switch to she. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan to English translation

Hi, I need help with the translation of this paragraph:

La celebració de la Copa d’Europa a La Molina, sota l’organització de la pròpia estació i la Federació Catalana d’Esports de persones amb Discapacitat Física (FCEDF), estava consolidada. La maduresa de la competició i l’èxit amb el qual acabava era la millor mostra. Però mancava culminar-ho amb resultats. I això va venir de la mà de Jacob Guilera. L’esquiador de Ripoll va acabar al tercer calaix del podi en eslàlom. Un èxit, ja que era el primer espanyol en aconseguir-ho amb la disputa del torneig a la mateixa Catalunya.

Thanks and regards. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's Spanish and not Portuguese? 140.254.226.240 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! sorry it's Catalan. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good-ol' Google Translate detects Catalan, and awkwardly being translation is the result thus:

Holding the European Cup in La Molina, hosted by the station itself and the Catalan Federation of Sports physically disabled (FCEDF) was established. The maturity of the competition and the success with which he had was the best example. But it lacked culminated with results. And it came from the hand of Jacob Guilera. Ripoll skier finished third step of the podium in slalom. Successful because it was the first Spaniard to do so with a Cup of Catalonia itself.

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts but I think almost the whole world know about Google :-) I need exact translation as I'm working on some article for which there's no English source. — Bill william compton^Talk 18:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Sometimes Google translate helps as a start - translate the Google translation for an actual translation? ;) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the word for...

What is the term for a word that doesn't exist (in English) but should? Usually this would be something nuanced in a foreign language that doesn't properly translate as a single term. This would also include such things as "and/or" and "s/he" [as above]. ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liff I think. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical gap is the term, I believe. --Jayron32 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical gap seems like what I'm looking for (but perhaps there is a self-referential lexical gap for the term "Lexical gap"?). The Meaning of Liff sounds like an interesting read, but it is self-defined as "A book, the contents of which are totally belied by its cover". ~~Anyway... I'll keep looking; it's one of those words that "I'll know it when I see it" - and I've seen it before, (I think).~~ [Perhaps Sniglet is what I was thinking of] ~Thanks again, ~Eric F 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC):[Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Whereas sniglets are fun, I'm thinking lacuna [which redirects to lexical gap] is more appropriate, relating to terms such as Einfühlungsvermögen —which is subtly different from its usual translation as "empathy"; and the somewhat related term fremdschämen which doesn't really translate effectively without an intrinsic understanding of the distinction between Einfühlungsvermögen and "empathy". ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as there is no synonym for "synonym", it would make no sense for there to be a word for a word that doesn't exist. It would be like saying that the word "hole" somehow describes the contents of the hole. We don't say "That hole is full of hole" (that would be the preserve of people who are full of themselves, which is where the expression "holer-than-thou" came from; bet you didn't know that). When it is known that it's an empty hole, we say it contains "empty space", "air" or "nothing". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What??? I've read that three times, and I cannot find anything even remotely resembling logic in it. It would make perfect sense for there to be a word for a word that doesn't exist, just as there is a word for a word that has only one syllable and a (concocted) word for a word that refers to itself. --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When something exists, we can do many things with it. But when it doesn't exist, we usually find our choices are rather more limited. And that limitation extends to naming it.
If I were to say There is no such word as 'apple'; we just call those things by that silly set of sounds, in order to fill the lexical gap that we discovered, because it's so much easier than "that red or green thing that grows on trees and is crunchy and tastes sweet or tart depending on the variety", you'd think I was even more insane than you may already do. The fact is that 'apple' is a fully-fledged word, not just some set of silly sounds we use in place of a real word. It exists. Now, take the case of a word that doesn't exist. There is no word for "feeling bloated as a result of eating too much Vegemite icecream". What would be your suggestion for a name for this feeling?
Now, it occurs to me that what we're really talking about here is not specific words but a whole class of words, viz. the class of words that don't exist, which is a curious class in that we can't actually name a single one of them, despite being members of a class that is vastly, incalculably more huge than the class of words that do exist.
It gets worse. The class of words that don't exist is but a minute sub-set of the class of things that don't exist. Or maybe there's an intersection, because there are words for things that don't exist, and there are things that exist for which there are no words. Back to square 1. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: you can actually buy "doughnut holes" at Dunkin' Donuts. (Arrr... "donuts" is now considered a proper spelling) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any whole hole with a hole bitten in it

Is a holey whole hole

And it just...plain...isn't --Robert McCloskey

But how do dough nuts spell doughnuts ? StuRat (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I'm game. Jack, perhaps you're being just a little too literal (or perhaps sarcastic, in which case I apologize for not picking it up). For example, other languages (German for one) treat "must" as a regular verb -- one with a past tense. I must go to the store. Yesterday I mussted go to the store? English does not have A WORD for that.

Similarly, what is the opposite of "X angers me"? Do we say "X joys me?" "I enjoy X" isn't quite the same, and "X brings me joy" isn't A WORD. Does English have a single word, a verb, that's the opposite of anger?

(Also, apologies for trying to bring this topic back on track.) --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the past tense of must, you are looking at suppletion and analysis. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic? Now look here, I may be a person of debonair and jovial inconsequence, but that's really hitting beneath the thing that holds your pants up. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is linguistics and indeed all of English has many words that English speaking individuals don't know. One of those words could possibly mean "a word that is needed but does not exist in English." But the OP didn't know, so they asked. We did not suffer from "ennui", until someone decided we needed that (word). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Languages do tend to borrow words to fill lexical gaps. Besides ennui, English has also borrowed words like schadenfreude, which describes a concept that the English language lacked a single word to capture. --Jayron32 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonyms delight me. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) @Jack "There is no word for "feeling bloated as a result of eating too much Vegemite icecream". What would be your suggestion for a name for this feeling?" By that logic, we could have a word each for every single sentence ever uttered or utterable by mankind. However, we don't. I have no problem with translating words into phrases, because it increases my word count. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a word for the sound "made by the Lord High Sanvalvwag of Hollop on discovering that he has forgotten his wife's birthday for the second year running". (The word is globber.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, if you forget your wife's birthday 144 years running, that's gross negligence. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to forget it once, and you are already running. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no word for "feeling bloated as a result of eating too much Vegemite icecream". What would be your suggestion for a name for this feeling? "-- minogued Hotclaws (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie unlikely that would catch on. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]