Language desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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 12[edit]

idealogy v ideology[edit]

In some dictionaries, "idealogy" is listed as a varient of "ideology." Does anyone know if this is British usage, or where it comes from? Would "idealogy" be kosher for use on Wikipedia? Would "ideology" be prefered? My instinct says to prefer "ideology" if for no other reason than to avoid having others constantly changing it due to a preceived typographical error. — vijay (Talk) 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could leave an HTML comment explaining the spelling ;) — vijay (Talk) 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of using rare, alternative variants for words? I can't see the point of using alternate words without any reason behind them (i.e. semantic differences, etc.)... 惑乱分からん 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially variants whose spellings are due to morphological misanalysis, like miniscule. Nohat 08:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and "whilst". I can't figure out why anybody says that. "Anyhoo", too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I find myself wondering what's wrong with 'whilst', I've never heard of 'idealogy' and can't find it in a couple of British dictionaries that I've tried. (btw my Collins dictionary says 'whilst' is "chief Brit." --Dweller 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Idealogy" is probably based on the spelling of the word "idea" (but that's not how ancient Greek compounding happened to work, so technically it's considered incorrect...). AnonMoos 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "ideal". 惑乱分からん 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She" as "it"[edit]

So, why does English use the pronoun "she" to refer to inanimate objects? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't usually. Boats are a common exception that are often refered to as "she". Rmhermen 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See She. Seamen love their boats. See grammatical gender and noun class. Many languages have gendered nouns, English may be in the minority in that most nouns are not gendered. -THB 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article, but since it doesn't have any references, I couldn't use it, and came and asked the question here. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are detailed discussions in some of the larger early 20th-century grammars (i.e. Jespersen) etc. Other than in a few special cases, it's mostly an antiquated literary affectation by now -- and it has little to do with the grammatical gender found in languages such as French, Spanish, German etc. AnonMoos 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second AnonMoos - using "she" to refer to inanimate object is a sign of affection and personification of said object, and has little to do with grammar. Since most nouns in English are genderless, you can theoretically use any pronoun (he, she, it) to replace them, although "it" would be most correct while the other two imply that you are attributing some form of person-like characteristic to the object. Men seem to do this more often than women, in my experience, usually when referring to big, noise-making things (cars, motorcycles, ships...) ;-) — QuantumEleven 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English has no gender as others have noted. He can also get used for inanimate objects when they are being personified. But you wanted references. Jespersen is good as already noted. Also, take a look at Michael Barlow's A situated theory of agreement (1992) published by Garland and available in academic libraries for a theory of how agreement works as a semantic resource. It kind of takes the mystery away from the issue. mnewmanqc 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some British dialects where 'he' is often used to denote an inanimate object, certainly Hampshire where I am from. FreeMorpheme 13:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "she" is used colloquially in place of "it" for abstracts in Australia and New Zealand, hence the good old phrase "She'll be right" meaning "That's OK". Grutness...wha? 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Like to See it Lap the Miles by Emily Dickinson[edit]

hey everyone. does anyone know what the poem "I like to see it lap the miles" by Emily Dickinson is about. i know it's about a train with the metaphor of a horse, but does anyone know anything beyond that. thanks!

-anon.

See [1] which incidently comes up first when Googling the title. Nice concise analysis. -THB 10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a {{homework}} tag? =) doktorb _words^deeds 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, {{dyoh}} Shinhan 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word for a person who has a love for teaching[edit]

I've been thinking about prefixes and suffixes lately for some reason, and this particular word has eluded me. You know how the suffix "-iphile" is used to indicate that someone has a love for something (like a "bibliophile," or a person who has a love for books)? What is the word for someone who has a love for teaching? I was under the impression that "-ped" was the proper prefix for something like this ("pedagogue," "pedantic") but that doesn't work for obvious reasons. :) Thanks! --pie4all88 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aahh, actually, the ped-root in all of these words seem to be derived from the greek word for "child", while the "-agog" might be derived from Greek "agein" (to lead). "Pedantic" is from an Italian mangling... 惑乱分からん 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these philia and phobia terms come from Greek, e.g., hydrophilia is a love of water. The Greek for "water" is hydor (as a prefix it becomes hydro-), and -philia (the suffix) is Greek for "liking" or "friendship". The Greek for "teacher" is didaskale or daskalos ("teach"), so it's very probably didaskalophilia or daskalophilia. Note I have no references to back this up, as I couldn't find any use of the word. The second one sounds better, but then ease of pronounciation has never been a concern with some of these constructions. Fear of teachers would therefore be daskalophobia. Proto::► 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that didaskalophilia would be a love of teachers. Apparently, "didaxis" (root "didak-" or "didac-" in the more usual Latin transliteration) means teaching. Wouldn't a love of teaching be more like didacophilia? Marco polo 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good too. I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. Proto::► 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot for the help here, guys. Great job coming up with these answers! --Pie4all88 02:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best-known English derivative of "didaxis" must be "didactic", which suggests "didactophile". Going back to the pedagogy root, one could also make "pedagogophile" (or in Britain, "paedogogophile" — although in a country where some of the yobs don't know a paedophile from a paediatrician, I think I'd want to avoid that one). There are a few Google hits on each of these and/or their corresponding -philia nouns; I have not checked any dictionaries to see if any of them is considered an established usage. --Anonymous, December 13, 02:15 (UTC).

My expertise is in Greek, not in English word-formation, but I'm dubious about all these suggestions & about the likelihood of success with this approach. You can find a word with active teaching connotations (say, paideusis, or maybe didache), but as soon as it's compounded with -philia, I think you're implying "love of teaching [performed by someone else]." Philomathy is the only English word with -phil- that really seems to mean "love of DOING X" (none of the -philias is close). Even in this case, the word implies love of something external to the lover, and expressions relating "teaching" to a person tend to drift in this direction, referring to someone else's teaching, which is effectively passive not active (Herodotus says someone speaks ek didaches, "as a result of instruction [by someone else]" = "as instructed"). (Perhaps also "philology" originally meant love of engaging in discourse, but no one seems to understand it that way now; as a Sanskrit professor whose seminars proceeded at a glacial pace once announced, "Philology is the love of a word!" Anyway, I find it hard to cram the didask- stem into this pattern: philodidaxy? philodidachy? If you really need a vaguely Greekish words, these at least seem less to mean the opposite of what's intended.) FWIW, originally didaktikos has the idea of "skilled at teaching" and could certainly characterize a person. Wareh 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Thanks again for putting so much thought into this, everyone! --pie4all88 08:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish[edit]

Can anyone translate this for me please.

"Hasta la vicroire siempre mi amigo!" Ken 15:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a typo for "Hasta la victoria siempre, mi amigo!" meaning "Until the victory, always, my friend!" (It looks more like the French spelling victoire, strangely enough...) 惑乱分からん 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Ken 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sofa, couch, settee[edit]

Of the three words 'sofa', 'couch' and 'settee', which would be considered middle class and which working class in the UK? --Auximines 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the ghost of Nancy Mitford -- see U and non-U English ... AnonMoos 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Couch" was non-U. -THB 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they stand for slightly different things, but just from the perspective of your question, I would say that "settee" is the most pretentious, while "couch" is the least (as well as sounding a bit American). "Sofa" is somewhere in between. — QuantumEleven 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that's funny, because the editor who proofread my book said 'settee' is the least pretentious, and sofa (or chesterfield) is the most. Anchoress 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When faced with a disagreement between a professional editor and QuantumEleven, I would go with the editor! ;-) — QuantumEleven 06:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I mean it, you actually made me laugh out loud. You are a very classy packet, XI. Anchoress 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it really hard to believe that anyone would say with a straight face that settee is less pretentious than couch and sofa. I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone using that word in spoken English, but I hear both sofa and couch all the time. I've heard that chesterfield is an old-fashioned term for a sofa that was used around where I am from (Northern California) but I've never heard anyone call a sofa a chesterfield. Nohat 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of regional variation in the use of these terms. What is rare or pretentious in northern California could be common and unpretentious in the UK, or vice versa. As for "chesterfield", I understand that this term is in widespread use in Canada. Marco polo 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's davenport ... User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My family always called a small couch with only room for two a "love seat", but people have looked at me like I was insane whenever I used the term. And, of course, I am insane (or is that inane ?), but not for that reason. StuRat 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my north Wales farmhouse in the 60s, the relevant piece of furniture was "the settee", and we certainly weren't pretentious! -- Arwel (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "love seat" more often refers to a curious S-shaped 2-seater, with the sitters facing opposite directions (paradoxically). I've never heard of a standard 2-seater couch called a "love seat", although depending on what goes on there, it may well be an appropriate epithet. Thanks for acknowledging your insanity, Stu - but then, a truly insane person would probably be in deep denial. I think the usual description these days for one such as you is "troubled". :) JackofOz 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Linking L" in Brazilian Portuguese?[edit]

In a Brazilian dialect that vocalizes syllable-final /l/ to [w], what happens to word-final /l/ followed by a vowel? In a phrase like "Brasil é um pais...", would the /l/ of "Brasil" still be pronounced as [w], or would it be [l]? --Lazar Taxon 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? --Lazar Taxon 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letter ending: yours[edit]

While writing a letter the other day, I started thinking: what does the closing phrase "yours," (which I'm guessing is a shortened and perhaps more informal version of "your truly," or "yours sincerely,") actually mean? It seems a very strange thing to write when I think about it, in a way implying either ownership or devotion... but since I'm not an English native speaker, I was hoping someone might be able to help me....? — QuantumEleven 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Business letter particularly the "closing" section. You are guessing correctly, and "Yours truly" is an abbreviation for the more florid closings formerly used, such as "I remain, truly yours, etc." -THB 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, THB. However, I'm still a bit fuzzy on the actual meaning of "yours," (or, if you want, "I remain, yours truly,") - I guess I'm just curious as to the origins of this phrase. Does anyone have any ideas? — QuantumEleven 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening of former phrases common in 18th century and earlier, such as "Your most humble servant", etc. AnonMoos 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, it used to be standard that "Yours faithfully" was used with business letters and "Yours sincerely" with personal letters. It wouldn't surprise me if the shortening to "Yours" evolved from those circumstances when it was less clear-cut which of the two was more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic vs. Theatrical qualities[edit]

What is the difference between dramatic qualities as opposed to theatrical qualities in the context of me attempting to analyse the last scene of "The Winter's Tale"? I cannot remember for the life of me and I'm getting all mixed up in my answer and my notes are due in tomorrow :S Thanks! Farosdaughter 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert (and am unfamiliar with "The Winter's Tale") but I can offer an idea: theatrical may have to do with elements of staging the play; dramatic would include the tensions between characters, plot development, etc. Good luck! -- Deborahjay 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]