Language desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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 27[edit]

Looking for the meaning[edit]

Hello I am Looking for the Meaning and correct spelling of the Word "Wedo" often used to refer to A Light Skinned Hispanic, and or A white Person Can you help?

Thank you Roxie

Is it English or Spanish? List of ethnic slurs doesn't mention anything... 惑乱分からん 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Guido" was kind of a late 1970's term to refer to stereotypical Italian-American males with gold chains and unbuttoned shirts; never heard it in any other meaning... AnonMoos 05:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Guido (slang). --Lambiam ^Talk 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term has nothing to do with guido - it's spelled güero. Often in Spanish, /g/ sounds at the beginning of syllables are dropped, as in saguaro. The term is used to refer to anyone who's light-skinned or light-haired. It's not necessarily a slur, but can be used that way in the right context. I don't see anything in Wikipedia, but a quick Google search should provide some results. Straughn 06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "account for"[edit]

Hello, I noticed that it is very common to find the expression "account for" used with the meaning of "take into account". I consulted both the Merriam Webster Unabridged and the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary; according to them, "to account for" only means "to explain the reason for something" or "to form the total of something". However, another usage seems very common. For example, with a quick search with Google I find this example: "U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would require states to prepare disaster evacuation plans that account for the needs of society's most vulnerable members". Now here "account for" can clearly mean neither "explain the cause of" nor "form the total of"; it seems to be used as a synonym of "takes into account". Is it an incorrect usage? Alfredotod 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no yes, and circle it with a big fat cyber-redpen, but other people probably feel different. It is very common to use it in the same manner as "take into account", and I assume it will only become more common in the future, meaning that it will probably become correct. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I totally meant to say yes, it is incorrect. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people are influenced by the common phrase "there's no accounting for taste". Nobody ever says (as far as I know) "there's no taking taste into account". Loganberry (Talk) 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it frequently means "take into account". To use the accounting metaphor, when something is "accounted for" it is entered into the financial books, which is the same as having been "taken into account". StuRat 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would not use the expression with this meaning, and it might be confusing. For example, "New policy accounts for increasing terrorism" to me means: "You want an explanation for the increasing terrorism? Look no further, it's all the fault of the new policy." What I do use is "take account of"; I think I may use it preferentially over "take into account". --Lambiam ^Talk 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

explicit, implicit and inexplicit[edit]

I want to know what is the difference between implicit and inexplicit? is it similiar to the case in the pair flammable/inflammable? thanks --Paul 27th oct 21:08

I think the in- in inflammable is related to Latin in- meaning "in(side)", not in- meaning "not"... 惑乱分からん 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be inexplicit without being implicit. Inexplicit means literally not explicit, which can include things which are simply not clear or completely absent. Implicit means understood, but not explicit. –RHolton ≡– 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 惑乱分からん 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would too if this were not rather binary. Explicit means you spell things out for people. If you don't, and there is an underlying meaning, then that is implicit. I don't see how something can be in between, like only partly explicit. It's either the one or the other, right? DirkvdM 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone says: "You may be wrong", it does not have as an implicit meaning that you are an evil person and ought to be put to death. That meaning surely is not explicit. So it is in-explicit. And yet it is not implicit. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be wrong. :) DirkvdM 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing, not opposites. -THB 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that was the point he tried to make, but he didn't quite make that very explicit. DirkvdM 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been hoist with your own petard, Dirk. If it's binary, as you claim, then it's not possible to have degrees of explicitude(!). "Very explicit" would be as meaningless as "very unique". Is this so? JackofOz 07:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last someone notices. I had already given up after 5 days. :) DirkvdM 08:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"make love with" versus "make love to"[edit]

Seeing someone asking about the difference between replace by and replace with remind me of this one. I was wondering if "make love to" implies a lack of consensual agreement between the two parties, but it seems that this is not the case. So What is the difference between make love with and make love to? or can they be used interchangebly?

"Make love with" strikes me as strange, otherwise, my impression is that "make love with" would emphasize the act, and "make love to" the other person, although that's perhaps just my impression... 惑乱分からん 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably right. And anyway, you can't really have nonconsensual lovemaking, that's part of the difference between making love and f*cking. There are cases when to or with can be used after we made love in different ways as in we made love with our clothes on or we made love to the sounds of Kenny G. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeusoes1, your analysis is perplexing. I don't think many people would agree that consent is the difference between lovemaking and fucking; in fact lots of people (including yours truly) would say there's no difference between 'lovemaking' and fucking. Anchoress 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least in some circles, fucking is synonymous with copulating, which focuses on the purely physical aspects, while lovemaking would equally include the emotional aspects. I suspect this is the distinction Aeusoes1 was making. –RHolton ≡– 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I didn't say I didn't understand it, I said it was perplexing. I already inferred what you said in your post, but it doesn't obviate the statement he made implying that one of the differences between lovemaking and fucking is consent. Anchoress 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem some people might have with "making love to" is that it could imply doing something to someone rather than with someone. But I think the distinction is more apparent than real. As Wakuran says, "making love to" is the usual expression, so you can always say "let's make love to each other" if there's any doubt about what you mean. Of course, some couples enjoy the "power mode" aspect when it comes to lovemaking. Perhaps the more romantic ones prefer the "love mode".--Shantavira 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And anyway, you can't really have nonconsensual lovemaking, that's part of the difference between making love and f*cking." It seems clear what was meant: nonconsensual lovemaking is a contradiction in terms, since making love requires not just consent but a meaningful deep affection. This property is not true of fucking, since fucking does not require affection. This distinction encapsulates part of what we emphasize when we use the phrase "making love" rather than the term "fucking". Not perplexing at all. Personally, I find the intransitive "we made love" most natural; as AE noted, the choice of "making love" here implies a mutuality that to me seems to fit best with the collective plural subject. Tesseran 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up until maybe fifty years ago, "make love" mainly meant sweet-talking and coy flirting (whispering sweet nothings in the ear, etc.)... AnonMoos 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a "sweet nothing" anyways? Wedgeoli

Strange double meaning on cereal TV ad[edit]

I've noticed an ad for Kellogg's Special K has a strange double meaning:

"People who like cereal, like Special K, weigh less."

"People who like cereal, like Special K way less."

So, depending on the interpretation, the slogan can be claiming it will help you to lose weight, or it can be taken as meaning that people don't like how it tastes. I'm thinking a disgruntled employee of the ad agency snuck in this double meaning. I'm not sure how it ever got onto TV like that, you would think somebody would have caught the double meaning. Has anybody heard anything about controversy surrounding this ad ? StuRat 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double meanings are common in advertising. In any case, the whole art of advertising is about saying one thing but implying something else.--Shantavira 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this double meaning implies something bad about the product, that's the whole point. StuRat 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there was any controversy per se (maybe internal to Kellogg's or their ad agency), but I remember seeing the ad and thinking the exact same thing. The most obvious explanation is that they wrote the copy and didn't even consider/notice there was a homonym. howch e ng {chat} 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could be an accident; it looks forced, to me. The easiest way to say it helps your diet is "People who eat Special K lose weight", and there's no double meaning there. Also, the ad has been out for weeks now, I would have expected them to pull it as soon as someone told them about the double meaning. Perhaps the person responsible for approving ads would have to admit their mistake and risk being fired, if they pulled the ad. They may just be hoping their boss never figures it out on his own. Another thought, they may subscribe to the "any publicity is good publicity" theory and figure that the negative double meaning will at least have people talking about their cereal. StuRat 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would never make an ad exec (you'll probably take that as a compliment). "People who eat Special K lose weight": do they? Where is the evidence for that? "People who like cereal, like Special K, weigh less.": less then a pregnant hippo that is. The point is that slogans have to be catchy, factual but without real content and pithy. I suspect that every word was peered at and even the punctuation with "like Special K" set apart with brackets (strike that, sounds like an after thought, try em dashes). I would only ever ascribe the basest motives to advertisers but "way less" sound like it would only be comic to Valspeakers. MeltBanana 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm quite familiar with the tricks of ad execs. Note that my version doesn't say how many people lose weight, so as long as two people who eat Special K lose weight, then it's technically true. Of course, two people who eat pretty much anything will lose weight out of all the millions who eat that item. As for the current "weigh less" slogan, that is an intentional incomplete comparison. StuRat 07:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they've just got a whole lot of free advertising here... Aaadddaaammm 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I was going to say. Most people underestimate the saying "any publicity is good publicity". It's possible that this was done completely on purpose for exactly these reasons. It's more about brand recognition then what you actually think of the product. Have you seen those ads that imply a cadbury picinic bar look like a stool sample? Vespine 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skewboglish[edit]

What is the definition of skewboglish?

Ermmm, it probably isn't a word. Googling turns up ONE result. -- the GREAT Gavini 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Lincolnshire dialect word meaning skittish.[1] It is apparently from skew meaning wonkey, sometimes heard in the expression "skew-wiff", and bog[g]lish meaning tending to boggle or startle. I personally can't wait for the next time I see a skittish horse so I can use the word. MeltBanana 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and at this point I would like to rant on about the depressing assumption that because there are few reliable printed sources (or even web pages) which use the word it must be imaginary, ignoring the vibrancy of unwritten slang. But as I found this with google I had best shut up. MeltBanana 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La plus que lente (2)[edit]

The archiving goes quicker from day to day. See an answer @ october 24. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'archivage plus que vite. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vraiment. JackofOz 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]