Language desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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 29[edit]

Dog eat dog[edit]

Does anybody know why this is the phrase, rather than "dog eats dog"? It's bugging me. --Estrellador* 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that is normal when its an adjectival phrase rather than a statement. However, I haven't so far been able to think of any other examples of that construction.--Shantavira 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Johnny come lately" perhaps?--Shantavira 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a variation of an old Latin proverb(?) "Dog does not eat dog", with the modern usage originating in 30's USA http://www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterD/dogeatdog.html 惑乱分からん 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. --Estrellador* 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual and Virtue[edit]

Is the word "virtual" related to the word "virtue"? The article about "virtual" talks about that "another core meaning has been elicited", but my English is not so terribly good, and I understood no word of that. If the words are related, is the meaning related?

wimdw: 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtue in English means good personal character (implying especially honesty, strength, probity and honor), and derives from the Latin virtus which meant strength (originally it literally meant manliness). Virtual is also derived from virtus but in English has recently gone a paradoxical meaning shift so it means the exact opposite of what it used to mean. In English, until the late 20th century, virtual and virtually were used as an intensive adjective and adverb meaning "truly", but in the last few decades, English speakers ignorant of the precise meaning began to use virtually to mean "almost". Computer geeks seldom have advanced language skills and in the last 2 decades reconverted the adjective virtual in computer jargon to mean "simulated", as in virtual reality (the opposite of true reality). Ironic and annoying to some of us. alteripse 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From etymonline.com

1398, "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities," from M.L. virtualis, from L. virtus 
"excellence, potency, efficacy," lit. "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). 
The meaning of "being something in essence or fact, though not in name" is first recorded 1654, 
probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (1432). 
Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959. 
Virtually (c.1430) originally meant "as far as essential qualities or facts are concerned;" 
sense of "in effect, as good as" is recorded from c.1600.

惑乱分からん 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The computer usage seems quite consistent with the 1430 usage, meaning "virtual reality" is "in effect, as good as reality" (or at least that's what the advertisers claim). StuRat 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus derives from vir, man, which gave also virilis, virile, triumvir, &c. (but not virus).

It is interesting to note the possible influence of, or correlation with, might. The meanings are 1) power and 2) could (virtually, as having enough power) ... What do you think ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 惑乱分からん. The computer term is completely consistent with previous usage, and it is accepted by most authorities. I agree with Alteripse, however, that the use of "virtually" to mean "almost" is a regrettable broadening of the sense, but such is the case with many other adjectives, and there is not much to be done about it. Lesgles (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This virtually answers my question. :wimdw: 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"...have contributed to the production costs..."[edit]

A PBS TV program in Michigan, called Off The Record, ends each program by saying "(This week's sponsors) have contributed to the production costs for Off The Record". I think they mean to say that those sponsors helped to PAY for the costs, but it sounds like what they are actually saying is that those sponsors have made the show more expensive. Is my interpretation correct ? StuRat 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. Which one is more reasonable? --BluePlatypus 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat makes an interesting point. The former phrase is correct, but it's also ambiguous. I hadn't noticed the ambiguity until he pointed it out.--Shantavira 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would state it differently: "Unnecessary and unwanted ambiguity is to be avoided whenever possible". A better way to say it would be: "(This week's sponsors) have contributed financially to cover production costs for Off the Record". StuRat 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "hoik"[edit]

I am seeking the origin and derivations of the word "hoik". Normally used as a phrase, "hoiked up"; within the context of "purposely generated or manipulated public interest created in a previously little-known subject or event, sometimes to the extent of causing alarm or dismay in the areas of public discourse, usually for the cynical purpose of publicizing a particular political candidate or philosophy. I heard this word used in various political discussion forums, but I've never seen it in print, so the spelling of the word may not be correct. Does anyone have pertinent information on this word? Thanks for your curiosity. 75.15.156.234 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edition of the OED doesn't say, but I strongly suspect it's the word "hoist", made slang by adding a glottal stop.--Shantavira 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OED spells it hoick and suggests it derives from hike, earliest cite 1898. It is interesting I have not really heard it used in the way you describe, similar to hype, which probably influenced it. I understand it to mean something like "pull up" as in "he hoiked his socks up" but according to the OED hoick also is a variant of "yoicks" said to excite hunting dogs, earliest cite 1607 which also sounds like what you are describing. BTW hoick also means spit probably from "hawk" which is what I feel like doing when I hear some political discussions. MeltBanana 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably onomatopoetic, from the sound of rapid moist airflow in the back of the throat, as in "The old man hoicked up a gob of plegm," or "The cat just hoicked up another hairball."Edison 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To check if I get your meaning of the word right; the biggest hoik of the moment must be the attention given to terrorism, the death toll of which is negligible to that of loads of other causes of death that get nowere near the same amount of attention. Is that what you mean? Oh, and thank you for giving me an excuse to ventilate my opinion (am I hoiking?). And thank you for thanking me for my curiosity. :) DirkvdM 09:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobow[edit]

What does nobow mean?

It's in that rap song, "you must not nobow me", you must not nobow me.

Urban dictionary isn't hip enough to have it obvio.

Can my nan nobow me if my boyf can't? Can I nobow my nan? My mam or my pa nobow me? Can I nobow them?

I also wanna know is it proper rude like "roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked" or owt like that. You must not Nobow me 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a guess, but it looks like it's probably "know (a)bou(t)". --Ptcamn 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobow? Nan? Boyf? Roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked? Excuse me for not being hip enough to follow, but what are you talking about? 惑乱分からん 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's just British. Hairs on a bobbin. --Ptcamn 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for Google: [1], Btw:

Bullet Tooth Tony: A bookie's got blagged last night. 
Avi: Blagged? Do me a favor, Tony, speak English. 
I thought this country spawned the fucking language, and so far nobody seems to speak it. (Snatch)

惑乱分からん 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google search doesn't turn up much for "nobow", but maybe the song you are thinking of is "Irreplacable" by Beonce. Look at this question on Yahoo Answers. The chorus is You must not know about me / You must not know about me / I could have another you in a minute / matter fact he'll be here in a minute - baby. I don't nobow whether that's the song you're thinking of, but if it is, then I imagine your parents do indeed nobow you... Philbert^2.71828 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah that's the song. I didn't know it was beyonce. I don't like rap music. I want to know though, why if it's "know about" does she sing "nobow"? And what on earth does it mean? If shes singing it to her boyf of course her boyf knows her, duh. (he probably does the thing with the rampant rabbit too). You must not Nobow me 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her accent is different than yours, probably. It sounds like "know about" to me. --Charlene 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I think that's a lot easier to understand Beyonce than you... (Nan? Isn't that some Indian bread? Owt?) It's used in the sense "Who do you think I am?", by the way... 惑乱分からん 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nan = grandmother: owt = anything: they are overdoing it slightly, though. 86.139.237.132 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I googled around and found out that it apparently was some Northern English dialect... =S Also, it seemed like a rampant rabbit was some sort of burrowing bunny, but I still have to find out what "Roger" meant... =S 惑乱分からん 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger = "have sexual intercourse with". StuRat 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"boyf" = "boyfriend" ? StuRat 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's "Roger" rhyming slang or something?: "Roger Moore" - "Hardcore", "Roger Milla" - "Drizzling Drillah", "Roger Wilco" - "Deep Digging Dildo" @_@ 惑乱分からん 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You must not know about me" addressed to a boyfriend can't have the literal meaning "evidently you don't know of my existence". Rather, I would take it as "I presume you are not familiar with my reputation, abilities and/or behaviour", and it continues "because I could obtain another boyfriend like you instantly". Now why couldn't she just sing that? Notinasnaid 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't scan -sthomson 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question about japanese[edit]

how is this ヴァン pronounced? 207.118.239.193 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Van", I'd think... But it needs IPA... 惑乱分からん 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is IPA? 207.118.239.193 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the International Phonetic Alphabet. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/vaɴ/ possibly, ヴァ is not really a native sound in Japanese, so I'm not sure how it's pronounced... 惑乱分からん 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The combination ヴァ was introduced to represent the "un-Japanese" sound /va/ in transliterations of foreign names, so the speaker's familiarity with the sound in general and in the source language in particular, as well as the "ear" to hear this and the ability to contort one's speech apparatus into unfamiliar positions, all are a factor in how it will be realized. It is used in the Japanese Wikipedia in the transliteration of, for example, Albrecht von Wallenstein (アルブレヒト・フォン・ヴァレンシュタイン), corresponding well to how it sounds. The city Van likewise becomes ヴァン, but a Japanese speaker who knows Turkish will presumably ignore this unphonetic rendering and pronounce it as if it had been transliterated ワン. Raoul Wallenberg, on the other hand, simply becomes ラウル・ワレンバーグ, which is quite a departure from the actual sound, also for the final "g". --Lambiam ^Talk 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]