Language desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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 20[edit]

AARGH! What's the word...[edit]

What's a word for difficult to understand, besides arcane, puzzling, muddled, incomprehensible, etc. It must mean difficult to grasp due to complex, overly-technical design. --^La Pianísta! 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elusive, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of that, but it just doesn't ring. Keep it coming. --^La Pianísta! 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

brain freeze, complicated, academic, george w. bush, mom, woman, complex, confusing, convoluted, mundane, technical, jargon68.27.143.101 (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All, like, sciencey 'n stuff. kwami (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Abstruse" and "recondite" both have something of the desired flavor, although they don't refer specifically to "complex, overly-technical design". --Anon, 03:45 UTC, April 20/08.

Maybe not what you're looking for, but Goldbergian. kwami (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dense. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impenetrable? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deliberate, you might want obfuscated. Algebraist 10:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had it with arcane. FreeMorpheme (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscated? Turbid? --pie4all88 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine is one of the best words for something unnecessarily complicated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intricate, elaborate. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure. Technobabble.--Eriastrum (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Anon got it at "abstruse." Thanks everyone, for all your abstruse, obscure, intricate, elaborate, arcane, mental backflips and miscellaneous gymnastics to come to my aid. =) --^La Pianísta! 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one mentioned esoteric. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Heath Robinson. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what about CONVOLUTED?

Gòngchǎndǎng in Wades-Giles[edit]

.How does Gòngchǎndǎng translate from pinyin into wades-giles?
.Also what is the literal translation of the Chinese characters in 共产党.
.What is the literal difference between Zhōnghuá Mínguó and Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó?
.What do they mean character by character? --Gary123 (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer all of that by pasting the characters into the Wiktionary search box. kwami (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

penetrated or topped in vietnamese[edit]

how do you say penetrated or topped in vietnamese ( anally penetrated ) ?

Jail/prison?[edit]

What is the difference between a jail and a prison? JIP | Talk 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real difference as far as I can tell. There's also the gaol spelling of jail, but that's still the same thing. -- JackofOz (talk)

Jail makes me think of Elvis. Prison makes me think of Les Miserables :P Wrad (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a legal difference in the US. Jail is for more minor offenses, or people awaiting trial. Prison is where they put you away for a long time. kwami (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems as though jail is more of the local holding pen where they put you for a DUI or something overnight, and prison where you actually live for an extended period in another location. Wrad (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, well, Jail. --Anon, 03:46 UTC, April 20/08.

English jail/prison[edit]

In the US, jails and prisons are distinct. Since jail and prison are synonyms in the UK, what does an English jail/prison more closely resemble, an American jail or American prison? HYENASTE 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grammar Questions[edit]

Two questions here; I find myself wondering about these often while editing Wikipedia. First off: I've always been told that periods *always* precede closing quotation marks (as in the sentence Jeff called Mary "a poor excuse for a human."). I'm American, so I was wondering if British grammar was different or if editors are generally unknowledgeable about this. Secondly, when do you use the word "that" and when do you use "which?" I've found the following sentence in an article and I'm unsure which word should be used: "In the 1970s the Soviet Union deployed a missile defense system, still operational today, which defends Moscow, Russia and nearby missile sites." Thanks! --pie4all88 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/which.html has: If you are defining something by distinguishing it from a larger class of which it is a member, use “that”: “I chose the lettuce that had the fewest wilted leaves.” When the general class is not being limited or defined in some way, then “which” is appropriate: “He made an iceberg Caesar salad, which didn’t taste quite right.” Note that “which” is normally preceded by a comma, but “that” is not. Intuitively I think that is right, but I am not a native speaker. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with "which" and "that" myself. I remember being told a good rule of thumb was number - "This is the pencil that I have chosen, these are the pencils which I have chosen," but i don't know if that's entirely accurate. doktorb _words^deeds 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, yes it is a difference between American and British usage. See American and British English differences#Punctuation. As for your second question, "that" is used to introduce a defining clause, and "which" to supply further information. For further explanation see English relative clauses#That and which. (One rule of thumb – which doesn't always work! – is that if you can omit the word without any change of meaning, the word you should be using is "that".)--Shantavira|^{feed me}

In the MOS it says, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation. [...] Note: Some other style manuals endorse always placing ending periods and commas before, rather than after, a closing quotation mark; this system is referred to as typesetters' quotation because many typographers favor it for aesthetic reasons. Wikipedia uses logical quotation because, as an encyclopedia, it requires high standards of accuracy in the use of source material, and because logical quotation is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of coding and other errors. This is not primarily a difference between American versus British English usage."

I have a follow-up question, which should be on MOS Talk: should punctuation following an italicized word (comma, parenthesis, etc.) also be italicized, or is this something that we expect browsers to eventually handle automatically? kwami (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they should be treated logically. Many fonts don't distinguish between italic and roman stops, but italic parentheses (brackets) are always provided. Personally I don't find italicized parentheses very pretty, but when embedded in a longer italic phrase these must be italic too. When they enclose just one italic word, they look better in roman, though this sometimes gives rise to touching characters. Browsers shouldn't be messing with this sort of thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though you mean treated aesthetically, not logically. kwami (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shantavira in regards to Kwami's question. As to the second of the original questions, my usage book says it clearly: "which" is preceded by a comma, and "that" is not. Further, phrases that begin with "which" are normally used as an attachment that only serves to elaborate, not specify. See here: "My book, which is always right" and "My book that is always right." --^La Pianísta! 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I'll read through the provided links for more information, too. --pie4all88 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitted[edit]

Why is the past tense of 'split' 'split' and not 'splitted'? What justification is there for such inconsistency? ----Seans Potato Business 11:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "hit"? Or "bit" (which is either "bitten" or "bit")? I don't think English is ever in the business of justifying its inconsistencies. They just exist. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we can't iron them out? ----Seans Potato Business 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would require everyone to speak a new, artificial language. What do you think the chances are of a)getting everyone to agree on what the best consistent version of each word, construction and presumably spelling is and b)convincing everyone to learn this new language and speak it in place of their mother tongue at all times? French has the Académie française, but English has no equivalent. Even in French, the 'approved' version doesn't necessarily control how people actually speak. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can actually do something about some of them. Take "dived" vs. "dove". Pick the one you like and use it all the time instead of the other one. You will have tipped the scales that way just the tiniest fraction. I'm doing that right now with the pronunciation of "often" as "offen", but I haven't seen any results yet. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a technical explanation for this, involving some sort of pre-alveolar post-labial infra-dentational fricative explicative implosive apocalyptic whatever, but I think the real reason we don't say "splitted" is that, for people other than elocution specialists, it's relatively hard to say compared with fitted, kitted, knitted, littered, pitted, and witted. In a society like ours, language always follows the line of least resistance. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a technical explanation for this, involving some sort of pre-alveolar post-labial infra-dentational fricative explicative implosive apocalyptic whatever There is, but I'd say it's less convoluted than you might think :-) It's what morphologists call blocking (unfortunately, we don't seem to have an article on it), a process that poses constraints on productivity in the language. We say that the irregular past tense form of split "blocks" the more productive application of -ed. *Why* this happens for some words but not others is not always very clear, but it is often a historical question; for example, why the plural form of child is children and not what one would expect ("more productive") *childs has to do with the history of the English language. Others might have an insight as to what that might have entailed for verbs like split. — Zerida ☥ 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, I say offen. Something's working. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always said it that way too. My grandad used to say of-ten and Wed-uns-day (not to mention pronouncing "macabre" exactly like Micawber). We'd always ask "Poppy, why are you talking funny?". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with calling it an inconsistency. Many *t verbs don't change in past/present/participle tenses. For example, split, let, set, wet, cut, hit, put. Even if they don't stay the same, many *t verbs don't take the regular -(e)d ending. Get/got/gotten, bite/bit/bitten, eat/ate/eaten, forget/forgot/forgotten, melt/melted/molten. It's as if the *t verbs that end in -ed are the inconsistencies. HYENASTE 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Common' words used in only one 'situation'[edit]

Hi. I hope you catch my drift with this one... I was wondering about certain words that are common, people usually know their definition, and are pretty familiar; but that's only because you hear them in a single expression that you're familiar with, not because of the word itself! (Still with me?) The few examples I can come up with are:

'utmost, which you're familiar with only because you've heard it in the expression of the utmost importance;
and the double-hitters wreak and havoc, which people are familiar with only because of the expression they form, wreak havoc!

In other words, the layman would be pretty much ignorant about the meaning of these words, were it not for the single situation they are usually used in. (I know that these words can obviously be used in other contexts, but the point is that except for these expressions, they aren't used in common English!)

So my question is, (if you actually understood what the hell I'm talking about), what are other words can you come up with which are like these, where the words themselves seem common and not obscure, were it not for a single expression where they are used in common everyday English? (Please tell me if you need me to explain further! Otherwise I'll understand if absolutely no one replies to this question... :( ) Kreachure (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your contentions concerning these words. "Wreak" is used in more cases, although generally in its past tense or other forms as "wrought" - "wrought iron", "What hath God wrought?", etc. Shakespeare uses "havoc" alone - Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war, and "utmost" is certainly used without "importance" - My Utmost for His Highest is a well-known Christian devotional, and you'll frequently hear "he will do his utmost" to do something. As well as "to the utomst extent of..." something. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "wrought iron" and "What hath God wrought?" wrought is the (obsolete) past participle of work. To the best of my knowledge, the past tense of wreak has always been wreaked. Deor (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just do a Wikipedia search for utmost and you will find lots or other uses. Corvus cornix_talk 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Punnet" always got my attention, because I only ever heard it used to describe a box that you buy strawberries in. The same box with anything else in would just be called a 'box'. I always felt disgruntled with it and have never been able to regruntle myself.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O...kay, despite the popularity of 'Christian devotionals' to the layman :P, I think there are words that fall under the description I provided, even if my examples weren't the best. As others have pointed out, you haven't given me another common example for wreak; and as for the Wikipedia search, the majority of results are of "My Utmost for his highest", so besides that there's no other 'common' thing with wreak on it (I think a Google search of wreak, and then of wreak -havoc to compare, is much more revealing). Anyways, it seems you forgot to actually answer my question: can you come up with words that suit my 'definition'? I need open-mindedness, fellas! (I give you permission to change my definition from 'a single expression' to 'one or two', if you want...) Kreachure (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd rather argue than actually read what I wrote, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Where did I say that "the majority" of Wikipedia searches were for other uses? I merely pointed out that there are lots of other uses for utmost in Wikipedia searches, but I guess you're not interested in a real response. Corvus cornix_talk 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about the same thing. Examples I've recorded are:

the word dint almost always appears in the phrase "by dint of"
the verb brook is inevitably preceded by "will" or "shall" and followed by "no" and a noun (as in "we will brook no derision")
devoid is always followed by "of"
the verb curry is almost always followed by "favor"
the word unison is just about always preceded by "in"
hooky is invariably preceded by "play"

Someone will shortly post counterexamples to each of my "invariably"s and "inevitably"s and "always"s, but you get the idea. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's chicken curry, even beef curry (if that's not a sin somehow), and usually just plain curry, but I don't hear "curry flavor" any more than "chicken flavor" (which is just about never).

Short shrift. I don't think you can even say "shrift" any other way anymore. kwami (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't joking, note that I said the verb "curry", and "favor". (Good example with shrift, though.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's favor (or favour), not flavor (or even flavour). "To curry someone's favo(u)r" means to seek their assistance or cooperation by flattery or attention. "Sleight" is only ever used in "sleight of hand", to my knowledge. "Kith" appears only in "kith and kin". There must be a long list of these somewhere already. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to the long list of things I didn't know is that "curry favor" is a set and so "curry" doesn't belong in this list, it being nothing more than the word we use for grooming horses. According to the AHD, it's "from Old French correier fauvel, to curry a fallow-colored horse, be hypocritical (from the fallow horse as a medieval symbol of deceit)." I comfort myself by supposing that nobody knew that before now. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself discomforted, Milkbreath (but not discomfited). That was one of the few things I do know. But I'm reminded of an old sketch from The Two Ronnies, where Corbett told a story about someone who had a curry pizza, and for whatever reason he thrust it down the front of Corbett's trousers - "in an attempt to curry my favour". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tabs from "keep tabs on someone"
tell (as in 'to count') from "bank teller" or "automatic telling machine machine"

Someone once speculated that, once baseball dies out, people will still be using the phrase "to field a question" even in nonsport situations which then may turn "field" as a future example.

I've also noticed that in the lyrics to "Baa baa Black sheep" that "Have you any wool" is technically ungrammatical in American English but nobody seems to have a problem with the lyrics. That's technically a grammatical thing but I thought I'd mention it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. Why is "have you any wool" ungrammatical? --LarryMac | Talk 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these (but not all) are members of what Fowler calls Siamese Twins: Alack (only in alas and alack), and tittle (jot and tittle). Hither and thither are now individually archaic but still exist in hither and thither. Sackcloth only ever comes out to play with ashes. There's also our old friend spick (known only for its association with span). The expressions "fossilised word" and cranberry morpheme are current – here’s an additional cite [1]. This question has come up before – see here. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you any wool?" is actually grammatically correct; it's just more poetic than the normal way of speaking. You can see similar a construct in phrases like "Have you any idea", "Have you no shame?", and The Princess Bride's "Have yoo tha wing?" --Masamage ♫

Not that it's terribly important, but the have you inversion is so "poetic" (i.e. archaic) that it is absolutely unused by normal American English speakers as a synonym for "do you have" outside of such fossilized expressions. With British English, it's still productive. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's more like it, thanks for all the responses! I must admit I haven't heard of many of the ones you've all mentioned, but most of them are exactly what I had in mind! My favorite's "sleight of hand": where else could you hear sleight being used, seriously! I also found some good 'siamese twins': "spick-and-span" is pretty nice (although I'd never heard of it before), and "hither and tither" too; but I also found "to and fro", "first and foremost", and a double whammy, "nook and cranny"! And thanks, JackOfOz, for pointing me to that previous question; that's pretty much what I asked for here, but in a clearer way >.<! From that, I got "ulterior motives"! Awesome. If you got any more, please cough them up!

And by the way, I found the Wikipedia article for these types of words: Fossil words! (Not to be confused with 'fossilized terms'.) I'll definitely work on there with all the great examples you've given me. Thanks a lot! Kreachure (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Another big one: scantily clad! Kreachure (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you "cranny", but "nook" is a perfectly cromulent word. --LarryMac | Talk 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget hydrant. —Keenan Pepper 08:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that qualifies, KP. There are thousands of words that have only one meaning, but can be used in various contexts. Kreachure is interested in words that are used in only one situation. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"With all my might and main", "hoist by his own petard". SaundersW (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer "Aviatrix", which for some reason only refers to Amelia Earhart. --Masamage ♫ 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Cahoots' is always preceded by 'in'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one fell swoop.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with "one fell swoop" and SaundersW's "hoist by his own petard" we're getting into the realm of Shakespearean tags containing words that are unfamiliar to most people in other contexts. I'd wager that there are plenty of these ("bare bodkin", for example), as well as plenty of similar King James Version instances (e.g., "helpmeet," frequently altered to "helpmate," from a misunderstanding of Genesis's "an help meet for him"). Deor (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Noetica. A lot of people say "one foul swoop", but whether that will ever become a recognised expression is a moot point. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, Jacko. Or mute point, as our CoOzFolk often have it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is "inclement." Used only with "weather." You never hear, "Oh, gosh, what an inclement day I had at work." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like "out of kilter" - never heard kilter used in any other context. Ka renjc 09:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that dudgeon has obsolete or archaic meanings related to wood, handles and daggers, but I've only ever heard it in the expression in high dudgeon, meaning resentful or self-righteous indignance. The phrase is somewhat dated these days and may itself be in imminent danger of obsolescence. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't list "kilter" as a headword, only "off-kilter", and one of the examples they cite has gone the full transition to a compound word "offkilter". Sounds like a disrobing instruction to a Scot. I can imagine a one night stand: "There was no time to be lost. He was quickly offkilter and on the bed." BrainyBabe (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Tony Blair using "gruntle" for making people happy. In his doc-trilogy, but I only knew "disgruntled". Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite, and one I'm surprised people have missed - try and find a jetsam without a preceding flotsam. Very difficult to do. Neıl ☎ 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A related phenomenon: couth, licit and maculate, for example, are rarer than uncouth, illicit and immaculate. SaundersW (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerk, nerd, dork, geek, wuss[edit]

Why are there all these descriptive words in American english, yet none in common use in British English? "Jerk" would be useful, as it reprimands someone for bad behaviour, but the others just seem derogatory. And are there any other similar words I have missed out? 80.0.109.128 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that in Britain anorak is roughly equivalent to nerd. Deor (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are 'nerd' and 'geek' insults? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but in any case 'geek' is in common use in British English (at least in my experience). Algebraist 23:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not in mine. 80.0.109.128 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can definitely be used as insults, but just like queer, both terms have been "taken back" by many to whom they apply, and can be used self-referentially with pride. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dork, nerd, and geek have been rotating in and out of fashion for generations. Maybe when one no longer stings, the one which hasn't been used the longest comes back. kwami (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you're right. Then I'll finally be vindicated for referring to all the ladies in my rap video as viragos. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd, dork and geek have all been in vogue in Australia, wuss perhaps less so, and jerk to some extent. I suspect that jerk and nerd don't sound quite right when spoken with most British accents as compared to the American accents they'd normally be heard in. And geek is, indeed, being taken back from being in the same class as nerd and dork to something more along the lines of "someone with a large amount of knowledge in a specialised area". Of course, if you called Ozzy Osbourne a geek these days, most people wouldn't get the joke. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have frequently heard each of those those words used in various contexts, and would consider them quite normal (ie I am not surprised to hear them). I am not American, and watch American TV programmes extremely rarely. Thus, I can conclude that non-Americans are familiar with and regularly use those terms. There my usefulness ends, for I cannot specify geography beyond not-America, since I forget which country my vocab comes from. Gwinva (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have our own words, wanker, chav,wally etc.hotclaws 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak (as above) train-spotter, and swot leap to mind as Brit pejoratives. SaundersW (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter informs me that "swot" is ancient, they say "spoff" nowadays. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And boffin, often shortened to boff. And geek is quite common in Britain, as is wuss. Skittle (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I've heard 'boffin' plenty of times before, particularly in British military slang, I never thought it was pejorative in any way. I've always taken 'nerd' to mean someone with poor social skills and bad dress sense, skilled in a particular area, but not in anything particularly useful (being interested in video games, or insects, or some other hobby). Whereas 'geek', while I've not heard it used in Britain, it means to me specifically someone with technical expertise, as well as the poor social skills and bad dress sense (but only jokingly). 'Wuss' is totally British, but we'd never use 'jerk' here (unless it was a verb, but NOT in the American sense!)ChokinBako (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who teaches in England says "keener" is the equivalent to "nerd" over there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'berk'? (Or is that just an idiot?) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Berk" has kind of softened.It is rhyming slang for "Berkley Hunt"hotclaws 08:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Berk' just means 'idiot'. I've never heard 'keener', but it sounds Scots or even Northern Irish to me.ChokinBako (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The school is in Southwest London, actually. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you come down to what the children are using in school, trends and fads come and go in mysterious ways. That the students are using 'keener' at one school doesn't necessarily make it widespread outside the school. Skittle (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (Edit: I wondered whether to say "I bet the school's in London". Most strange fly-by-night school slang comes from London :)Skittle (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

In Oz there was "keenite" – it's so not cool to be keen. Not heavily in use though. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about yob, hoodlom, rascal, spiv,

Neek is very common at my school (Croydon, near London). I assume it's a portmandeau of geek and nerd; the meaning is roughly the same. D aniel (‽) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]