Language desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

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 24[edit]

Built like a brick shithouse[edit]

I've heard the phrase "She's built like a brick shithouse" several times in my life but haven't ever been able to nail down what the speaker means. Is this a good thing? Is the woman in question attractive to the speaker? Is the woman in question solidly built but not someone that you'd want to get into? Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And yes, I've read the Outhouse article. Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Straight Dope article? [1] Dforest (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the OED says:

* slang. built like a brick shithouse and variants.
a. orig. U.S. Chiefly of a man: having an extremely solid physique; with a very robust and powerful build. In Brit. use, derogatory when used of a woman.

but seemingly contradictorily:

b. U.S. Also freq. in form built like a brick house. Of a woman: having a curvaceous figure, esp. slim with large, prominent breasts. Also of a woman's figure.

(from brick, n.1, OED Online Edition, Draft Additions Sept. 2001)

--Dforest (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spot – wouldn't it be more likely for a woman to be "stacked" like a brickshitouse and a man to be "built" like one? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK I would say that for a woman to be "stacked" would mean that she was big in the breast department, though don't think that you would add "like a brickshitouse". A woman "build like a brick shithouse" would be a female body builder, lady wrestler or such like - I.E much more muscular than would be classically thought of as attractive for a female, though I have certainly come across men who do find this very appealing. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a song Brick House, celebrating an "Amakazon"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive case[edit]

What is the proper way to indicate possession when you are naming multiple possessors?

If I am trying to say that: This is the office of Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown ... which below is correct?

Sentence #1. This is Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown's office. (using one apostrophe)
Sentence #2. This is Mr. Smith's and Mrs. Brown's office. (using two apostrophe's)

More complex example:

Sentence #3. Here is John, Bill, Mary, and Susan's report.
Sentence #4. Here is John's, Bill's, Mary's, and Susan's report.

Sentence #5. Here are John, Bill, Mary, and Susan's reports.
Sentence #6. Here are John's, Bill's, Mary's, and Susan's reports.

What sentence number (above) correctly tells me the following scenarios?

Scenario A: all four people collaborated and they wrote one comprehensive report and this is a copy of that one report written collaboratively by all four authors. In other words, on my desk I have ONE report and that ONE report was authored by the whole team (John & Bill & Mary & Susan).

Scenario B: all four people each individually wrote one report apiece and this is a copy of each one of the four separate reports. In other words, on my desk I have FOUR reports -- one written by John, one written by Bill, one written by Mary, and one written by Susan.

Scenario C: all four people collaborated and together they wrote several / multiple / plural comprehensive reports and these are copies of all of those several multiple-author reports. In other words, on my desk I have SEVEN reports and all SEVEN reports were authored by the whole team (John & Bill & Mary & Susan).

Scenario D: all four people each individually wrote several / multiple / plural reports and these are copies of those individually authored reports. In other words, on my desk I have TWENTY reports and John wrote 5 of those reports, Bill wrote 5 of those reports, Mary wrote 5 of those reports, Susan wrote 5 of those reports.

Ugh. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For sentences 1 and 2:

If there is one object (O) that is owned by two people (P1 and P2), and we indicate the people using nouns as opposed to possessive adjectives, the standard pattern is this:

P1 and P2's O.

Sentence 1 fits this pattern. Sentence 2 might sometimes be used instead because the nouns are compounded, so the possessive ending in sentence 1 is distanced from P1. The following would be unlikely, though:

Sentence 2*: Smith's and Brown's office.

As for your scenarios, here are what I take to be the normal usages:

Scenario A: sentence 3.

Scenario B: sentence 6.

Scenario C: sentence 5.

Scenario D: sentence 6.

Possessive adjectives may be used instead of all the nouns, in which case all that would make a difference in the four scenarios is the number of reports sitting on my desk. I could then be pointing to four people one by one around a table, saying:

Here is (or are) his, his, her, and her report (or reports).

With combined possessive adjectives and nouns, things get stranger: but you would use a possessive ending for each noun. For example (pointing, again):

Here is John's, his, her, and Mary's report.

But this last case is quite odd, and of more abstract interest only. In practice you would probably want to cast things differently altogether.

Incidentally, the plural is apostrophes – with no apostrophe!

Thank you for using the serial comma.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe my example above wasn't getting at what I really wanted. How about this? There are three brothers (X, Y, and Z). All three brothers own either one home or several homes, either individually or collectively.

Case 1: These are X, Y, and Z's homes.
Case 2: These are X's, Y's, and Z's homes.

Case 1 tells us that X, Y, and Z together / collectively own many homes. Right?

Case 2 tells us what?

Case 2-A: That X owns many homes, and Y also owns many homes, and Z also owns many homes ...?

Case 2-B: Or that X owns one home, Y owns one home, Z owns one home, and "these are the three homes that they each own individually" ...?

Also, then, what does the following sentence mean? Does the sentence below describe Case 1, Case 2-A, Case 2-B, none of these 3 cases, or all 3 of these 3 cases, or 2 out of these 3 cases ... or what ...?

These are the brothers' homes.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Analogies[edit]

Zoology : Animals :: Ecology : Pollution

Zoology : Ecology :: Animals : Pollution

Can they be written both ways? I know US prefers the first version, but what about other English speaking countries? Corpx (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought that

A : B :: C : D

was interpreted and read like this:

A is to B as C is to D

I had not thought that one could automatically convert it into

A : C :: B : D

even when that yields a statement that is true (or false) along with the original (that is, preserves the truth value of the original), in some other "dialect". How would you read it, for a start?

But then, I may be wrong. (It has happened.)

See Analogy#Identity_of_relation.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a true sentence.

Zoology : Animals :: Ecology : Pollution

Is a false analogy, and so is

Zoology : Ecology :: Animals : Pollution

The reason is simple. Zoology doesn't have the relationship with animals that ecology has with pollution (first sentence), and zoology doesn't have the relationship with ecology that animals have with pollution.

To make it excruciatingly clear: "zoology is the discipline that covers the study of animals; ecology is the discipline that covers animals' interaction with each other and the environment" so, zoology:animals::ecology:(animals interaction with each other and their environment)

For the second analogy, we could say "zoology is a study of the actors in ecology", so the second half of the sentence would be "toxic particle chemistry is the study of the actors in pollution."

so either of these analogies is more or less correct: zoology:animals::ecology:habitats or zoology:toxicology::animals:poisons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.46.214 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If analogy A:B::C:D is true, then A:C::B:D should also be true. Consider the statement with numerical values. 1:2::3:6, or 1:3::2:6. If both arrangements don't seem to work, then there at least one is a defective analogy. The arrangement you use would depend on the analogy you are most interested in exploring or discussing. SaundersW (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous:

That is not a particularly relevant or accurate piece of analysis. I went off-topic too, when I wrote "even when that yields a statement that is true (or false) along with the original (that is, preserves the truth value of the original), in some other 'dialect'."

The question was about whether one and the same statement concerning analogies could be presented in two alternative ways. What you say is a critique of the content of two statements. That is interesting also, but flawed, in my opinion. There are many analogies we may be concerned with involving the four terms (however they are to be identified, precisely). You have not considered this, for example: ecology and zoology both have four syllables; animals and pollution both have three. The original statement, interpreted with regard to these facts, is true, yes?

And so on.

SaundersW:

Again, interesting. But not everything that is relevant and true about ratios is relevant and true about analogies (in general).

We have all been a bit vague here.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why is this funny? If not a paradox, what is it?[edit]

Imagine the following hypothetical, but not unrealistic, conversation.

Joe: "I'm flying out tomorrow. Do they still have the National Guard patrolling the airport?"

Jim: "Yup"

Joe: "How can I tell which people are the National Guard?"

Jim: "Easy. You can't miss them. They're the ones wearing camouflage".

I'm convinced the last line is funny, but can't tell why. It's not a paradox, but there's something slightly paradoxical about it. Is there a word to describe that type of humor? Bunthorne (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it not a paradox?--K.C. Tang (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a subtle fault in this 'joke'. As it stands the final line implies that the NG are wearing camouflaged clothing, the sort with blotches of different colour. Now, had the last line been ". . . they're the ones who are camouflaged", or ". . . they're the ones who are disguised", the joke would be a tad (but only a tad) better. I think the humour style is good old irony. The fact that the NG are disguised/camouflaged but obvious by this fact is a paradox in itself. Richard Avery (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote both "irony" and "paradox" --- echoing the sentiments of Richard Avery's above post. It is indeed quite ironic that the NG members will be easily distinguished (i.e., they will readily "stand out") by their camouflage dress (i.e., with which they are supposed to "blend in"). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm reminded of an advertisement with Marcel Marceau, inviting customers to call some number, "and if no one answers, it's me." —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of a road sign that there used to be on a slight bend near the wooden bridge a few kilometers from the village store–"Secret Gully".—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am reminded of the friendly telephone system voice that said "If you do not speak English, press 1". 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of this famous sign near Kelvedon Hatch in Essex... Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The surest way to lose all humor in a joke is to analyze (or in this case, over-analyze) it. But here goes;

The reason I don't consider it a paradox, or that Richard Avery's comment is correct (so sorry, nothing personal) is that no one thinks the National Guard is trying to blend in or disguise themselves. The fact that they're wearing camo is a sort of accident. They need a uniform that will work for them in case it's needed in combat, but in this case, they've been called upon to do something that (at the time) was unexpected. And we can't expect them to have a different uniform for any eventuality.

Certainly no one is saying "What a joke, do they really think they're invisible?". No, everyone knows that the camo is just a uniform, and not intended to make them invisible.

I'm kinda-sorta tending to think this is a sort of "irony", but still not sure. Maybe the humor (such as it is) springs from the fact that on first hearing, it DOES sound like a paradox, but one (or some) quickly realizes that it ain't.

Oh, and thanks to who(m)ever changed my somewhat insipid title.

Since I just read our very fine article on irony, I'm even less sure. As the article suggests, it might be merely incongruous.

... or not. But thanks for your ideas. Bunthorne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese[edit]

How to write in Japanese, for a Bee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.56 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

蜂、はち、ハチ. The pronunciation is hachi. Oda Mari (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love me some digital cameras[edit]

Who says things like that?Mr.K. (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan said "I love me some Bo Bice" in a Saturday Night Live skit. I don't know why I remember that. But I suppose it is faux-hillbilly or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love me a good phrase question! A google search shows that "I love me a [whatever]" is reasonably common usage; I suspect it is frequently tongue-in-cheek, or used as a way of stressing a particular or slightly amusing preference. Yet, despite its high occurence, I can't seem to find reference to it in any phrase/word/idiom dictionary. I wonder if it has anything to do with a 1968 hit "I Have Loved Me a Man" by Allison Durbin. But since Durbin was 16 at the time, I presume the song was written by someone else. I got bored googling for that, but someone else might know. Gwinva (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Latin grammar, the me would probably be called an "ethical dative" AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "syntactic feature of dialectic (Southern and Appalachian) U.S. English", according to the paper "I love me some him": The landscape of non-argument datives by Laurence R. Horn. He calls it a "nonsubcategorized 'personal dative' pronominal in transitive clauses that obligatorily coindexes the subject and whose semantic contribution is somewhat nebulous." For the song, see I Love Me Some Him. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Sluz. Excellent digging. Horn's description, though, seems to apply only to the "me" there. (I can't be sure because the link doesn't work.) It's the same "me" as in "Ah gots ta git me wunna deeze." --Milkbreath (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the html version works? He does list other examples

you : "O, get you a copper kettle" (from the Appalachian song "Copper Kettle", recorded by Bob Dylan, among others)

her : in "She needs her a new pickup truck."

him : in "My husband used to love him some Jack Daniels" (from the film Monster's Ball)

Like AnonMoos, he compares them with the "ethical" dative in other languages and in Old English, He also contrasts them with the more universal "bound pronouns" (example: "New York didn't destroy me, I destroyed me." or "You belong to you.") where we have two "coreferring coarguments of which the second must be referentially independent", while the status of the object pronouns in the I-love-me-some-him-examples is "non-argument (and hence non-co-argument)" having no argument to be bound. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with writing Persian[edit]

Can someone please write this in text: [2] The transcription goes:

Dilam dar aashiqui aawareh shud aawareh tar baada,

Tanam az bedilee beechareh shud beechareh tar baada.

Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "write this in text" while you have the text?! It is from a song by the Afghan Ahmad Zaher: [3]. I hope it helps. --Omidinist (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably he means he wants it in the Arabic alphabet in textual form (as opposed to part of a GIF image)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, if that's what you want:

دلم در عاشقی آواره شد آواره تر بادا تنم از بیدلی بیچاره شد بیچاره تر بادا

--Omidinist (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I wanted. Sorry not to be clearer. This is a couplet by Amir Khusro. deeptrivia (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]