Language desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 20[edit]

How to say it?[edit]

I've noticed that newsreaders for example seem to over-enunciate so that instead of saying (aloud) "the person meant to" as this: "the person men-to" they say it so that it sounds the end letter in the word and the first letter of the next word when they are the same. The effect is it sounds like tuh-tuh is happening: the person mentuh to – whereas in normal speech, one letter is elided. It sounds strange and kind of forced in a native English speaker. Can't think of other examples off hand, but why is this? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this is the reason, but this would help with several things: poor radio/TV reception, older viewers whose hearing is going, and non-native English speakers. I tend to talk like that when I come back from over seas. kwami (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they are reading an autoscript. So unlike normal speach. Bed-Head-Hair User:BedHeadHairGirl13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that they're catering to a diverse audience, some of whom are hard of hearing and some of whom are not native speakers, and so they need to speak as clearly as possible in order not to be misunderstood. Really good newsreaders master the art of enunciating clearly without sounding unnatural. Maybe you're watching the wrong TV stations or listening to the wrong radio stations, Julia. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they think the natural version is somehow incorrect. See also: unreleased stop; hypercorrection --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does help the specific hearing audience as you've suggested (I'm sure they get enough lobbying from viewers) -- though for the speaker, autoscript and hypercorrection seem to fit (even the on-camera reporter does it). It's funny because the Australian "swallowed" accent still applies. Maybe they're trying for a home-grown version of RP. Appreciate all your input guys, thanks so much Julia Rossi (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Jack, haha, TV news (but is there a right one?) -- oddly I haven't noticed it on voice-overs. Different speech coaches maybe, and I'm curious to now what speech coaches might call it. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "manslaughter" politically correct?[edit]

Why don't we say "womanslaughter"? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a generally understood legal term. The legal profession is not going to go around changing terms that have been in common use for many years just because of political correctness. Besides, if there was a neutral term, it would have to be "personslaughter". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. 'Person', too, is politically incorrect, as it contains the word 'son'. Best just call it murder and have done with it.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that manslaughter is legally distinct from murder, don't you? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. It was just a quip.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a female I'm always saddened that, while there is still so much inequality between male and female humans, so much effort is spent on things like cleaning up the dictionary. Let's start worrying about that once we get paid the same as the "other persons".--71.236.23.111 (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many, many contexts, "man" means "male or female human". I don't see why so many people have difficulty with that. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it does, what is a woman if she is not a woman? What is a man if he is not a man? If we degenderised all our words we'd have to work on the pronouns, too. Also, what would be a male ballerina? A ballerino? Pointless! Pointless waste of time and verging on Orwellian prophecy.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary [1] says you're correct about "ballerino" being the word for a male ballet dancer. But anyway, why do we even need words like ballerina/-o? What's wrong with "ballet dancer"? --72.94.50.27 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of PC taken to ridiculous levels: Controversies about the word "niggardly"#David Howard incident. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Just like a person who works with dogs and thinks constantly about dogs, and a person who works with metals and thinks constantly about metals, would, on first sight, read the word 'lead' in two different ways, as a person who is constantly thinking about racial problems would take a word that only sounds similar to a racial slur but is in fact unrelated, as a racial slur. Some people are far too sensitive.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the "son" in "person" has nothing to do with male children, don't you? "Person" is derived from "persona", a Greek word meaning "mask". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small quibble Jack: persona is Latin, not Greek. By the way, this is Maid Marian, but I've bought a new computer and I can't for the life of me remember what the exact form of my username was, so I can't log on. Any more than I can remember the Greek word for an actor's mask - my memory gets worse and worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.14.136 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I do Jack. And it is indeed Latin, but ultimately a loan word from Etruscan.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me again: probably prosopon is Greek for mask, but I don't have a dictionary to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.14.136 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps Maid Marion? Algebraist 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, thank you so much Algebraist.Maid Marion (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is by now a little off-topic, but prosôpeion or prosôpon is indeed the Greek for mask. The Latin persona, according to Lewis and Short, comes from the verb persono [to sound through] but the Online Etymology Dictionary, in tracing person back to persona, suggests that it is a borrowing from Etruscan phersu [mask]. Unfortunately I don't have my usual access to the OED. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says s.v. 'person' "of unknown origin; perh. a loanword (cf. Etruscan φersu, app. denoting a mask". The Greek prosôpon ws indeed used for 'mask', but its basic meaning is 'face' I believe. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite as absurd as Roman Abramovich finding something anti-semitic in the term "bunch of shysters from Sibera". Algebraist 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole pc thing is deeply cultural. But maybe even more so is the whole issue about "N word", "F word", etc. While I think every majority should be considerate of minorities' sensitivities, the very idea of banning words seems so strange to me that I can't quite stop thinking that in racial contexts. Words get banned because they're deemed offensive, with the only result that they're getting even more offensive (because now only more extreme fellows keep saying them). I can't help wondering what would happen if we went in the opposite direction and just used "nigger", "fuck", and all the other words excessively in really neutral or even positive contexts, so that they'd get less offensive. After all, they're just random sounds, and they only have the meaning we give them. We can indeed refuse to have any word that has an intensity of offensiveness as "nigger", "fuck", "cunt", etc. Consequently I still hope that the excessive use of "nigger" by some Blacks and of "fuck" by many younger people gets more wide-spread. Ever wondered why other languages (or cultures?) seem to have no equivalent in intensity to these American English words? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you would think other languages don't have an equivalent. They just don't have the same ones. Excessive and casual use of swearwords by young colleagues from Britain and South Africa has as yet failed to make me cringe less when hearing them. As far as change in meaning goes, that can go the other way, too. Just ask my friend. Her name is Gay. (As in "don ye all the gay apparel") --71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a news item that an east coast state was modifying its constitution to remove the word "idiot" in place of a more PC term. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, folks. 'Blackboard' can't be called that anymore, even though it is obviously black, as opposed to a whiteboard, which can be called a whiteboard, because it's obviously white. It has to be called a 'chalkboard'. But, wasn't 'chalky' once a slur word for a black person? Where do people get these silly ideas from? It's OK to respect other people's sensitivities, but, seriously, some people are way too over-sensitive and we can't change the language by replacing words with others just to please them because we'll be either using another offensive word, or a word that is offensive to another person. As a side note, I don't get offended by 'honk if your horny', even if I am a honky.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? I've never heard of anyone complaining about blackboards being called blackboards. I've always thought that "chalkboard" was about descriptiveness -- a board that you write on with chalk. It feels a little weird to call something a "blackboard" when it's green. --72.78.102.134 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The girl is cute as a freaking button[edit]

What does this mean? Ugly? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean ugly, it's just a weird expression. --WikiSlasher (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it meant 'very cute'. 'Cute' doesn't usually come with a negative simile. You wouldn't say 'She is as cute as a bulldog chewing a wasp'. You could say, on the other hand, 'as beautiful as a bulldog chewing a wasp', which lays more emphasis on her lack of beauty.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cute as a button" is a well-established phrase.

CUTE AS A BUTTON - "cute, charming, attractive, almost always with the connotation of being small, 1868 (from the original 1731 English meaning of 'acute' or clever). Cute as a bug's ear, 1930; cute as a bug in a rug, 1942; cute as a button, 1946. Cute and keen were two of the most overused slang words of the late 1920s and 1930s." From "Listening to America" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1992.)

"Freaking" is an tmesis that has little impact on the meaning. — Lomn 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. If you read the article on tmesis properly you will see that a 'tmesis' is a shortening and combining of two or more words. 'Freaking', as used in the example in the article is a mere part of the word in the example. 'Freaking' is a less vulgar way of saying frigging, which is an intensifier, therefore emphasising the following expression.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between which lines did you read that tmesis involves "shortening"? Are you thinking of portmanteau or some such? —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburgh[edit]

How is the name of the English village of Bamburgh pronounced? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

['bæmbrə]. —An gr 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDSM support group?[edit]

Something that I recently wrote in the article about the Smurfs made me puzzled:

Members of the Finnish BDSM support group SMFR are called "Smurfs" not because of the colour, but because of the similarity of the names.

Well, I suppose that under certain choking or bruising conditions blue would not be an entirely unfamiliar color.

What exactly does "BDSM support group" mean? English is not my first language so therefore I cannot fully grasp the meaning. Does it mean that a BDSM support group supports BDSM itself, or it supports its members? If it's the latter, it could be understood as something similar to "alcoholism support group", meaning supporting its members to come over something. But SMFR members don't want to come over BDSM, rather, they embrace it. Am I being overly cautious and paranoid here, and is it just my failure to grasp the nuances of a foreign language, or am I right? JIP | Talk 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page would indicate that they are not a self help group like AA (alcoholism) but rather that your second definition applies [2] The organization would like to support the practice of SM or their members who engage in this practice. Just like e.g. this group would like to help the environment [3] rather than help members get over it. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not the standard meaning of "support group." It should probably be reworded. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what SMFR is, and what it does. I was asking if this was using the term "support group" correctly. JIP | Talk 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five cats and 32 dogs[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs).". I've always mixed (I would have said five cats and 32 dogs). While this might be the rule at Wikipedia, what about other literary works such as newspapers? What's their policy? Any idea? ----Seans Potato Business 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably also grew up with "write numbers up to ten in letters." That's why you'd mix. (I would have sworn I don't do any such thing, but I do. I just wasn't aware of it. :-)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APA style requires to spell out numbers until 9, and use the arabic numberals for 10 and higher. Off the top of my head I don't think they've a rule against combining the two (one experimental and 194,203 control groups...), but I may be wrong (it does look a bit odd). Similarly, there used to be an orthography rule in German to spell out numbers until twelve, but again I'm not sure about the combination. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both The Chicago Manual of Style and Words into Type, widely used in the U.S. book-publishing trade, say to maintain consistency within a particular context: "If according to rule you must use numerals for one of the numbers in a given category, use them for all in that category" (CMS). (Both, by the way recommend spelling out numbers up to one hundred, though they also recognize that in some types of works—scientific, financial—the "spell out only up to ten" rule may apply.) When, however, numbers referring to different categories of things occur in a passage, the numbers in each category may be treated differently. An example in CMS is "A mixture of buildings—one of 103 stories, five of more than 50, and a dozen of only 3 or 4—has been suggested for the area." Deor (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most encyclopaedias seem to use words to express numbers up to and including one hundred; and many also seem to use them for numbers above one hundred which don't call for too many words, such as eight hundred or two thousand. For what it's worth, my instinct in writing for Wikipedia is to use words for all numbers unless the result looks silly, but I suspect this is old-fashioned. Xn4 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the rule against starting a sentence with a numeral still holds, even if it does look silly. "Nineteen sixty-eight was a very fashionable year to be born in." —An gr 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that rule. In mathematical texts I write, I strictly aviod starting a sentence with a formula. If that would happen, I rephrase the sentence, possibly using display formulas. I can't always follow this when I take notes in a class by hand. – b_jonas 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my quirks is to use digits only if all the digits I write are significant. —Tamfang (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]