Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 March 21
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 20 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 22 > |
| 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. |
March 21[edit]
Direct and Indirect Descent[edit]
When we say that A is a direct descendant of B, does the word 'direct' add anything to the meaning? Would we ever describe someone as an indirect descendant? Maybe of an uncle? Rojomoke (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- A direct descendant would be a child of A and B. An indirect decendant would be a step-brother/sister. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here is one answer, and it seems reasonable. As I interpret this, your son is your direct descendant and your nephew is your indirect descendant. As stated in one of the other Google hits, it's not about biology; obviously your nephew is not descended from you biologically. Presumably, all direct and indirect descendants of your indirect descendants would also be your indirect descendants, so your nephew's son would be your indirect descendant. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- (Taking that source very literally, your first cousin would be your indirect descendant but your nephew would not. I choose not to take it that literally. It's a forum post. For one thing, their wording implies that someone who died centuries before you were born could be your descendant, which stretches language to the breaking point. At the very least, your descendant should be in a later generation than you, and even your first cousin is not.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- That seems to make logical sense, but I think that applies only to direct descendants/ancestors. The genealogical/legal fraternity talk of "lineal descendants" rather than "direct descendants". See also [1]. Obviously a lineal descendant can only be a child, grandchild or n-greats grandchild of their ancestor. However, people who share a common ancestor but are not direct descendants/ancestors of each other are known as collateral descendants, e.g. nieces, nephews, cousins and their progeny. You and I might be 5th cousins, meaning we have to go back to a great-great-great-great grandparent to find a common ancestor. We are each separately direct descendants of that long-dead person, but we're collateral descendants of each other. And that's where the semantic link is broken. Logically, if A is descended (in some sense) from B, then how can B also be descended from A? Well, it's not that they're descended from each other, but they're collateral descendants of each other. It's no different from two people being each other's cousin, or each other's sibling. Pick at random any two humans, living or dead, and they will almost certainly be at least collateral descendants of each other. Identifying the actual genealogical connection might, however, take a little longer than 5 seconds. The term "collateral ancestor" is also used. (OR begins here) My sister's children and their progeny are my collateral descendants (we call them nephews, n-grand-nephews, etc); my father 's sister's children and their progeny are my collateral ancestors (we call them 1st cousins, 1st cousins n-times removed). But that's weird since 1st cousins are also collateral descendants. Maybe it's that people in the same generation (siblings, 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins ...) are collateral relatives, but neither ancestors nor descendants. If in doubt, you can never go wrong with "collateral relative". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see. I think. So the use of "descendant" in that context is counterintuitive and utterly confusing, and should cease herewith. I vote for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Only confusing if you assume "descendant" has to mean their very existence depends on the existence of the ancestor. As I say, that's true only of linear (= direct) relatives. Nth cousins (n-times removed) are linearly descended not from each other but from a common ancestor, and are thus relatives collaterally (rather than linearly) of each other, hence collateral relatives, or in a specific case, collateral descendant or collateral ancestor. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Mandruss that such usage of "descendant" is counter-intuitive and confusing, but apparently the word collateral has a long-standing special legal meaning (from 1425: "Qwhen þe succession lynealle Endit, þe collateralle Ressawit") meaning in a parallel line from a brother or sister, applied originally to succession and hence to descendants. I prefer Jack's collateral relative. Dbfirs 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Only confusing if you assume "descendant" has to mean their very existence depends on the existence of the ancestor. As I say, that's true only of linear (= direct) relatives. Nth cousins (n-times removed) are linearly descended not from each other but from a common ancestor, and are thus relatives collaterally (rather than linearly) of each other, hence collateral relatives, or in a specific case, collateral descendant or collateral ancestor. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see. I think. So the use of "descendant" in that context is counterintuitive and utterly confusing, and should cease herewith. I vote for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- That seems to make logical sense, but I think that applies only to direct descendants/ancestors. The genealogical/legal fraternity talk of "lineal descendants" rather than "direct descendants". See also [1]. Obviously a lineal descendant can only be a child, grandchild or n-greats grandchild of their ancestor. However, people who share a common ancestor but are not direct descendants/ancestors of each other are known as collateral descendants, e.g. nieces, nephews, cousins and their progeny. You and I might be 5th cousins, meaning we have to go back to a great-great-great-great grandparent to find a common ancestor. We are each separately direct descendants of that long-dead person, but we're collateral descendants of each other. And that's where the semantic link is broken. Logically, if A is descended (in some sense) from B, then how can B also be descended from A? Well, it's not that they're descended from each other, but they're collateral descendants of each other. It's no different from two people being each other's cousin, or each other's sibling. Pick at random any two humans, living or dead, and they will almost certainly be at least collateral descendants of each other. Identifying the actual genealogical connection might, however, take a little longer than 5 seconds. The term "collateral ancestor" is also used. (OR begins here) My sister's children and their progeny are my collateral descendants (we call them nephews, n-grand-nephews, etc); my father 's sister's children and their progeny are my collateral ancestors (we call them 1st cousins, 1st cousins n-times removed). But that's weird since 1st cousins are also collateral descendants. Maybe it's that people in the same generation (siblings, 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins ...) are collateral relatives, but neither ancestors nor descendants. If in doubt, you can never go wrong with "collateral relative". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a story from today's news. The headline says "Richard's closest descendants", but if you read down further you see they're directly descended from Richard's sister, and hence collateral descendants of Richard III. If any of his direct descendants have died out, then the collateral lines are next cabs off the rank. They all share Richard's parents' genes, and hence Richard's own genes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Apology"[edit]
When and why did the word "apology" flip from meaning "argument in defence of something" to "expression of remorse for doing something"? Iapetus (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- As for when, see The Online Etymological Dictionary. AS for why, its semantic shift but such things happen normally without being recorded. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Mowhawk vs. mohawk (hairstyle)[edit]
Is a "mowhawk" a different hairstyle than a mohawk, or just a variation of the spelling? (I thought a mowhawk was like the trademark hairstyle of Mr. T, whereas a mohawk was hair styled like a rooster comb. When I searched the web for "mowhawk", I kept getting hits for "mohawk" instead. That made me wonder if I'd been mistaken.) --173.49.16.112 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- When it first appeared in the UK it was called a Mohican. But I think the 'tide' has now turned firmly towards Mohawk. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC) [2]
- Here's my uncool two cents, FWIW. I have never seen the word "mowhawk". It's listed at Urban Dictionary, but it doesn't contrast it to "mohawk", which makes me believe they might be alternative spellings of the same word. "Mohawk" at Google Images shows a lot of things that look closer to rooster comb than to Mr. T's style. I always thought that was called a spike. Sorry I couldn't be of more help; perhaps a 20-year-old (or a cooler 60-year-old) will happen along. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Upon reflection, Mr. T's style is short, like freshly mown grass, so "mowhawk" makes sense and would contrast to the photos linked above. I may be a little cooler now. As for why your search was misleading, maybe the search engine needs to get with the times too. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- So more of a mowerhawk maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I first came across "mowhawk" sometime in the last decade when I saw this joke on the Web. I thought it was a misspelling at first, but something I found on the Web made me think that it was a word coined to refer to a hairstyle like Mr. T's. My notion was challenged when I searched for pictures of "mowhawk" but didn't quite get what I expected. --173.49.16.112 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the Google search for "mowhawk". It says "Showing results for mohawk", guessing that the user just misspelled "mohawk". Just below that is a link for "Search instead for mowhawk", and clicking that link produces hits including some of what you were looking for. Not a lot, so I guess the term is having trouble catching on. I'm in favor of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)