Language desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10[edit]

Multi-language or intermediate puns[edit]

I am learning Afrikaans & find it fascinating to trace the origins of many English expressions (thru Dutch & German) and especially common grammatical mistakes. Repeatedly, I find sayings in English which I took at face value and which now appear to be puns. eg. Time and tide wait for no man. But in Afrikaans, tyd means time, so there is a double meaning. Similarly Strike while the iron is hot. In Afrikaans stryk means iron (noun) and to iron. Again a pun. Or 'I have a bone in my leg' which is meant to be funny but only makes sense when you discover been means leg. My question is did people know they were making puns between languages or were they only puns because the language was changing and older forms remained? Is there a name for this sort of punning? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenadrienne (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayings do tend to retain older forms of the language than is presently in common use, so that might support your theory that old puns can lose their double meaning in one language, but retain it in another language which branched off. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For tide meaning "time" (cf. also German Zeit) it may be probable. But bone did not mean "leg" even in Old English (bān). So we must assume that either that saying has come from Dutch and Dutch been, "leg", was interpreted as bone in English, or that saying traces back to Proto-Germanic. For stryk I suppose you're wrong, as stryk (Dutch strijken) is not "iron" (noun) which is yster (Dutch ijzer), but only a verb with quite expected semantics ("to stroke" > "to rub" > "to smooth (clothes)"); note, that English "to iron" is quite a unique semantic development ("to smooth clothes with a flat iron tool"> "to iron").--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both side of a body, of a human being[edit]

I wish to say the entitled words in a short form. I recall the following:

Bilateral symmetry.
Bilateral body.

Regardless the above, what would be the correct term?

103.67.158.187 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: "entitled" before a noun doesn't mean what you think it means. It means having a legal or moral right to have or do something. This whole thread is (en)titled "Both side of a body, of a human being"; but those words themselves are not described as "entitled". You'd need to say "the above words". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bilateral" works if you mean left and right sides. Top and bottom, front and back, nearside and farside or inside and outside are not as simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think, to give a good answer, we'd need to have an example of how you want to use the expression you're asking about. Also, are you talking about scientific or everyday usage? "Bilateral" is usually only a scientific word. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word that comes to mind is "comprehensive". A reference can be made to the whole body, or to the body comprehensively. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In medical jargon, it seems taboo to say "both feet"; instead one says "bilateral lower extremities". But I would not expect to hear a similar construction for sides adding up to a whole body. —Tamfang (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bodies of humans, and vertebrates in general, are said to have "bilateral symmetry". I don't know when you would ever say "bilateral body". Also, that's only externally. Many of the internal organs shapes and placements lack symmetry. And even externally, the left and right sides of the body are seldom mirror images of each other - but they're fairly close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may use the term “bilateral organs” to refer to lungs / kidneys / etc. “Bilateral body” may be a useful term for sleeping arrangements in a polygamous relationship :o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even the lungs are not mirror images of each other: two lobes vs. three. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Apposition"? As in, apposite sides of the body? Akld guy (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hempl's theory on Z[edit]

A few months ago, the G article taught me that George Hempl (I recently created a draft article at Draft:George Hempl; for anyone who knows more about him feel free to add the info to the draft) proposed the idea that G was in fact a direct descendant of zeta, not a C with a stroke added to it as the usual theory says. However, the Z article says nothing about Hempl, and the same source that talks about Hempl's theory on G also says that Hempl doesn't believe that Z is a direct descendant of Greek (not via Etruscan like most letters) zeta. But it's not clear exactly what Hempl's theory on how Z originated is. Any thoughts on adding appropriate info to the Z article?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we've already discussed the Hempl-G thing several times before here. As for "Z", the standard account of its origin is the same as it is for "Y" -- these letters were borrowed to accommodate borrowings from Greek into the Latin language, writing sounds that did not occur in late Republican Latin. That's why they're at the end of the Latin alphabet. From what you say above, it doesn't seem like Hempl's account of the origins of Z is greatly different from the standard account... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed the G part already; this section is about the Z part. Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]