Language desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 17[edit]

Illegitimate children being referred to as natural children[edit]

Why are illegitimate children sometimes referred to as natural children, especially in older publications? Futurist110 (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OED Online defines this sense of "natural" as "Of a person: related genetically but not legally to his or her father; born outside marriage, illegitimate". In other words, it's being contrasted with "legal", in the same way as "natural person" is used to mean a human being in contrast with a corporation, which is a legal "person". --174.89.48.182 (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a euphemism, where we use a more neutral term so we don't have to use a socially uncomfortable term. The word "illegitimate" caries with it a pejorative sense with lots of negative connotations, the word "natural" carries none of that. That's why the terminology is used here, the use of a neutral or positive word to avoid pejorative or negative aspects of the earlier word, similar in ways to which terms like "disabled" came to be used in place of "cripple". --Jayron 32 09:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense but it still feels weird since legitimate children could also be viewed as being "natural children", no? I mean, they're certainly not "unnatural children" like adopted children are! Futurist110 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "natural" was not always free of derogatory connotations in past centuries. As a noun, it could mean "person naturally deficient in intellect" (a meaning very common in the 16th and 17th centuries, and used sometimes until the 19th century...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what would unnatural children be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a thing as an unnatural child, we have here no oppositions but rather a progression: non-natural children being possibly adopted or legally recognised but not genetically related, than natural children being genetically related but conceived outside marriage (earlier called bastards), then children that are conceived in the marriage, that is legitimate children. They are supposed to be also genetically related with both parents and the case they are not is mostly not publicized, I don't think there is a name for it, except "children of sin" maybe? 2003:F5:6F11:9700:E984:90F6:23B5:2DB4 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

What you write about adopted children here certainly makes sense, but it's still strange to refer to illegitimate children as "natural children" without also referring to legitimate children as "natural children". Futurist110 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natural language (no pun intended) is not deliberately constructed along mathematical or logical lines; it evolves as a largely unconscious collective consensus. Consequently a great many (English language) expressions, let alone idioms, do not necessarily have a logical opposite, and may seem 'strange' to someone from a different era, different culture, or different native language background.

In this case, the use of "natural" may have arisen from the idea that such children came from a "natural" relationship rather than one formally arranged by religious and/or legal proceedings, which do not exist in Nature. {Personal conjecture, to be clear.] In any case, the term is more or less obsolete and mostly found only in historical documents or literature (or writing pertaining to historical eras), so no-one expects you to deploy it in a modern setting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The better term is "love child". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criminally underrated movie Gattaca had a number of terms for children born other than by genetic selection. My favorite was Godchild. --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The natural offspring of Godparents? --Lambiam 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OED entry raises the possibility that it is an English translation of a classical Latin term, possibly borrowed through medieval French: "15.a. Of a person: related genetically but not legally to his or her father; born outside marriage, illegitimate. [Compare classical Latin fīlius nātūrālis (late 2nd cent. a.d.); compare also Middle French enfant naturel (late 14th cent. in this sense).]" So researching the Latin term might be a fruitful approach.

The earliest English uses collected by the OED date from the 15th century: "c1425 J. Lydgate Troyyes Bk. (Augustus A.iv) ii. 378 Þis noble kyng also Hadde þritty sonys... Þat callyd wern his sonys natural." and "a1500 tr. A. Chartier Traité de l'Esperance (Rawl.) (1974) 36 (MED) The naturall sonne is betyn of his fadir within the howse whenne he trespassith. But the hired man is vttirly put owte of the howse whanne he trespassith, withowte any stroke." and "1503 in Lett. Richard III & Hen. VII (Rolls) I. 195 Ye had..as good mynde towards h[ym] as ye cowd have to your naturall son." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's akin to the contrast between "sacramental" and "natural" (~aka common-law) marriages. —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian artist[edit]

I'm doing an article on one Giuseppe Fontinelli, who did work on comic books before WWII, had a later career in Australia. It seems he had pen- ( brush-?) name "Bissietta", which he later adopted as a surname. I'm using this article as a source. Does the name have any special connotations, or is it just a random surname? Also, one of his stories was titled La gola castigata, of which the Google translation "the chastened throat" I can make no sense, and my trusty Italian—English dictionary is of no help either. Doug butler (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no Italian, but one meaning of gola appears to be "gluttony", thus "gluttony castigated". 92.31.142.178 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "gorge" (meaning "make a pig of oneself") derives from the Latin *gorga, "throat". 92.31.142.178 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gola is metaphorical and means gluttony, greed (it is the story of a pelican stealing pineapples and getting instead a large stone, which is the reason today the pelican's beak has such a large pouch. Hier the trading cards, #4 and #5 seem to be missing [[1]], 680 KB, very slow loading)

I could not find an explanation for the name Bissietta but one sensible reference is a north Italian dialectal noun bissia, bisia or bissa, Italian biscia, generally meaning a non poisonous snake (Other meanings of bissia depending on the dialect are nettle and wasp, all things which bite or sting). Bissietta would be a small or little one. Here [[2]] it says that he adopted Bissietta from the beginning as his stage or pen name 2003:F5:6F11:9700:E984:90F6:23B5:2DB4 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Castigata would simply mean "punished" in this context, so a translation of La gola castigata would be "gluttony punished". It sounds like the title of some late medieval morality play, and that's likely deliberate on the author's part. Xuxl (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes perfect sense; thanks. Doug butler (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms the little snake theory: "His real name", reveals Paisio "was Giuseppe Fontanelli; the nickname 'Bissietta' was from his Tuscan dialect for little friendly snake".^[3] The artist and his Sydney gallery are mentioned in the article Six Directions. Apparently the gallery no longer exists; several dental practices appear to be located there now. --Lambiam 12:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Word equivalent using "-phile" suffix[edit]

As Francophile is to French and Anglophile is to English, what is the equivalent for British instead of English? What about Spanish (as in related to the nation of Spain)? I have a reference question (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Spain: wikt:Hispanophile. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can use Hibernophilia, Scotophila, or Cambrophilia to describe a philia for Ireland, Scotland, and Wales respectively, but to my knowledge there is no word for 'Britophile' Loafiewa (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In these sort of contexts, "Anglo" often stands for the whole United Kingdom; the Oxford Learners Dictionary has: "liking England or Britain very much". See also Anglo-French Entente, Anglo-Indian Wars, Anglo-French War (1778–1783), Anglo-Afghan Wars, Anglo-Irish Treaty, Anglo-Japanese Alliance and so on, none of which refer to England specifically. I bet this is another source of annoyance to the other Home Nations, but t'was ever thus. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the alarm of Portugal, when the various kingdoms were united the name Hespanha was chosen for the new country, which traditionally referred to the entire Iberian peninsula. 92.31.142.178 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge has the official and widely recognised answer (Anglophile), though there are some people that use "Britophile". If you want to get even crasser and forgo "-phile", try "teaboo" (which amusingly enough redirects to Anglophile). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:teaboo says its derogatory (says me drinking from a large mug of tea) :-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised; it's a derivative off of "weeaboo". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word, albeit rare, seems to be "Britanophile". A prominent example of someone who self-identifies this way is George Takei. His article includes the quote, "Those who know me know that I am an inconvertible Anglophile – or more broadly, a Britanophile, which includes my affection for Scotland and Wales as well." LANTZY ^TALK 16:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]