Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 30

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.

December 30

Face of Jesus

What is the word that describes the perception of a face in a crisp? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pareidolia? +Angr 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. thank you, my mind went blank. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, so did mine. I just googled "seeing human faces" and Wikipedia's article on Pareidolia was the first hit. +Angr 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also Simulacrum.Paul Davidson (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Which preposition with "behalf"?

Usage problem; this is my (US English) initial attempt at distinguishing two different meanings of "behalf":

• The deacon presented the "Outstanding Student" award on behalf of the faculty committee.
• Only one neighbor came to testify in the accused's behalf.

Is the choice of preposition (on vs. in) a matter of sentence structure alone, or are they associated with the two different meanings? If the latter, would the second sentence be correctly rewritten as:

• Only one neighbor came to testify in behalf of the accused.

Searching the web, I came up with this line cited on the Washington Post 's "D.C. Wire" quoting the Los Angeles Times (so I'm not sure which style sheet applies):

• "...R., who once served on the board of the S....... school, spoke on behalf of J. [who was accused of misconduct]..."

Consulting Webster's 10th Collegiate online, I got (and failed to comprehend) this:

• : interest, benefit; also : support, defense <argued in his behalf>
• — on behalf of or in behalf of : in the interest of; also : as a representative of
• usage A body of opinion favors in with the “interest, benefit” sense of behalf and on with the “support, defense” sense. This distinction has been observed by some writers but overall has never had a sound basis in actual usage. In current British use, on behalf (of) has replaced in behalf (of); both are still used in American English, but the distinction is frequently not observed.

What are we to make of all this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it'll help, but BrEng would never use "in", always "on": "on someone's behalf", "on behalf of someone". AmEng seems to suggest "on" with a legal sense, in the least. I'm struggling to see a "interest, benefit" sense of "behalf" TBH. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As an American English speaker, I will weigh in by saying that in behalf is not part of my repertoire. I would not think of using the preposition in with behalf in any context. I accept the evidence that in is sometimes used, but I strongly doubt that most American English speakers would use one preposition for one set of meanings and another for a second set of meanings. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In these cases, the usage of these prepositions is very difficult to detect in terms of their intented meanings. I am not sure but there might be some variations to refer a temporal cause of event as salient and permanent versus the agent in question is not central to a meaning. That is--

• ‘I am writing in behalf of Mr. X’ is to mean that I will remain the agent for Mr. X.
• ‘I am writing on behalf of Mr. X’ is to mean that I am the agent for Mr. X at the time of an event.

If this is not the case, then it is difficult (i think) to make any other meaningful assumptions about utterances that make differences in prepositional ostentation. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

help with cryptic crossword requested

Solving a cryptic crossword, I came across the clue "Joining the team, act on gin mixture likely to befuddle" for which the answer somehow came out as INTOXICATING. I can see a partial anagram in "act on gin," but that leaves the letters "TIXI" unaccounted for, and I can't see how to get that from "Joining the team." Can anyone help me out here? Thx, It's been emotional (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect it's a reference to the Big 12, but I don't know American football well enough to know if it's obvious to call that "the team". Tevildo (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, it's a cricket team. Joining "INTO" the team "XI" act (on) gin (mixture) "CATING". Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could equally be a football team. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Thanks, Tevildo, because I was just about to say it looked like a cricket team, since the term "the XI" is often used for the 11 players. The rest I still couldn't figure out, perhaps because I was unaware of just how obscure they were willing to be. I guess it's fair with anagram clues. It's been emotional (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I + XI = XII. There are XI members in teams in a number of sports, and adding I is equivalent in meaning to "joining the team". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the “XI” in “London XI” derived from the fact that a soccer team has 11 members? --84.62.205.233 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard "XI" used to refer to a football team. Cricket, yes. Marnanel (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

True, "XI" on its own usually refers to a cricket team (and "XV" to rugby union), but London XI was a soccer team, and the XI does refer to the number of members. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Not true: "XI" is sometimes used in a football context, although it is not common. As an example, the 1955–58 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup had several teams that represented cities, because of a rule that only one club from each city could attend. Cities with several clubs got around this rule by choosing the best players and sending one side. Xenon54 / talk / 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tammy Moet's suggestion is relevant. Tevildo has given a correct and complete answer IMO. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's a cryptic crossword and I gave you how I would arrive at the answer! What's irrelevant about that? There's usually more than one way to arrive at the answer to a cryptic clue! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya gotta luv it when they criticize free advice. Meanwhile, cryptic books I've run into usually explain the answer in addition to just giving it. I wonder if the OP should maybe find a better crypic book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, ColinFine is correct and Tammy Moet's suggestion was not only irrelevant but incorrect, since it doesn't operate in accordance with the accepted methods of giving cryptic clues. There is most certainly not "more than one way to arrive at the answer". And you can't get to this answer with it anyway. As for the ever-chatty Bugs' contribution, why do you assume it was a book? It was almost certainly a crossword in a newspaper, which only prints the solution the next day without explanations. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tammy's suggestion was not correct, Colin's comment was rude, and if the newspaper doesn't explain it, then maybe get a different newspaper. Cryptics are fun and challenging. But if they don't explain it, then you can't learn anything from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Colin's comment was not rude, it was a perfectly sensible intervention. And there is no newspaper in the world, AFAIK, that publishes explanations for its own cryptic crosswords. There are books and websites you can read if you want to learn how to do them, or you can just work them out for yourself. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was rude, as you should be able to discern by Tammy's defensive response. He could have simply said it was incorrect. On the other hand, they could probably both defend themselves, they don't need us to do it for them. And the mere fact the OP posted here indicates the shortcoming of the newspaper's explanation. "XI" to mean "team" is pretty freakin' obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in countries that are not America. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back from your vacation. I'm a baseball fan, but if "IX" were the clue it wouldn't suggest "team" to me. It likely is a cultural thing, as indicated below. It's unfortunate if papers don't cover the explanations. Puzzle books typically do, hence it's possible to learn from them. But I would think newspapers would at least give the breakdown: INTO + XI + CATING in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is all you get. Marnanel (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that makes it more of a challenge, but insufficient as a learning experience. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest it's a cultural thing. In the UK it's reasonably common to write "the first XI" to mean a school's primary cricket team, or "the second XV" for rugby, and so on. The clue is not particularly obscure (and there wouldn't have been an explanation). Marnanel (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a newspaper publishing explanations (as opposed to solutions) either. I first started buying my own daily newspaper at the age of twenty or so almost purely so that I could read the cryptic solutions day by day and work out the rules by induction. Marnanel (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a reference to this in the article 11_(number)#In_sports --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

XI, although it doesn't redirect to that page, lists it. Interestingly, the OP got the XI reference but was confused by the anagram. Cryptic writers love those anagrams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Tammy found my reply rude: it was not intended to be, but a straightforward statement of my opinion. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For a few days, I had thought that Bugs seen here, had his account hacked by someone with half a brain and a sense of respect for the reference desk. I have now returned to my senses. Football Insects (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What does this Asian text say?

Sorry that I can't be more specific. For all I know it's completely decorative and means nothing, but I'm still curious. http://i50.tinypic.com/11u8gpi.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.93.219 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

功夫: Chinese for Kung fu. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, sir and/or madam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.93.219 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

and/or ?? or, I think. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical agreement

In reading the translation above regarding "God bless you", I stopped to consider the expression. My first observation was that this is ungrammatical as the subject and verb do not agree. Changing it to agree would produce "God blesses you". Upon further thought, though, I suppose it would make more sense to interpret it as an abbreviation for "[May] God bless you". However, trying this with similar sentences does not produce grammatically acceptable sentences: "May the priest bless you" -> *"The priest bless you", "May she win the gold" -> *"She win the gold" etc. Are there any other common expressions or constructions that permit exemption of grammatical agreement? 124.214.131.55 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"God bless you" is short for "May God bless you". As with the implied "may" in the song "God Bless America". In effect, you're praying for God to bless. You don't need to pray to the priest to bless. You just go ask him. You might also get the argument that "God" is a trinity, hence He's both a singular and a plural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording "God bless [whatever]" also has the unfortunate effect of appearing to be issuing an order to God. "Yo! God! Bless America! Ya hear?" God may listen, but He does not take orders. I recall Red Skelton used to end his programs with, "Good night, and may God bless." That's more proper usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

God bless you is a fossilized instance of a subjunctive construction expressing an optative or hortative mood. It is only used this way in fixed phrases, usually religious in nature, such as God bless..., God save..., God forbid..., Heaven forbid. Historically, it would have been possible to say The priest bless you. However, that is no longer part of the grammar of modern English. Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) 'God bless you' may be short for 'May God bless you' in today's English, but it was not when the expression came into use, nor is there a lack of grammatical agreement. It is an example of the present subjunctive, now rare in English, though still found in subordinate clauses in some formal contexts, eg "we demand that the question be put". It is extremely rare in main clauses, generally only in set phrases such as 'God bless ...', 'heaven help ... ' and 'long live ... '

It is also not an imperative, and there is nothing improper about it, Baseball Bugs --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But it sounds like an imperative. I recall reading some comments after 9/11, when everyone started singing "God Bless America" at public events, to the effect that it sounded like someone was giving God an order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And your examples work with "may". "[May] God save our noble Queen...", "[May] heaven help us", "[May] the king live long [and prosper!]" All of those uses are an implied hope or prayer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Language Log had a rather fascinating post on misinterpretation of present subjunctives. They point out that in Ray Charles's rendition of America the Beautiful, he translates "God shed his grace on thee" into AAVE as "God done shed his grace"..., which indicates that he read it as an indicative, in the past tense: "at some time in the past few hundred years, God shed his grace on thee". Marnanel (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also Ray's artistic license. He also said, "And crown thy good... He told me He would... from sea to... shining sea." And the backing choral group sang it the normal way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inserting may before these expressions works because the modern English way of expressing the optative mood is "may + [infinitive]" or "let + [infinitive]". It is something of a coincidence that the third person singular present subjunctive and the infinitive are identical in English. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember discussing this construction in a linguistics class. The professor pointed out that this use of the bare subjunctive is really found only in certain fixed phrases, not in newly created sentences, so that while in church we may say "The Lord be with you", in Star Wars they say "May the Force be with you" not "The Force be with you". +Angr 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, the figure of speech is an imperative in idiom (though it is not a metaphor), because of the lack principle of compositionality in grammatical agreements. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mihkaw napéw, there is neither a figure of speech nor a metaphor involved. What are you trying to say? Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't understand what Mihkaw is trying to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the informative responses. I had not considered the subjunctive, something that I apparently need to brush up on, but the explanations all make sense now. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese

In my Chinese class, we were given a set of sentences with the instructions "Change this sentence so it makes logical sense". I've gotten most of them, but #9 has me stumped. It is "我愛吃蜜蜂". But I cant see anything grammatically wrong with it, and it is too short for me to rewrite any more simply or clearly. Is this a trick question? —Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.227.223 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes; indeed. I enjoy eating honeybees as well. Intelligentsium 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Intelligentsium suggests... the error is not in the grammar, the error is in the vocabulary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

蜂蜜 can mean honey, but 蜜蜂 means honey-bee. It's not a logical mistake, truly, because it is possible that there is someone out there who likes to eat bees. However, it is many times more sensible that the hypothetical speaker wants to say that they like to eat honey, so the mistake is that they switched the characters around by mistake. Steewi (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In Chicago there used to be a place that specialized in delicacies, one of which was Chocolate Covered Baby Bees. (Dead ones, presumably.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume larvae rather than imagines? I'd have thought an adult bee would be too - hairy - to eat, even with chocolate coating. Tevildo (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Entomophagy is the practice of eating insects as food. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)