Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 May 6

Language desk
< May 5	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 7 >

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 6

Who's on first? ("Extraterrestrial life(forms)")

"Science" sent me over here... The article Extraterrestrial life mentions people and schools who thought first about life beyond earth but there is no informationen who coined (used for the first time) the English expression "Extraterrestrial life(forms)" (<= combination of those words). So - please no Greek, no other language - who (which book, which article) used this term first? I do not know the answer myself, but I have a bet going on, that it was rather a literary person than a person of science. Am I right? I appreciate any clues (going back in time) GoogleBooks has not been much help. Grey Geezer 12:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Not sure about that exact phrase, but Dictionary.com and Etymonline.com both put the first use of the adjective 'extraterrestrial' in the late 1860s. Unfortunately, no source is cited, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives a first citation dating from 1868, in an apparently astronomical publication titled Heavens by an author named Lockyer, probably Norman Lockyer. This is consistent with KägeTorä's information. Marco polo (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting - one part nailed down. So the combination with "life(forms)" must have come later than +/- 1868. Any clues? Grey Geezer 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Still not exactly what you're looking for, but related: The entry at the Science Fiction Citation site suggests that the OED has found no earlier attested use of extraterrestrial as a noun meaning "a creature not from Earth" than the 1942 short story "The Embassy" by "Martin Pearson" (pseud. of Donald Wollheim). Deor (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add this, although I'm unsure of its relevance: Near the beginning of The War of the Worlds (1898) are the sentences "It required a certain amount of scientific education to perceive that the grey scale of the Thing was no common oxide, that the yellowish-white metal that gleamed in the crack between the lid and the cylinder had an unfamiliar hue. 'Extraterrestrial' had no meaning for most of the onlookers." This may suggest that even the adjective did not come into widespread use until the 20th century. Deor (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster found extraterrestrial as early as 1848 (again no source). I'd try searching in The Kraken's Library for old quotes. That should narrow it down a lot. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if that's a typo on M-W's online page. As far as I know, M-W gets their datings from the OED, and my hard copy of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate (admittedly, a ninth ed. from 1984) has 1868. Deor (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It was either the noun or as adjective + life(form). Both years (1942 and 1898) suit me (bith literature ;-) 1860 was "only" adjective referring to "dead" matter. 1848: I have serious doubts, as I found a German text around this date which used the translated term (ausserirdisch) in a religious context. OK! And thanks for letting me pick your brains ...! Grey Geezer 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Triste en corps bière

Tristan Corbière was born Édouard-Joachim Corbière. Apparently, he choose his pseudonym because it was somewhat similar to: Triste en corps bière. What does it mean exactly? Is it really homophone to his name? --151.51.60.165 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two are almost exact homophones; the expression means something like "sad in the body casket." The word order is not idiomatic to French, so it's hard to give a translation, but the poetic impression is that of a sad body lying in a casket. In this case, bière does not immediately evoke the meaning "beer", but rather that of "casket", given the closeness to "corps" (body). --Xuxl (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bier is the German for "beer", but bier is a lesser-used English word for "casket".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a tangential note that the introduction to Selections from Les Amours Jaunes (U of California Press, 1954) gives a different account of his adoption of the name Tristan: "Tristan had taken his alias from a hero of legend, Tristan of Lyonesse, whom he thought of in an almost fraternal way." Deor (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why shouldn't it refer to "bière"? At least Mr. Gougelle does not know a whole lot of "corps bière(s)," so why should it evoke the casket more so than beer? In general, also see the discussion here, same topic, virtually same answer. And, BTW, would've been easy enough to find if someone had tried to search the net before asking here... um-hum... --Thanks for answering (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe my original answer was not quite clear: "bière" in French means both "beer" and "casket". The two are homonyms. The pun "triste en corps bière" makes no real grammatical sense, but the association with triste (sad) and corps (copse, body) point more to the second meaning of bière. But one could also read it as "beer". The phrase is poetic wordplay with no fixed meaning, so it can evoke different responses in different readers. --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

German language in user interfaces

I have recently come to think of this. I speak Finnish natively, English almost fluently, and Swedish and German fairly well. As such, I am able to translate the user interfaces of computer programs into any of the four languages.

Now, my question is, when it comes to texts denoting actions to be performed, why is German different from all of the three others? Examples:

• English:
  • Open! Close! Show! Save! Delete! Cancel! Quit!
• Swedish:
  • Öppna! Stäng! Visa! Spara! Radera! Avbryt! Slut!
• Finnish:
  • Avaa! Sulje! Näytä! Talleta! Poista! Peru! Lopeta!
• German:
  • Öffnen. Schließen. Zeigen. Speichern. Löschen. Abbrechen. Beenden.

Do you see the difference? Every other language uses direct imperatives, but German uses infinitives. Why is it not "Öffne! Schließ! Zeig! Speichere! Lösch! Abbrich! Beende!"? JIP | Talk 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In English, you can't tell whether these verb forms are imperatives or bare infinitives, because English has so little overt morphology. But even if they are imperatives, it's normal in German to use the infinitive in an imperative way, especially in the written language. I translate technical documentation from German into English for a living, and every day I see German texts where users are instructed how to operate or test the machinery or software or whatever by means of a long string of infinitives functioning as imperatives: Die Sicherheitstür öffnen. Die Funktion des Geräts überprüfen. Den Messwert auf dem Manometer protokollieren. And so on. It's more impersonal than a real imperative, which is appropriate in certain contexts. Another examples is doors on public buildings: they say DRÜCKEN and ZIEHEN for PULL and PUSH, not DRÜCKE and ZIEH or DRÜCKEN SIE and ZIEHEN SIE. I think French uses the infinitive in this imperative-like way too; at least doors in France say POUSSER and TIRER, not POUSSEZ-VOUS and TIREZ-VOUS. +Angr 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "Abbrich!", it would be "Brich ab!". Rimush (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will venture that historically these sorts of commands were first composed in English, and then given conventional translations in the other languages you mention. As Angr says, its unclear whether the English forms are infinitive or imperative. They generally do not come with exclamation points. I hadn't thought about it much, but these labels don't feel imperative to me. For example, at the top of my Safari screen, I see "File" "Edit" "View" "History" "Bookmarks" "Window" and "Help". Only one of these is even fairly unambiguously a verb, and surrounded by nouns and ambiguous forms, it feels more like an infinitive than an imperative. As a native speaker of English and a person with a good grasp of German, I'd say that the right translation for these labels in German is the infinitive. It may be that the Swedish and Finnish technical writers who developed these conventional terms for those languages interpreted the English terms as infinitives and made infinitives the conventional forms in Swedish and Finnish. However, they don't really feel like infinitives in English to me. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean "imperatives" instead of your last three instances of "infinitives". Rimush (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish programs use infinitives, not imperatives. See [2], for example. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Go" and "Search" buttons of Wikipedias in various European languages:

• English: "Go", "Search" - could be equally interpreted as infinitives and as imperatives;
• German: "Artikel" and "Volltext" - nouns, but at wikipedia.org there's "suchen" - infinitive;
• French: "Lire", "Rechercher" - infinitives;
• Polish: "Przejdź", "Szukaj" - imperatives;
• Italian: "Vai", "Ricerca" - imperatives;
• Dutch: "Artikel", "Zoeken" - the former is a noun, the latter is an infinitive;
• Spanish: "Ir", "Buscar" - infinitives;
• Portuguese: "Ir", "Pesquisar" - infinitives;
• Russian: "Перейти", "Найти" - infinitives;
• Swedish: "Gå till", "Sök" - imperatives;
• Bokmål Norwegian: "Gå", "Søk" - imperatives;
• Catalan: "Vés-hi", "Cerca" - imperatives;
• Finnish: "Siirry", "Etsi" - imperatives (?);
• Ukrainian: "Перейти", "Пошук" - the former is an infinitive, the latter is a noun;
• Czech: "Jít na", "Hledat" - infinitives;
• Hungarian: "Menj", "Keresés" - the former is an imperative (?), the latter is a noun;
• Turkish: "Git", "Ara" - imperatives;
• Romanian: "Salt", "Căutare" - nouns;
• Esperanto: "Ek!", "Serĉi" - the former is an interjection, the latter is an infinitive;
• Danish: "Gå til", "Søg" - imperatives;
• Serbian: "Иди", "Претрага" - the former is an imperative, the latter is a noun;
• Slovak: "Ísť na", "Hľadať" - infinitives;
• Bulgarian: "Отваряне", "Търсене" - nouns;
• Slovene: "Pojdi na", "Iskanje" - the former is an imperative, the latter is a noun;
• Croatian: "Kreni", "Traži" - imperatives;
• Greek: "Μετάβαση", "Αναζήτηση" - nouns;
• Latin: "Ire", "Quaerere" - infinitives;
• Icelandic: "Áfram", "Leita" - the former is an adverb, the latter is an imperative.

Many languages, hence a great variety. --Магьосник (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In English, negative notices use the gerund rather than the imperative/infinitive: "No Smoking", "No Parking", etc, rather than "Do not smoke", "Don't park", etc. jnestorius^(talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Or nouns: "No photography in the gallery!" --Магьосник (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

French also uses infinitives. Not just for computer messages, but also for instructions, directions, recipes, and various signs/notices. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question, and I used to ask it myself quite a few times. It's true that German often tries to avoid direct imperatives; I'd say that in many contexts they're considered rude or colloquial, whereas their absence sounds more, well, bureaucratic (you notice my mixed feelings where neither solution is perfect); and yes, for a long time, I've interpreted the avoidance of direct imperatives more as a result of Germany's (and maybe also German's) rich history of bureaucracy. BTW, the German Wikipedia (de:Imperativ_(Modus)) also points out the use of the infinitive instead of imperative (nicht rauchen; Herschauen!), but also the past particple (Aufgepaßt! Hergeschaut!), passive voice (Jetzt wird geschlafen!) and formerly more popular the use of the conditional in cookbooks (Man nehme).

... well, I used to ask it and think about bureaucracy until I found out (compare especially Магьосник's comments) that there's generally quite a variety. Also see Imperative mood for a few further examples. I also find jnestorius' comment interesting, about English sometimes using gerounds. (Though I'd add: only for short/easy commands... I don't think "no expounding on the content of the poem" would be used anywhere. :o)) German indeed doesn't have a geround. Other languages that have an equivalent. Other languages seem to have tendencies to avoid imperatives in formal settings too, e.g., using nouns and/or verbal nouns (e.g., Arabic). German's not quite as alone it seems. ;o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, it may be interesting to know that on user interfaces Japanese uses the 'simple form' of the verb (that is to say the form found in dictionaries, but which is also the form used in the simple present tense. Thus, 'Open' would be 開く (hiraku) and 'Close' would be 閉じる (tojiru) and so on. I think the idea is that it is you, the user, who is making a decision to do something (like 'open' a document, etc.), and not that you are telling the computer to do it. Also, using an imperative here would either be very direct and impolite (to an inanimate object!) or just too many characters. Compare 開け！ (hirake) and 開いて下さい (hiraite kudasai). Another thing about Japanese imperatives, is that there is another form which is quite common - that of putting 'koto' after the simple form of the verb, hence turning it into a verbal noun, and then this 'koto' itself is sometimes dropped, leaving us with just the verb in its simple dictionary form. [/side note] --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In contemporary Bulgarian, there's no infinitive. The natural and almost exclusively used form to express what is being discussed here is the imperative. However, it could be avoided in some rare cases at the expense of the subjunctive. This makes the context extremely formal and expresses a strict demand or rule towards the addressee rather than advice or recommendation. For example, in a book of maths problems that one can solve to practise for an exam, one would typically see the sentence "Решете уравнението.", "Solve [IMP, RESPECTFUL FORM] the equation." But at the exam itself, the maths problem would probably be formulated as follows: "Да се реши уравнението.", something like "The equation be solved [SBJV]."

And in Bulgarian language computer interfaces, the imperative is often substituted with nouns, especially verbal nouns. --Магьосник (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, from Japanese: in the example of exam questions above, in this case the imperative would be used usually. As for the interfaces, though, I forgot to add that many verbs come formatted as '[noun]+do', and here the 'do' is very often missed off, so we will just end up with a noun, such as in 「検索」 (kensaku) - 'search', found on many a website. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

French

Bonjour, camarades :) What is the best way in French to correct someone if they call you tu but you do not feel you know them that well? Thank yu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.4.20 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in German at least, I would respond by pointedly using the formal pronoun until they get the hint. I suspect that would work in French, too. +Angr 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. But have you read our article T-V distinction? The use of tu does not necessarily indicate intimacy. It may also be used to suggest commonality of status or interest. You want to consider very carefully before asking someone to use vous instead of tu. Doing so creates a kind of distancing or rejection. You may alienate the other person, or you may give the impression of being stuffy or old-fashioned. You might find this dialogue interesting. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends quite a bit on the context. Sometimes people will tutoyer you on purpose as an insult (for example, I once saw someone tutoie a waiter who had given her bad service...the waiter looked like he had been slapped in the face), and in such a case you can't really "correct" them. If it really is an honest mistake, though, maybe it's someone who's not very proficient in French and thus doesn't know which pronoun is appropriate; maybe you are in a setting where it's standard to use tu anyway (for example, students usually use tu amongst themselves, even if they aren't close); or maybe the other person thinks you two are close enough now but you don't. In the latter case, that's really more of a social issue than a linguistic one; it has no easy answer (just as there is no easy answer to "how should I reject someone if they ask me out on a date but I don't like them that way?"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. I should give more context: This is in a professional context. I am being addressed by a subordinate as "tu", and I feel it is not appropriate (the other employees address their superiors as "vous"). I don't think he means to be insulting, but I feel uncomfortable. 68.249.4.20 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting, because in Finnish, the T-V distinction does not go nearly as far as in German or French. I'd have no problems "tuing" my CEO, even though I very seldom interact with him. I'd only have to "vous" people well over two decades older than me, or government officials, or possibly members of the authority. But I've come to understand that in German or French you only ever "tu" members of your immediate family or close friends, you "vous" everyone else, ever, everywhere. JIP | Talk 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you consistently call him vous? If not, you should. If so, and he hasn't gotten the hint yet (cf. my first comment above), my advice would be to just flat-out tell him (sometime when no one else is within earshot, so as not to embarrass him in front of others) that you would prefer to stay on vous terms with him. +Angr 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally agreed with Angr. BTW, it would probably be easier to get good answers to this question at the French Wikipedia because there are naturally more native speakers who've dealt with this question and even know when it's appropriate to correct and when it isn't :o) ... Anyways, I think for me it's not like refusing a date, but like telling someone in English you don't want to be called by your first name. Awkward, yes, but possible. Take him aside, be very friendly, and say you'd prefer "vous". Maybe you can give that person a (more or less honest) "reason" why you prefer "tu": For example, if you're older, maybe you can smile and say "sorry, but I grew up that way and still prefer to use the formal/old-fashioned form" (esp. if you think he's one of the young'uns who'd say "tu" to everyone short of the CEO). Or (more risky though) simply say semi-openly that it's just easier to work that way given the hierarchy that there is in your job... maybe you can even remark in passing that neither of the two of you made that hierarchy, thereby presenting yourself as someone who's also "just here and dealing with it." Generally, I'd try to be extra nice to him afterwards. If you dare, even do something afterwards to break the hierarchy a little, e.g., ask him for his opinion/advice on something you're dealing with or whatever. No brownnosing, just (honestly) signaling that yes, you prefer "vous," but that's not meant as an insult & that you still value him etc.

@ JIP: As Angr has already pointed out, there are many opportunities outside of immediate family or close friends to use the familiar forms in German and French. Not to mention that "tu" is (slowly) getting more common in areas where it didn't use to be. Besides, French and German at least don't use "vous" even for parents, as some Latin American speakers do. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, not anymore, but there are still elderly German speakers who called their parents Sie when they were children, so it wasn't all that long ago that it happened. +Angr 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In France, a subordinate using "tu" would be inappropriate in most cases, but in French Canada, it would be very common except in a highly-formal employment sector (a bank or a law office perhaps). In the Maghreb, "tu" would be unthinkable in this contrxt, but in many French-speaking parts iof sub-Saharan Africa, it would not raise anyone's eyebrows. Cultural practices differ widely on this point. --Xuxl (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, given the context, I agree that it is entirely appropriate that you say "vous" to your subordinate, and, if he persists in saying "tu", you privately ask that he say "vous". You ask how to correct someone in French. If you work in a French-speaking environment, I'm guessing that your French is better than mine, but couldn't you say something like this? "S'il vous plait, je préférais, qu'on se dise 'vous'. Je crois que c'est l'habitude ici." Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct form in France is to set fire to several cars[3] ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Abu Bakr

An Iranian professor of mine pronounces the name Abu Bakr something like "Abu Bakk" or "Abu Bhatt" (it's hard to understand because she's a low talker) - the point is that I can't hear any trace of the "r". Is this how it is pronounced in Arabic? Could someone provide the correct pronunciation? (IPA works too, but I would prefer non-IPA.) Thanks in advance! Rimush (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's there, but it's not as strong as we might expect in English; I usually hear English speakers say it more like "backer", but it should be more like "backrub" without the "-ub" (to use a very crude example). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility could be that that's how it's pronounced in Persian (you say she's Iranian, not Arab) although I highly doubt it. Anyways, given that both Iranians and Arabs (and essentially anyone worldwide :o)) pronounce the "r" unlike the English "r", another (likely) possibility is that it's just harder for you to recognize the "r" that she's pronouncing. And yes, agreed with Adam too about "backrup" :o)!

BTW in Arabic, it is not "Bakkr" (i.e. no "lingering" on the "k"); such "lingering" (shadda) exists in other words, but never before or after another consonant. The shadda Artikel seems to suggest that such lingering doesn't exist in Persian (haven't checked the Farsi article though), so maybe she's not as sensitive to the difference as an Arabic speaker would be and lingers without thinking anything about it? :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

أبو بكر is the Arabic script, Abū Bakr transliterated. When the arabic letter raa 'ر' appears at the end of a word, it is a common to put less emphasis on its pronunciation. This is common among Arabic speakers in the levante and the halij (gulf). While your professor may not be an Arabic speaker (and I cannot speak for Farsi pronunciation), it is possible he or she has heard it pronounced this way or it is a similar pattern in Farsi. Another example of this is مصر‎ (Miṣr), or 'Egypt' in Arabic, which is sometimes pronounced as Miss or Missr with the r barely heard or not heard at all.--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an endless variation of pronounciations of that name (and other Arabic names). For example, do note the West African variation 'Boubacar'. --Soman (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a word for...

The phenomenon where you think a woman is incredibly attractive upon first seeing them based on pure looks, until you start to dislike them intensely, upon which your perception of their physical traits changes because of that personality assessment. I guess this also happens in reverse; you find someone unattractive or not very attractive, and that changes as you begin to really like the person, but personally, that doesn't happen to me as strongly. Of course, I posed the question specifically about a "woman" because I am discussing this as a heterosexual male, but I imagine the same would be true of women and gay men regarding men's attractiveness. I have found this true my entire life. I will come to think a woman is ugly because of their personality, even when I know the first time I saw them I thought they were beautiful. It even happens with fictional characters. For example, I've been watching the series The Tudors, and at first I though Natalie Dormer (who plays Anne Boleyn) was gorgeous (quirky looking but nevertheless) but as her evilness was revealed, I now find her ugly. I am perfectly well aware she is an actress and not the character, but this still happens to me on an emotional level, even when I know its origin on an intellectual level.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but these researchers claim male perception of female attractiveness even changes with the seasons ("hotter" in winter). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In wintertime, bodies tend to be covered by clothes more thoroughly to prevent heat loss. Thus in winter a glimpse of the body might have heightened meaning. I think the lyrics in Anything Goes (song) allude to a phenomenon of similar mechanism. For instance, "In olden days, a glimpse of stocking; Was looked on as something shocking" conveys a different but similar concept. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like Confirmation bias? AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Halo effect --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the emotional level, shifting affections was (sometimes is) called fickleness. It's the subject of that song that gondoliers in Venice are always portrayed singing.Synchronism (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Ibn Battuta is right that it's the halo effect, in particular the reverse halo effect mentioned in the article. Sometimes it can be less pronounced than the OP says: rather than finding the unpleasant person physically less attractive, you might simply feel uncomfortable about finding them attractive. A gay male friend of mine once confessed to me in hushed tones that he considered Jeffrey Dahmer good-looking and wondered if that made him "sick". I said no, Jeffrey Dahmer was good-looking, and indeed probably wouldn't have been as successful a serial killer (at least, not using that M.O.) if he hadn't been. +Angr 08:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the cognitive level yes, halo effect seems to be on the right track. Confirmation bias would be more like ignoring the information that shatters the halo.Synchronism (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Beer goggles? Astronaut (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you all very much. Halo effect is in the right ball park and is probably the closest I can get. This was not just idle curiosity. I will be using that in something I am writing and just could not find a conceptual hook.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Halo effect might operate on the integration of additional and later acquired information: "Halo effects happen especially if the perceiver does not have enough information about all traits, so that he makes assumptions based on one or two prominent traits." (found in that article) This would seem to be a function of the information gathering process. Prejudice, I should think, would also play a role, as we make assumptions based on relatively sparse information. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I've experienced the same thing, but a halo effect is an assumption you make about things you don't know based on things you do know. This, on the other hand, is about changing not just your mind but your physical response to someone based on what you learn later. The halo effect is assuming that s.o. has a beautiful personality based on existing physical attraction (first impression); here we have a reversal of physical attraction upon learning that they have an ugly personality (second impression). And yes, I also quickly find a beautiful woman ugly if that's her personality, but am significantly slower to find a plain woman beautiful, though both are fairly common with me. The latter might tie in with "charming", but I can't think of any other word. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The French (who else?) have a term for a plain woman that is nonetheless attractive—jolie laide. Deor (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)