Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 February 23

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.

February 23

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it"

This was used in an episode of Downton Abbey, set around 1920. Is this expression that old ? StuRat (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"since early C19. Peake, 1824; Dickens in 'Pickwick Papers'; 'Ingoldsby' Barham: Miss Mary Braddon (1837-1915), the now forgotten bestseller of late C19...It's a fact worth noting: that, despite its continuous currency and continual - indeed, constant - use, very little attention has been paid to this phrase, which is, I'd say, rather more of a c.p. (catchphrase) than of a proverbial saying. And, by the way, it derives from the very widely held, not entirely erroneous, belief that pipe-smoking and meditation go together..." From "Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day" by Eric Partridge, updated and edited by Paul Beal, Scarborough House, Lanham, Md., 1992)." Henry^Flower 04:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it predates that period by about a century ? StuRat (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; giving the decline in pipe-smoking during the last century, I would have been surprised had it not been coined by the 1920s! Henry^Flower 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought pipe-smokers were more visible now than ever before. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will mark this resolved.

Resolved

There's been some discussion of other suspected linguistic anachronisms in Downton Abbey on Language Log and elsewhere. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[The] Sudetenland

I've posted this query on the Talk page for Sudetenland: does current English-language usage support the use of the definite article before the name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only seen it with the definite article, in both German and English. Sounds weird without it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Region names which can be used with the definite article rarely require it. Same as Krkonoše, Banat and Ukraine before its independence. I would say current usage supports either. - filelakeshoe 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is still The Netherlands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But I think every placename ending in "-lands" would take the definite article. So would every archipelago name ending in "-s": "the Philippines", "the Maldives". Those still qualify as "descriptive" names, on the analogy of "the Czech Republic", "the United Kingdom", "the Russian Federation", which always go with the definite article. Among the few true exceptions, talking about country names, are "The Gambia" (always with a capital "T"), "the Congo", and formerly "the Sudan" and "the Ukraine". --Theurgist (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of words in ways that are clearly misleading

Why do so many fields use jargon terms that are obviously wrong. Take Physical Application Component:

An application, application module, application service, or other deployable component of functionality. For example, a configured and deployed instance of a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) supply chain management application.

This is so clearly not anything physical. Why not just say "Application instance". Are they trying to be confusing? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation: which varieties of English make a distinction between wander and wonder, and which varieties do not?

84.228.172.184 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to give us some information to let us know what you know yourself? As in, what varieties you are familiar with, or whether you are a native speaker? I ask because it almost seems like a homework question, where we try not to just give the answer, but help the student come to the correct answer themself. But in any case, in General American, which I speak, wander is pronounced wɑndər and wonder is wʌndər. I can't say for sure about any other varieties, but I can't recall noticing any case where there is no distinction. —Akrabbim^talk 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am from southern England, and I pronounce the words identically, as ˈwɒndə. In total contrast to the previous poster, I don't recall ever noticing anyone pronouncing the words differently (though clearly they do). What with this and the previous thread about the weird (to me) "sugg-jest", I'm beginning to think I am totally unobservant about pronunciations. 86.179.118.164 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In South African English "wonder" is pronounced to rhyme with "thunder"- the first vowel's IPA symbol is "ʌ"; "wander"'s first vowel's IPA symbol is "ɑ". Roger (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've checked several dictionaries and pronunciation dictionaries, both British and American, and they all agree that wonder and wander are not homophones: wonder rhymes with thunder (see wikt:Rhymes:English:-ʌndə(r) for more examples), while wander rhymes with yonder and ponder (see wikt:Rhymes:English:-ɒndə(r)). So homophonous pronunciations of them like 86.179's are apparently not common in either country. (I don't know about other English-speaking countries; Roger says they're not homophones in South Africa either.) I did know a singer once who insisted on making them homophones when he sang I Wonder as I Wander, which I found both annoying and confusing. Angr (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the tremendous amount of variation in Britain and the propensity of dictionaries to record only RP pronunciations, this seems like a hasty conclusion. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary lists common non-RP pronunciations and marks them as such, but for wonder it doesn't list any. Angr (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For "wonder" I think this is a case of spelling pronunciation. I always, er, wonder how people who pronounce the two the same way (I know a few) would cope with singing I Wonder as I Wander. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that I have ever given it any thought, I have always assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the identical pronunciation was the whole point of the wordplay in that line. 86.179.118.164 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The variety that I speak is close to General American, but with some vowel articulations specific to the Northeastern US. In my speech, and in regional variants in both Boston and New York, where I have lived, the two vowels are distinct. Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A similar question can be asked about exalt and exult and their compounds in ation.

(By the way, the heading Pronunciation of "wander" and "wonder" is adequately brief and adequately informative. The full question is best posted in the discussion area.)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The phonetician John Wells has an entry in his blog in which he asks this very question. There is nothing conclusive, but perhaps the replies he got will be illuminating. He suggests (very tentatively) that those who have merged the two may be among those who have /ɒ/ in one and among. The focus seems to be mainly on Southern southern England. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not always the case since I pronounce the vowels in "wander" and "wonder" the same, but those in "one" and "among" completely differently. 86.179.118.164 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Purely OP, but I am, broadly speaking, "from" Southern England (peripatetic childhood with East London origins, and a resident of Hampshire for almost 30 years.) My idiolect certainly distinguishes the two, rhyming them with "on" and "un-" respectively, and I rarely hear anyone who pronounces them identically: on such rare occasions I perceive it as odd (and slightly annoying), and would – perhaps erroneously – associate it with a Midlands or Northern (e.g. Yorkshire or Lancashire) accent substratum. I wonder (!) if this merger has been discussed at Language Log? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195.} 90.197.66.245 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Southern Englander popping in to confirm that they aren't homophones in general over here.  Omg †  osh  18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - not the same in my part of southern England (London) either. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

86, may I ask where in southern England you're from? 96.46.204.126 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

consonant consistent

When do you use consonant and when do you use consistent? I'm troubled by the fact that they both seem to be identical in meaning. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consonant has two meanings: one is a letter that is not a vowel (such as l, m, n), and the other means "sounding together". Consistent also has two meanings: one means happening regularly in the same way, and the other means indicative of something, so sneezing a lot and having runny eyes would be consistent with having a cold. I think confusing them is a bit of a mondegreen. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an example. "The bank teller's lavish living style was (consonant with) (consistent with) his pocketing huge sums of cash from from his occupational position." Which is it? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary states that 'consonant' means 'consistent (with)' as its first definition of the word. Having said that, I'd use 'consistent' rather than 'consonant', as the more common term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"(Consonant with his wishes) (Consistent with his wishes) we are spreading his ashes at sea." It just seems to me it could be either one. There ought to be a shade of difference between the two terms. One term can be more common than the other and on that basis a distinction could be made as to which to use. But the meanings seem to be strikingly similar. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that consonant, when used to mean consistent, is most often used when the thing that is consonant is an utterance or statement. It really sounds odd to use consonant to compare a bank teller's income with his living standard. In that case, I think only consistent sounds right. However, the bank teller's explanation that he feels stealing from a bank is permissible might be consonant with his earlier stated belief that "property is theft". In your previous example, I would feel more comfortable saying "Consistent with his wishes..." Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistent only means that the two things can happen together. Consonant means that they happen together naturally -- that they harmonize with each other. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for helpful advice/guidance. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"a society who"?

Is that right? Shouldn't it be "a society which" or "a society that?" Or can "society", and other groups of humans, be referred to with "who" (since they are somehow people). 88.14.192.178 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would use "which" (or "that"). "Society" means more than just a collection of people - its an entity in itself. If I were saying "a collection of people" then I would either "which" or "who" depending on whether what follows refers to the collection as a whole or to each member of the collection individually ("a collection of people who have long hair", "a collection of people which numbered in the thousands" - the length of hair is a property of each individual, the number of people is a property of the collection). I would only ever use "society" when referring to society as a whole, rather than individual members of it considered collectively, though. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tango in general. In American usage, that is preferred for introducing restrictive clauses, and which for nonrestrictive clauses, usually following a comma. (Examples: "She wanted to live in a society that disapproved of violence." versus "This is how things were done in this society, which disapproved of violence." In the first example, that is needed because it adds essential information and the clause isn't complete without it. In the second, the information is not essential to the main clause, but is added parenthetically.) The only case where who might refer to society would be when the word society refers to a relatively small organization rather than a large group of people who share a culture or nationality. For example, if you were writing about the Birdwatching Society of West Newbury, a small group with 20 members who take part in monthly birdwatching expeditions, you might write "This was a favorite destination for the society, who went birding here at least once a year." However, even in this case, you could use which. Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Need a word

What would be a word for one that loses their composure? He lacked Christian gentleness and charity. He was naturally arbitrary and extremely violent and imprudent, and when he came to deal with the burning ecclesiastical question of the day, that of reform, the consequences were disastrous.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercurial, temperamental, volatile, explosive, combustible? 96.46.204.126 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Latin

From [1] or [2] (Raikes Mausoleum, Welton) AEDIFICAVIT ROBERTUS RAIKES ARMIGER AD MDCCCXVIII

Sir Robert Raikes built 1818?

Can someone give a cleaner printable tranlations, Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, although usually in English we add "this" or something, so "Robert Raikes built this, AD 1818". Also since it's apparently this Robert Raikes, I would say "armiger" means "esquire" rather then knight, but he had a knighthood too so I'm not sure. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks Mddkpp (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Wouldn't "Built by Robert Raikes, AD 1818" sound more natural? It's talking about the building rather than Raikes 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's a common theme going back at least as far as ancient Roman buildings to highlight the name of the builder (or the person who financed it). The Pantheon in Rome and the Arch of Titus have similar inscriptions. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say "Built by Robert Raikes, Esq, AD 1818" would seem best. It's natural in English and follows the Latin word order. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Esquire" or "Sir" depends on when he was knighted. Our article gives "Sir Robert Raikes Esq" which surely can't be right. The Victoria County History - A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 1: The City of Kingston upon Hull has plain Robert Raikes when he was objecting to the Leeds and Selby Railway in 1825. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that was my error when I introduced when trying to tidy the article (2 forward 1 back) - I can't find evidence for him being knighted - there's a clearer than most geneology here that gives him as Esq. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qf4GAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=robert%20waikes&f=false

I wouldn't even know the difference between an esq. and sir so please correct any other mistakes in the article. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just found that he is mentioned in the book "A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank: but uninvested with heritable honours," - then title answers the question in itself - he was not titled.Mddkpp (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. Now I wonder if someone officially invested him with the title "esquire", or if everyone just called him that because he was a rich banker and landowner. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

An armiger is merely someone who has a coat of arms. Not all armigerous persons were knights or esquires; a certain glover and city councillor of Stratford-upon-Avon comes to mind (his son did okay for himself in The Smoke). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous name for 中国 in Japanese

From Chūgoku Region, we have "In Japanese, the characters 中国 and the reading Chūgoku began to be used to mean “China” after the founding of the Republic of China." How did the Japanese people refer to China before RoC? I was under the false impression that "Chūgoku" has been used since antiquity. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kara, 'Morokoshi, and Shina are historical names of China in Japanese. See Names of China. --Kusunose 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

jp:漢学 uses 漢 to mean China (similar to 蘭学), but there's no 漢国. From memory, とり唐揚げ (tori karaage) literally means "Chinese-style fried chicken", but I can't see any uses -- in Japanese -- of 唐国.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And 中華 is used in jp:中華料理 to mean Chinese cuisine. I can't see it attached to 国 anywhere. (Even back in the days when I could speak Japanese, my vocabulary contained a disproportionate amount of food-related words.)--Shirt58 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That comes from 中華人民国 - the People's Republic of China. 'とり唐揚げ' means 'chicken fried in Tang Dynasty style', not Chinese, but only a specific part of China. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ā sō nano na? Dōmo, ne, I didn't know that. When I first saw "morokoshi" in this discussion, I thought, huh? doesn't "morokoshi" that mean yummy soy-glazed grilled corn? NJStar tells me that "唐土" (もろこし morokoshi) is an archaic word for China. Confusinglier and confusinglier, jp:トウモロコシ refers 唐黍 ("Tang Dynasty grain?") to Sorghum bicolor.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me, I went to a supermarket with my ex-wife (Japanese) and she said she wanted some corn, so I said 'they are here!' and took her to the corn shelf. She asked what I was on about so I counted for her, 'ichi, ni, san, shi.....TOU morokoshi!' She didn't laugh. Miserable git. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Morokoshi. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "ウモロコシ" might be "東唐黍"?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics aside, historically, Chinese people knew that they belonged to China or the Chinese culture because they we surrounded by friendly and educated barbarians and bad barbarians.

Each dynasty of China was a government and their people was usually called by the name of their dynasty by other peoples (e.g., people of Japan, Korea, ...).

As a result, a Han dynasty traveler was called a Han. A Tang dynasty traveler was called a Tang.

The Chinese land may be called The Middle Land ("中土" zhong1 tu3). Since the area was flexible, you may be more interested in exact the place, such as the name of a province or a city.

Anyway, to Japanese people (there was not Japan), people or things from China were known by their dynasty.

Chinese fonts are known in Japan by the dynasty's names: Sung, Ming (Ming Cho Ti, Ming (typefaces)) ... -- Toytoy (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

battery in battery cage

Where does the word battery in battery cage come from? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the "beating" meaning of the word, nor the electrical usage (which is such a strange usage given the original meaning of the word). A guess I came up with is that the original cages were heated - perhaps with an electrical battery? Ariel. (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:battery lists this as its own sense, not coming from another sense. I'm speculating, but maybe it has something to do with the 'group of similar things' meaning (i.e., "a battery of psychometric tests" or something like that). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "In M.E., bateri meant only 'forged metal ware'", so maybe a battery cage was a forged metal cage? Angr (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The missing link here is artillery battery. Based on the list of meanings in the OED, here's what seems to be the derivation: "action of beating or battering" > "a number of pieces of artillery placed in juxtaposition for combined action" > "a combination of simple instruments, usually to produce a compound instrument of increased power; applied originally with a reference to the discharge of electricity from such a combination" > "a series of hutches, cages, or nesting-boxes in which laying hens are confined for intensive laying or poultry reared and fattened" (III.13.c). Lesgles (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be synonymous with array or group. An artillery unit or a group of artillery is an artillery battery. Originally an electrical battery was a group of electrochemical cells. In marching percussion, you have a drumline or battery. As noted, you can have a group or battery of tests. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with the artillery battery, which has been around for centuries longer than electric batteries. Have a look at this 19th century artillery fort and see if it reminds you of a battery hen shed (each of those vaults or casemates would have contained a heavy gun, together forming the "battery" of the fort). It goes in the opposite direction too; an enclosed artillery battery built across the ditch of a fort is called a caponier, which comes from the Italian French for "chicken shed". Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The OED says "late 17th century: from Spanish caponera". Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And on the electrical sense, my father in his more pedantic moods used to object to calling a single cell a "battery", saying that "battery" should be used only for a device consisting of multiple cells. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)