Language desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

Japanese names, Chinese names and Korean names

Just a quick question: could someone explain or link to a Wikipedia article that explains why normally, Japanese names, when written the West, have their order reversed (First name/Last name instead of Last name/First name), but Chinese and Korean names retain their order? (They stay Last name/First name when written in English). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikipedia article sections:

--Theurgist (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So called (as in the Kennett curse)

In Australian football there's something called the Kennett curse. It came to fruition again last night. But you don't have to understand what it is to get my point. Several times when I've heard it mentioned in the media this morning it's been described as the "so called Kennett curse". Why? It IS the Kennett curse. It has no other name. I keep trying to pin down the usage, but it's hard.

Is "so called" common around the rest of the English speaking world. Is it used in the same way? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly recognized in the States (though of course it should be "so-called" with the hyphen). The Kennett curse may have no other name, but the commentators may wish to avoid implying (or being taken as implying) that they believe in curses. --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it's because the terminology has no official status. It's just something that some bright spark dreamt up and others followed suit. It's only been around for less than 5 years and has not yet entered the Inner Sanctum of Holy AFL Lore. The so-called curse will inevitably be broken, and then everyone will probably forget about it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So-called" is typically kind of an editorial comment by the speaker or writer. Although given its very short history, as Jack suggests, the one saying it might also be making light of it, even as curses go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So-called" may be because any streak of bad luck that's only 5-years long is hardly a curse. Other sporting "curses" such as the (now exorcised) Curse of the Bambino and the still-active Curse of the Billy Goat are an order of magnitude more curseful. --Jayron32 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can accept all that about the particular curse I mentioned, but what about the expression's more general use? Dictionary definitions seem to vary between falsely, or commonly, or allegedly, or supposedly, or self-proclaimed, or unsuitable, and the name of a Canadian rapper. A very flexible term apparently. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "so-called" is the verbal way of indicating scare quotes, for the purpose Travatore mentions, to imply doubt or reserve on part of the speaker. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the phrase "so-called" undermines the validity of that to which it is applied. Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like "my so-called life". :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My so-called life consists of matter and energy. On a cellular level there is a degree of self-replication. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, your arrogance, and ignorance, astounds me at times. I know you're a well educated person, with diverse interests, and I'm glad that the Kennett curse is now one of them, but why do you have to keep renaming this thread? I merely used the curse as a usage example of the real topic here. (Jack has now given us another example above.) It would also be nice if you could get the name correct. It's NOT "Kennett's curse". It's the Kennett curse. Given your obvious obsession with it, I'll leave it there now, but I will say again that the curse was never intended to be even part of the subject here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digression — Robert A. Heinlein is in my top-10 list of favorite authors from all genres and eras combined, but he had a few annoying little tics. One of them was that he would always write soi-disant instead of "so-called". Made very little sense to me, given that the French language was otherwise hardly mentioned in his enormous body of work (there is a passing reference in The Number of the Beast). --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "so-called" is not just equivalent to scare quotes but to quotes tous courts. If someone says "I just had an encounter with so-called British justice", they obviously have no confidence that there is such a thing as British justice. But if they say "Playground games included the so-called British Bulldog", that just means they weren't sure that this was the universal name of that game. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest use of "so called" I ever heard was a music journalist referring to "Bob Dylan's so-called motorcycle accident". I thought, maybe it's a matter of perspective. Maybe the motorcycle thinks it had a Bob Dylan accident. Yeah, I know, rotfl and all that. On the topic, which I think has been answered, it's pretty normal for words and expressions to move around when there's an existing expression, and something that needs to be expressed. The biggest general one in recent times is the use of the word "irony" to refer to situations that involve e.g. some kind of poetic justice. In the case of the OP's question, it is merely an amusing fact that the Kennett curse cannot exist under some other name, so it's either the Kennett curse, or nothing at all. It merely shows the imperfections of language. It is probably similar to the way we say "it" as an artificial subject, as in "it's raining today." There is no "it" to be raining, but we imagine such a thing. Likewise, we are probably just pretending we could call the Kennett curse by some other name, when the real problem is that there is no such thing as the curse itself. Language just meets an obstruction when we talk about stuff that isn't there. Good grief I waffle sometimes. But I think the question was answered, so I added some reasonably constructive waffle. IBE (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

patron vs. matron

The feminine word for patron is patroness. So, what's the masculine equivalent for matron? Patron? Sneazy (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some contexts, a male matron is still a matron. See Matron: The nursing branches of the British Armed Forces have never abandoned the term "Matron", and it is used for male as well as female officers, usually holding the rank of Major (or equivalent) or above. It was formerly used as an actual rank in the nursing services. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Phrase: "to have reservations about"

What does it mean "to have reservations about"?
Can you say "to have reservations for", or is it clearly "to have reservations about"?
What does this phrase come from? Is this originally an English phrase or a non-English phrase transliterated into English?
How do you use this properly in a sentence? "We know that you have reservations for us." or "We know that you have reservations about us."
How old is this phrase?
When did this phrase first appear in the English language?
How common is this phrase?

Sneazy (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the Google Ngram viewer results at this page. That shows the history but not the origin.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "to have" from the search, in order to allow for different inflections of "have" ("has", "had", "having") and for modifiers of "reservations" ("any", "no", "some", "our", "their", "your", "troubling", "vexing").

—Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might use the phrase "We know that you have reservations for us" when talking to a hotel or restaurant where you have previously booked a room or table. "We know that you have reservations about us" would be used when talking to a person who doesn't really like you and has doubts about what you want to achieve. So context is everything here. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth definition of "reservation" at wikt:reservation is "A limiting qualification (often used in the plural)." The usage example given is "I have reservations about your intentions."

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's shortened to just "I have reservations", and "about this/it" is understood. This is good fodder for puns, such as the King of Id and the Duke going to a restaurant, to be greeted by a haughty maitre d', who asks "Do you have reservations?", and the King replies "Yes, obviously, but when you're as hungry as we are, you throw caution to the winds". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a very old joke idea. Like a bumper sticker I recall from a 1970s election, with an American Indian figure and the slogan, "We have no vote, but many reservations." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reserve something is to hold it back or keep it.[1] So it makes sense to say something like, "I am holding back from endorsing that candidate" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be off-topic but it occurs to me that "having reservations" is judgmental in that it involves a negative evaluation, but that the phrase "reserving judgement" involves no present evaluation at all. I find for instance "reserve judgement: delay the process of judging or giving one’s opinion: she said she would reserve judgement until next week." Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's another variant on keeping or holding back on something. And as a practical matter, both reserving judgment about something and having reservations about something are both examples of something being held back: judgment vs. approval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oaths and minced oaths, not oats and minced oats

Are oaths supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
1.(a.) A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.
(b.) The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.
(c.) Something declared or promised.
2. An irreverent or blasphemous use of the name of God or something held sacred.
3. An imprecation; a curse.

The first definition tells me that it's supposed to be a good thing; the second and third definitions tell me that it's a bad thing. How did this come to be? I was looking up the idiom "By Jove" here. I believe that the best fit for the definition of oath under "by Jove" would be the first definition. I am not aware of anyone who will perceive that the usage of the name "Jupiter" so liberally would be considered blasphemy. Sneazy (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How precisely it came to be is probably unknowable. The Oxford English Dictionary shows citations for both positive and negative uses right back to the beginnings of English (i.e. the 1200s): "A solemn or formal declaration invoking God (or a god, or other object of reverence) as witness to the truth of a statement" vs. "A casual or careless appeal invoking God (or something sacred) in asseveration or imprecation, without intent of reverence ... a profane or blasphemous utterance; a curse.". Presumably they both originally had the same form - an appeal to God - and the separate meanings split off from that definition (sincere appeals vs. blasphemous non-sincere ones). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my head, I imagine a scene in which a person cries out, "I swear to God that I am not guilty of the crime. Let God be my judge!" and then another person replies, "Silence! You lie! You think that you really are invoking God to defend you? Ha! I'd say that's a blasphemous use of God's name! So, even if you are not guilty of this crime, you will be guilty of blasphemy!" Sneazy (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - that is at the root of it. King James Bible. James 5:12 "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that's actually the ESV translation - the AV text is "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.". Not a significant difference in this case. Tevildo (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I think I had two tabs open, and copied the wrong one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some times when I wonder if native English speakers practically have memorized all the verses from the King James Bible, so they know all the verses by heart and return to them for reference in whatever context that one can think of. Sneazy (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued that the King James Bible, along with Shakespeare, has played a large part in the creation of modern English. I had the dubious privilege of attending a Church of England primary school, which probably added a little to my biblical knowledge, even as it turned me into an avowed atheist. As a result, while I don't believe in God, I'm inclined to think that if He does exist, he probably speaks in broad Scots - to get the best out of the King James, it needs to be read aloud, in the accent of the sponsor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God does not approve of the Scottish culture. In fact, one of His famous Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kilt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the kilt hadn't been invented when King James sponsored the AV translation.Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was being proactive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest cite in the OED for "kilt" as the past participle of "kill" is from 1824, but the form is occasionally still seen in UK dialect. Dbfirs 15:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A corollary to Sneazy's anecdote; a man in the dock is asked if he has anything to say before sentencing. He cries out; "As God is my judge, I'm innocent!" The judge replies; "He's not, I am, you're not, five years." Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Is it good or bad to spread your wild oaths? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 July 7

Contents