Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 May 28

Language desk
< May 27	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 29 >

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 28

The Dark Knight Rises

In the movie The Dark Knight Rises there are several lines in the prologue scene that don't seem to make much sense. I don't know if it is a language issue or just supposed to not make sense as an artistic statement. I am having trouble understanding these specific lines;

"Dr Pavel, I'm CIA"

It is a peculiar sentence. Is he saying he is the entirety of the Central Intelligence Agency? Does it even refer to the CIA at all, or is his name Seeyiah or something? If he works for the CIA shouldn't he say "Dr Pavel, I'm a CIA agent" or "Dr Pavel, I'm from the CIA"?

"He didn't fly so good!"

This is stated by CIA after interrogating a prisoner by holding his head out of an aircraft. But the prisoner is brought back into the aircraft and stowed at the back of the plane, so what exactly "didn't fly so good"? And why didn't CIA remove the bags before interrogating them? If the bags were never removed to check whats under them and CIA never heard them speak until Bane started talking to him, how did CIA know they weren't all gagged?

CIA: If I pull that off, will you die?
BANE: It would be extremely painful.

CIA: You're a big guy.
BANE: For you.

This is even more confusing. Initially I thought it was to get across to the audience that Bane is supposed to be a huge guy. Instead of trying to show it, it was probably easier just to directly tell the audience that this person is supposed to be a "big guy", as the actor who played Bane was only 5'9. But even a really muscular person at that height wouldn't be described as a big guy. So was he saying he is a big guy in comparison to CIA? Is he talking about his stature in the criminal world? When bane responds "for you" is he saying that his size (either figuratively or literally) doesn't mean much to the average person, but to CIA it means everything? Because the wording it makes it seem like Bane is just saying that he is a big guy for CIA, implying the agent is tiny and that Bane isn't really that much of a big guy to a normal sized person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themosquitoman (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"I'm CIA" is a way of saying "I work for the CIA." As for "he didn't fly so good," I haven't seen the movie but it sounds like he was trying to trick the hooded prisoners into thinking the guy was pushed out of the plane and "didn't fly so good."--Cam (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You have three questions here. Here are some possible answers:

• 1: When someone is a member of an organization whose name may be an acronym, many times he or she will refer to the organization anarthrically, that is without an article. Cam is correct in the CIA agent's meaning.
• 2: I agree with Cam again. It is a type of irony.
• 3: This is a form of ellipsis. It is as if the CIA agent interrupted Bane's line. Bane is saying "it would be extremely painful for you if you pull off my mask." It is also a form of irony.

Hope this helps and lead to some good reading! Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, but from the context I think "you're a big guy" means "you're a grown man [who shouldn't be afraid of some pain]". See wikt:big boy (sense 3). "For you" is Bane clarifying his previous line, as Schyler said. -- BenRG (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Politically correct term for Indian/Pakistani people?

I live in the US and work with a lot of Indian/Pakistani people. Is it considered offensive if I call someone "Indian" if they're really Pakistani (or vise versa)? IOW, is there a safe umbrella term for Indian/Pakistani people? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be considered offensive, although I obviously can't speak for any actual Pakistani people. Here in the UK, the term 'Asian' is often used without qualification to mean people from the subcontinent; I'm aware that in the US the same term is usually interpreted to mean 'Chinese/Japanese/Korean'. My answer is therefore to say 'South Asian' for the former group and 'East Asian' for the latter. Others - including those who are actually from these groups - may have more or different opinions.

And don't feel you have to couch a request for this sort of advice in the language of 'political correctness'; you're only doing a sensible and humane thing, which oughtn't to be seen as political or adhering to an externally imposed idea of 'correctness' at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask them what they would like to be called. As regards getting the country wrong because they sound and look the same, ask a Canadian. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to "South Asian" there is "desi", but I don't know how appropriate it is. 82.83.68.77 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

However (in)appropriate "desi" is, it has little currency outside the continent. I'd use "Asian" in BE, "South Asian" in global context. There is a similar dichotomy between the BE/AE uses of "oriental". I've even been criticised by an American for using the term in a geographical sense. And, of course, "England" is synonymous with the UK... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Desi" is very current among the young Asians in the UK, as a word to refer to themselves. The BBC has even had programmes with Desi in the title, so that shows you how current it is! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your best bet is to ask them (and write it down so you don't forget). They will likely be pleased that you asked, and may be able to give you some insights as to how to recognize Indian vs. Pakistani surnames, for example. I've worked with many Indians and some Pakistanis, and they are nearly always willing and interested to talk about their homeland. And it makes for good team-building too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"The sub-continent" is a term still used in cricket commentary to describe the area. I wonder if a non-offensive term can be derived from that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think referring to my co-worker Ankit as a "sub-continental American" would seem a bit off. At the very least, there's the embedded linguistic notion that "sub" equates to inferior, e.g. subprime, sub-par, etc. I've heard educated and tactful people of subcontinental ancestry, Mexican ancestry, and Arabic ancestry (all in the USA) refer to themselves and others as simply brown people, meaning essentially "not white, but explaining or assuming specific ethnicity is not useful in this context" - but our article doesn't have any mention of this more modern, neutral sense of the phrase. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How common is the "in the year of our Lord" phrase in present American use?

Do people use this phrase when marking dates typically in courtroom settings? Where else do people stamp dates with this type of fancy phrase? 69.174.58.108 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems rather archaic, and any government usage of that term might run afoul of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The common use is the abbreviation for that phrase in Latin, AD: Anno (year-in) Domini (lord-of). It's by far the most common formulation. The closests alternative is C.E. (Common Era) which speaks of nothing common to the ancients, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Chinese. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, CE originally stood for "Christian Era", which has fewer theological presuppositions embedded in it than Anno Domini, but still calls out Christianity by name. The "Common" bit seems to have been a rather strained attempt to keep the same initialism, sort of like when Claremont Men's College decided to start admitting women, and had to find someone with the initial M that they could put into the name. --Trovatore (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Strained, perhaps, but it's been in common academic use for more than 40 years: I first encountered it in the History textbooks I was issued with at school (in the UK) around 1970. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Trovatore, do you have a source for the statement that CE "originally stood for" Christian Era? It doesn't seem to be supported by our article Common Era. Deor (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you might be right; this is just what I had in my head. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

According to EO, "Christian Era" is or was a valid alternative.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible entomology connection for the word fuck

In the article for the word fuck it said some possible entomology for the word fuck was Indo-European in origin meaning to strike. In the Laotian language of which I am a fluent speaker, fuck means to chop something by striking it with a knife. \uc0\u3743 \u3761 \u3713 people use that word when they need to chop Mangos or papaya. It's a different word then chopping onions onion or carrots. It's a special way to chop something especially for making papaya salad. I never took a class on the Laotian language but the older people have told me that a lot of the Laotian words borrowed from Sanskrit and Pali due to the influence of Buddhism. So when I read that the word had an Indo-European entomology I made the connection}

I believe you mean etymology, not entomology. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I like to think of "etymology" as looking for bugs in the language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And I believe you mean "than" at It's a different word then chopping onions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Lao word ຟັກ (IPA: [fak]), meaning 1) v. "to chop", "to mince" 2) v. "to hatch an egg" (trns) is a native Tai (or at least Southwestern Tai) word. In Thai, it is ฟัก (IPA: [fák]), but only has the meaning "to hatch an egg". The meaning "to chop" probably derives from the act of "hatching" (breaking, cracking, etc.) the eggshell (or vice-versa). It is not derived from Sanskrit or Pali. On a side note, most Sanskrit/Pali-derived terms in Lao are multisyllabic and are related to religion, government, royalty or poetic use (ex. ວາດສະໜາ [wâːt sánǎː] "fate", ປະທົມ [pá tʰóm] "sleep" (royal), etc.) while native Lao words are usually single syllables and used for things related to everyday life. Not a hard and fast rule, there are many exceptions, but in general still very helpful to know.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's EO's lengthy take on it:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

68.9.127.42 -- Due to thousands of years of accumulated sound changes etc., it's quite unlikely that the Laotian pronunciation of a Sanskrit or Pali word would be recognizably similar to the English pronunciation of an etymologically cognate word... AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In particular, because of Grimm's Law the Sanskrit cognate of fuck would most likely be something like pug. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a naive method in etymology is to compare words in different languages and identify similarities; an advanced method is to look at the history of the words in different languages and identify cognates. Within the West Germanic languages, the English verb fuck, the New-Dutch verb fokken and the German verb ficken are similar in appearance and meaning, but we do not really know if they are cognates for they are not well attested in medieval literature. The German word de:ficken has a broad spectrum of meanings and in its non-taboo meanings like to move to and from it is attested earlier than the taboo word. If the words are cognates, the vocalism of the root is presumably an u and would lead to Germanic *fug- and IE *peuk-/peug-. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Expatriate, migrant, or immigrant?

What are the differences among "Expatriate", "migrant" and "immigrant"? In what cases can each word be used? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all about what relation you bear to the person migrating and the countries he or she is migrating to and/or from. "Migrant" is most neutral. You'd most likely use that about someone moving from one country you don't live in to another country you don't live in. "Immigrant", basically "in-migrant", is used about someone moving into your country from another country. "Expatriate" is used about someone who left your country and moved to another country, a compatriot who went away. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO "migrant" is the least neutral. It conjures up an image of someone one step up from a vagrant, as in "migrant worker", and is the least used of the three to describe a person moving from one country to another, versus from one region within a country to another. Another difference is that "immigrant" (and "emigrant") has the connotation of permanency, an "expatriate" may move back, and a "migrant" is generally moving around constantly. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with pretty much all of that. Matt Deres (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not spelling "expatriate" as ex-patriot, a very common error. The two words have very different, and sometimes opposite, meanings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've sometimes stuck with this problem. If we have the originating country A and the destination country B, should we call these from-A-to-B people A-ish emigrants or A-ish immigrants?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

They're A-ish emigrants to B, if speaking from an A-ish or whole-world perspective. But if speaking from a B-ish perspective, it's just A-ish immigrants. Or immigrants from A. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I hear expatriate and immigrant used, but I've only ever encountered "migrant" to refer to migrant workers -- workers who travel around to do seasonal work, typically being either legal or illegal immigrants. I suspect a definition outside of this is on the way to being obsolete. Bali88 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

EO says that "migrant" (which originated as an adjective) theoretically means someone who moves from one place to another.[3] That notion is captured in "emigrant [from]" and "immigrant [into]". I get the drift that "migrant" by itself denotes someone more nomadic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, an emigrant/immigrant generally moves by choice, whereas an expatriate is more likely to have relocated due to a job or to stay out of the clutches of the police (e.g. Ronnie Biggs). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

For someone who moves, but not by choice, the word "refugee" is often applied, although that also includes "internal refugees", who move elsewhere in the same nation. Refugees may be fleeing war, political persecution, or they may be economic refugees. People fleeing legitimate crimes (as opposed to being framed for political reasons) are not usually called refugees. We may also soon see growing numbers of "environmental refugees", as global climate change submerges some small island nations, and some areas either become desert or use up their underground water reserves. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I first learned the word "expatriate" as applied to Americans living in e.g. Paris for the cultural scene, not for either of those reasons. —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I think "expatriate" is more a self-identification of people who are living in a country other than their own. By brother has worked for a variety of aid agencies in Africa and elsewhere, and he refers to foreign aid workers in the field, such as himself, as expats. British people who retire to Spain also call themselves "expats". --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A look at our own Category:Expatriates is enlightening. In the country split, ambassadors are counted as a subset of expatriates (e.g. Category:Ambassadors to the Czech Republic is a sub-cat of Category:Expatriates in the Czech Republic). I'm not sure I would ever regard an ambassador or diplomat posted to a foreign country as an expatriate. The word has a connotation of an extended or indefinite stay, while ambassadors are typically sent for a defined period. Also, they don't go of their own choice but because their governments send them. Would a soldier fighting on foreign soil be regarded as an expatriate? What about a person on a working holiday or a cultural exchange program for say, 6 months? Or an ordinary tourist? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I generally think of an expatriate as a person who lives permanently in another country, with no intent to return to his birth country, but who also has no intention of seeking citizenship in the new country. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a little rigid for me. There have been zillions of Australian actors, writers, singers, painters, composers, you name it, who left our shores to make it big (or bigger) in places like London and Hollywood, and more or less settled there. Their intention at the time of leaving may have had little bearing on their later actions. Some later came back after many successful years o/s (Bud Tingwell, Ray Barrett), others never did (Margherita Grandi), or only just occasionally visited here for work before scuttling back o/s (Leo McKern, Rod Taylor). Some returned exactly once, and only because their plane or ship stopped over here (P. L. Travers). Some maintained homes here, and lived here intermittently but also had homes o/s (Dame Joan Sutherland). Some were never even born here to begin with, despite the fairy stories put about by themselves and/or the movie studies (Merle Oberon). As a class, they are all considered "Aussie expats". Mostly they retained their Australian citizenship; some switched (Errol Flynn, John Farrow), but you can't take the country out of the boy/girl yada yada. We tend not to disown former citizens just because they abandoned their mother's love. Rupert Murdoch would probably be an exception (although I'm sure his biological mother always loved him unconditionally, regardless of his excesses). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just my perception of the words expatriate vs. immigrant, but it seems like the major difference is who is doing to speaking. I've never heard an America refer to another American moving to an other country as an immigrant and I've never heard of an American refer to someone who moved here from another country as an expatriate. We typically emphasize what people are doing in relation to our own country. So like, if I'm sitting in America referring to my brother who moved to England, I am more likely to refer to him as an expatriate. I'm discussing how he moved away from America, as opposed to placing the emphasis on moving to England. If I'm talking about my friend who moved here from Mexico, I'm more likely to refer to her as an immigrant. She came to America as opposed to moving away from Mexico. I don't think the motivations behind the move are super relevant. Bali88 (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)