Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 October 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.

October 8

§§, MSS, ff, etc. etc.

Doubling symbols or letters to signal the plural of whatever the thing means seems standard. What is the origin of this practice? Also, a textbook of mine uses "—eds." to, I presume, indicate a footnote inserted by the editors, as opposed to footnotes in quoted material. Sometimes it says "—edsed." What does this second phrase mean? Thanks! ÷seresin 01:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've wondered about that question too! (Just my two cents, but —edsed. looks like a typographical error.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it not mean 'multiple editors have edited this'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Or "editors' edit"? --85.119.25.27 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is one notice in Acronym#pp. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cousin's Son

My biological cousin has just had a baby son. What would his relation to me be? I could just say "cousin's son" but I am sure there is a definite legal definition, like 'second cousin' or something. What would it be? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If the parent is your first cousin, then the baby is your first cousin once removed (likewise you are the baby's first cousin once removed). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When or if you have a child, that child will be the second cousin of your first cousin's son. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The easy way to remember is that first cousins share a grandparent, second cousins share a great-grandparent, nth cousins share an nth grandparent. "m-removed" indicates the cousins are at different "levels" of the genealogical chart, so that one cousin's grandparent is the other one's great-grandparent. Putting these ideas together, we get the general rule: if the same person is an nth grandarent of person X and an n+m grandparent of person Y, then X and Y are nth cousins, m-removed. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean nth cousins share "a pair of (n minus 1) x great grandparents". Second cousins share a pair of great-grandparents. Third cousins share a pair of great-great-grandparents. Nth cousins share a pair of (n-1) x great-grandparents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a little fencepost confusion. Let's forget the pair/singleton grandparent thing (to avoid quarter-cousin analogs of half-siblings) and go with "pair". I was thinking of 1-grandparent=grandparent, 2-grandparent=great grandparent, and so on, so that nth cousins share a pair of nth grandparents. Works out the same as what you said, just a different convention :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the reader is aware of your convention. But how many random readers would know that when you talk of, say, a "4th grandparent", you're really referring to a "great-great-great grandparent"? That certainly wouldn't have been obvious to me. It's not the word "grand" that gets repeated, it's the word "great", and that word doesn't even appear till 3 generations back, and isn't repeated till the 4th generation back. Most people have no knowledge of their great-grandparents, let alone further back, so they're not used to thinking about these ancestors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Don't we all count "1,2... n" ? I thought my convention was implied by my original phrasing, but a little extra clarification never hurts.) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we all count "1, 2, ... n". But it depends where you're starting from. Is a "2nd grandparent" a great-grandparent (where both words "great" and "grand" are counted, in an apples-and-oranges way that would be anathema to many), or a great-great-grandparent (where only the "great"s are counted)? Reasonable persons could well interpret the term "2nd grandparent" either way, and they would be quite justified in coming to blows in public places over it. You can see that the simplest possible example is already ambiguous (not to mention a hazard to public order), and it never gets any better for previous generations. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some people do say "second cousin" for a first cousin's child (or a parent's first cousin). I disapprove, but that doesn't stop them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The nerve of those disrespectful people! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, if and when this baby has a baby of his own, that child will be your first cousin twice removed. (I've seen pictures of my own first cousins twice removed on Facebook, so I know what I'm talking about!) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And any grandkid of your real second cousin would be your second cousin twice removed. Etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In this part of the world (rural northern England) (and, no doubt, in many other areas worldwide) it's common to know one's second and third cousins, two or even three times removed, because they often live in the same area. It's more usual to state an ancestral relationship or just use "cousin" more generally than to specify the exact "cousin level and removal" relationship. Dbfirs 06:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all fascinating. I also - separate question, sorry - wonder why this terminology is used. What were they 'removed' from? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Really just moved up or down on the lines of the family tree, but the word moved normally means from one location to another (as does removed in some contexts). The expression has been in common use for nearly five hundred years (and appears in Swift, Shakespeare, Dickens etc.) You might like to read our articles on cousin, consanguinity and coefficient of relationship and inbreeding depression#In_humans if you have not already done so. Dbfirs 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Three times removed is short for "three generations removed". That's a technical term. But you can think of your cousins of whatever numbers as just "cousins" in casual reference. If they're in a generation prior to yours, you can also think of them as "aunt" or "uncle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

passive voice correct use

Who is right here, me or User:Koertefa? Bagnume (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Koertefa is correct. The subject of the passive verb is the "Whether ..." clause, and it's not idiomatic to insert it as another subject. Deor (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Or to avoid passive voice altogether, "Historians debate whether he was a real historical person or only one of the "imaginary figures" invented by the anonymus author of the Gesta." And by the way, in English it's anonymous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, Anonymus the anonymous. How confusing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)