Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 January 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

Biased towards or biased against?

I can't tell if "biased towards" and "biased against" should be synonyms or antonyms.

• The man was biased towards the color yellow.
• The man was biased against the color yellow.

The first one may suggest that the man has a preference for the color yellow, but the second one may suggest that he has an aversion to the color yellow. Now, take a look at the next example:

• The man was biased towards women and homosexuals.
• The man was biased against women and homosexuals.

As loaded as the sentences may seem, I am not sure whether or not they have a meaningful difference. I often get the impression that both mean "aversion to women and homosexuals". Are these terms one of those things where the meanings suddenly change based on context? 140.254.227.37 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the phrases are synonymous. If you are "biased towards" something, you unfairly favour it. If you are "biased against" something, you unfairly disfavour it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Those expressions are unambiguously antonyms. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe it was just me then. 140.254.227.37 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I see your point. "Towards" can mean "regarding" or "about", as in "the conversation moved towards cats", which doesn't mean it was pro-cat, just about them, thus making "biased towards" ambiguous. I would say "in favor of" rather than "towards", to remove this ambiguity. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Bias" is synonymous with "slant",[1] As in slanted toward, or slanted "against", i.e. "away from". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be confusing it unconsciously with "hostile/confrontational toward(s)". Most of what's written about bias, especially concerning people, is also about hate, or at least establishes two groups of people as separate or opposite, facing toward(s) the other. If it concerns something less obviously divisive, like yellow, there's no imagining the line between, so no tendency to pick a side. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The confusion of those who use the forms synonymously is the same sort of thing going on with irregardless and I could care less. A multisyllabic form has a vague presence in the speaker's head, and through uncareful speech and the use of others it gets reinforced. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In British English, that's I couldn't care less. Bazza (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The point Medeis is making is that those who say "I could care less" are speaking carelessly, without regard to what their words actually mean. This is usually characterised as "the American version" of "I couldn't care less", but I'm sure there are many Americans who care enough to include the negative particle. Careless speech/writing also applies to utterances like "He shouldn't of said that". Absolutely meaningless. People shouldn't be given access to tools unless they know how to use them properly and safely, and that includes linguistic tools. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Right, I think that's what Medeis is getting at. The correct thing to say is "I couldn't care less" - but due to laziness/corruption, in certain parts of AmEng, the phrase "I could care less" has come to mean the exact same thing as "I couldn't care less", regardless of the fact that the compositional semantics would indicate an opposite meaning. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I understood to be the case from American friends, and therefore needed clarifying. Bazza (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of linguistic tools, there are a few who frequent this page. Including me, from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's entirely different from the 'irregardless' and 'I could care less' cases. I didn't see it until StuRat had pointed it out, but what the OP is talking about is the difference in meaning according as the towards PP is a complement or an adjunct of biased. If it is a complement, then it is showing the direction of bias, and implies a positive attitude towards the item. If it is an adjunct, it is saying that the subject has a (default negative) bias in connection with the item. It's a genuine structural ambiguity, though I didn't notice it even when the OP asked. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict what I've said. The original meaning of biased toward meant in favor of. This has been reanalysed by people who are not conscious of their speech in a meta-awareness form, like linguists and editors, just as "should of", "irregardless" and "I could care less" have been unconsciously been reanalaysed if not in exactly the same way from a logical point of view. As said above, people reanalysed "bias" to mean "hostile". For other sorts of semantic reanalysis see folk etymology. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I could care less seems to me to have originated from sarcasm, or an implied "As if... ". Irregardless is a malapropism. The instant case is (as you say) an ambiguous phrasing and an alternative can be considered, for example: "He was biased in favour of ...." - where context does not make the meaning clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Is it okay to have double contractions?

I am thinking of shouldn't've to represent shouldn't have. I hardly hear the a part. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's terribly ugly, I say. But it is in the Wiktionary. "Shouldna" is too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the ever-popular "shouldn't of". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We can extend the series indefinitely: Your use of shouldn't've's perfectly ok with me. To which some smart alec could retort: Your example of shouldn't've's's repugnant. And so on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

With 'Alec' being a name, shouldn't've it been capitalized? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not. Thanks for asking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• The answer is that you won't find I'd've (or there're, for that matter) in formal writing but you will find those forms in actual educated speech. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• You may be interested in the common spelling of fo'c's'le. And agree with Medeis, there is a huge difference between a blog post, a letter, speech, and textbook. If any spelling or usage is "okay", it's only because of custom, context, and perhaps a style guide. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think such terms can serve the purpose of accurately transcribing actual speech or the semblance of it. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I also once met an Aussie visiting the southern USA. He often greeted a group with g'day'all - see also this thread [2], with the example The fish'n'chips'll've been all gone by the time we get to the restaurant! SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Then there's the ubiquitous y'all, often misspelled as ya'll. But I never see "y'all're a riot!" ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the possessive, y'all's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Then there's the triple contraction "y'all'd've" (yahl-duv), or "you all would have." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Was your Aussie saying "good day all", or "good day you all"? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure, I only heard it a few times. But I always assumed he was trying to pick up some local vernacular with "y'all" (i.e. your second option). I suppose I could have typed g'day y'all, but that wouldn't have had the same typographic effect, and he didn't really sound the /y/ twice :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The question depends on which register you are speaking in. Generally speaking, the use of contractions decreases in acceptability with increasing formality. The most formal registers will often proscribe contraction altogether, always cannot or do not (never can't or don't). Less formal registers will have multiple contractions as noted above (I.E. "you shouldn't've done that" is perfectly cromulent English for many speakers in informal situations). --Jayron32 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it "okay"? Where? And in what context? In your part of the world, chatting with friends, I'd guess the answer would be "yes". If you're writing for The Times, the answer would be "no". Unless, of course, you were reporting verbatim the words of someone from 140.sville.And, for what it's worth, which ain't much: Ugh. Just ugh. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, it's pronounced "fo'c's'l" but it's still spelled "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at wikt:Category:English triple contractions. --Theurgist (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was listening to Sweet Home Alabama on the radio, and at one point the singer says /^hjæ:kɔm/ for here I come--a sort of "h'ya'com". μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)