Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 March 10

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.

March 10

Number of meat words in English and other SAE languages

How come, in English and other SAE languages like German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the words for the meat of a shelled mollusc are plural (clams, oysters, mussels, scallops, cockles, snails (but escargot))? Words for meat of animals that aren't molluscs (crab, lobster, shrimp, fish (and most species of fish), sea cucumber or trepang, alligator, turtle, chicken, turkey, pheasant, quail, grouse, ptarmigan, duck, goose, swan, beef, pork, lamb, mutton, venison, veal, rabbit, buffalo/bison, bushmeat, etc.) or are molluscs without shells (octopus, squid) are normally singular in English: "I ordered duck", "Lobster is a delicacy", "That lamb was delicious". But I've never heard someone say "I ordered oyster" or "Scallop is delicious". The only non-mollusc exceptions I can think of to this singular rule are "sardines" and "prawns". Why do all the shelled molluscs break the rule in English? Khemehekis (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a long-winded and ultimately indecisive discussion.[1] There are a few exceptions, but the consensus seems to be that it has something to do with individuals vs. a collection. Like you would eat multiple clams but probably only one lobster. That doesn't account for shrimp as a plural. But it seems that shrimps is also used, albeit less often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Shrimp" is an English variation thing: in British English, we distinguish between prawns and shrimps, using the plural for both as nouns, but singular when used as an adjective (for example, prawn curry, or shrimp risotto). Bazza (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The distinction Bugs is looking for is that molluscs, being small as food goes, are eaten in multiples and so countable; the others, being larger and so rarely eaten in the plural, are uncountable. Henry^Flower 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Henry Flower. "Anchovies" is another example of a non-mollusc plural. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Anchovies" -- good one! Khemehekis (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I also concur that countable foods use countable forms, whereas food one is unlikely to eat a countable number of, but only a portion of said animal or food item, one uses the singular (uncountable) plural form. So one eats "ham and eggs", because no one eats multiple hams, but we all eat a number of individual eggs. We have "bread" and "rolls", I may have part of a loaf of bread for my sandwich (no one eats multiple "breads") but I may have 2-3 dinner rolls. In fact, I can't think of a food that breaks this rule (though there may be some) for which there is not at least some usage of the -s plural in countable examples, and some usage of the null plural in uncountable examples. No one eats "bacon", one has "slices" or "pieces" or "rashers" of bacon. No one eats "breads", they eat "slices" of bread or whatever. You can see this is edge cases, for example "I had steak for dinner" (No normal person eats more than one steak), but "I'm grilling steaks tonight" is common (especially if you're feeding a bunch of people where each is getting one of a number of individual steaks you're grilling", however one is never making "barbecues". You only make "barbecue", because you smoke the whole pig, or a whole pork shoulder, or a whole brisket, or something like that. It's an uncountable amount of meat. --Jayron32 11:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, everyone -- thank you for this wonderful discussion! I think I have an answer now! Khemehekis (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian name questions

I've just accepted the article D. Sudheer Reddy from WP:AfC, but I have two concerns. First, I'm guessing Devi is an honorific (though I can't find anything to confirm/deny this), so I strongly suspect the title should be Reddy Sudheer Reddy or maybe R. Sudheer Reddy. Second, is Reddy or Sudheer Reddy the surname? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

See Indian name and Reddy. It is likely that: Devi is a patronymic (his father's first name), Sudheer is his given name, and Reddy is a caste. Which one of those he uses for a surname when in Western circles would depend on his preference. Hopefully somebody more familiar with the naming customs of Andhra Pradesh can clarify for you soon.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Devi in Sanskrit means "goddess". I assume it would probably have a different meaning in his name... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well, but didn't want to get off topic from the name order issue. Perhaps this can explain it: on what appears to be one of his personal webpages ([2]), his name appears as Devireddy Sudheer Reddy and he gives his father's name as D Jayachandra Reddy. Maybe the name in question is indeed "Devireddy" and that element is supposed to be feminine when so combined?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a masculine name to incorporate that of a goddess. (Compare Dimitrios, Isidoros.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a word for...

...a word or term that has been around for a long time, but only recently came into common usage? For example, "meme" is considered a neologism (coined by Richard Dawkins c. 1976), whereas "trope" has been around since c. 1530s (not a protologism, either).[3] —2606:A000:1126:28D:5037:449F:59D8:1A33 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Newly fashionable? 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:B00F:ADB1:F5E3:DE88 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Trendy? (Which is kind of an example of itself.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• I get the impression OP is looking for a noun, not an adjective. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess the answer to the original question is "no". Perhaps we should invent a nonce word: how about retrologism? —2606:A000:1126:28D:5037:449F:59D8:1A33 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a word or phrase that isn't actually old, but you used it in order to sound old-fashioned. Like when people say "Clothes maketh the man" (where "maketh" corresponds to today's "makes" and requires a singular subject). --76.69.46.228 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sleeper word"! Khemehekis (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

2606:A000:1126:28D:5037:449F:59D8:1A33 -- The word retronym exists, but has a different meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thinking about this conversation, and ones like it, that often show up got me thinking about the meta-question "Is there a word for words that don't exist but should"... And of course there is, they're called sniglets, or at least, that's what some mid-1980s American writers called them in a book series on the subject. Not answering the question at all. But interesting none the less. Carry on. If I were to fathom any answer to the question, I would posit that there isn't always a word for every concept one can think of. Sometimes, there are no pre-existing words to describe a thing. Which is why sniglets exist. There! I tied it in to my digression! --Jayron32 11:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see: The Meaning of Liff. --Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)