Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 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.

March 29

Could you please remind me...

... what was the term for words that inflect for gender, as lion and lioness do? I couldn't find the answer while glancing down the Grammatical gender article. Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Masculine and Feminine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["-ess" gender suffix] and the closest I can find to a term so far is "feminine suffix". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)-ess is not clearly an inflectional suffix. It's similar to inflection in that it does not often change the syntactic class (consider: 'temptress'), but more like derivation in that it does not apply to an entire syntactic class (nouns, verbs etc). It has rival forms (-a, -ette), it's often optional, as it is in this case, there's often a different word (dog/bitch, bovine/bull/cow) that can be used. Where grammatical gender is relevant, such as Spanish, all nouns are either feminine, masculine, or some other gender. Words that inflect for gender are often adjectives. English nouns do not have arbitrary grammatical gender, this suffix specifies something different, sex. As far as a word for the set of words that can take this suffix, I'm stumped. Synchronism (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned "derivation". I saw "derivative" in one of the googled items. I'm not so sure that's the term the OP would be looking for, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Derivation (linguistics). Most English suffixes are derivational, there are only four inflectional suffixes -s, -s, -'s and -d.Synchronism (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out "-ing", "-en" (of strong verb past participles and a few irregular plural nouns), and "-er", "-est" (of adjective comparative/superlative forms). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the possessive 's is generally considered a clitic nowadays, not an inflectional suffix. +Angr 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, syntactically it's a clitic but it has the regularity and productivity of an inflectional morpheme. @Moos Yeah, I left those out for simplicity they behave like derivational suffixes sometimes, I shouldn't have said only though.Synchronism (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs you're right that OP wasn't probably looking for derivation, but it helps to explain why we don't speak of grammatical gender and English together that often. Feminine affixes in English are typically applied to animate nouns, living ones usually. There are exceptions though: suffragette, cigarette, seamstress, governess. There are also words that would be just rude or funny by today's standards if they took the suffix: *lawress, *officerette, *captainess, *Teamstress, *arbitratress, *colleaguette. From a different perspective, 'widower', I think, is by itself, alone that is, in being suffixed for masculinity. I wonder, is fembot a portmanteau?Synchronism (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the less common (and male) drake vs. the more common (and either non-gender-specific or specifically female) duck go? Probably not any kind of affix to the root d- but a different word altogether, no? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline gives this for 'duck' and this for 'drake'. It appears that the words are unrelated, and that 'duck' is actually the more recently 'adopted' word, replacing earlier OE 'ened'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for a term for a word that is capable of changing for gender or a term for the words' capability of changing for gender. I can remember once knowing such a term that applied mostly for words indicating the name of an animal, job, or nationality, and a few days ago I was asked about it. I couldn't find anything in An Introduction to Common Linguistics by Zhivko Boyadzhiev either. That book only mentions the ways of forming the feminine - by means of affixation (waiter/waitress, Latin victor/victrix), adding a word or particle meaning "male" or "female" (he-wolf/she-wolf, Khoekhoe aoré zkoab/tararé zkoab), and heteronymy (brother/sister, French bouc/chèvre). --Магьосник (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

English word for (normal) pigment spots on skin

What is the English word for a small (normal, non-pathological) pigment spot on skin? Do you call it a mole even if its not raised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.130 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Age or liver spot. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly also freckle. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or blemish, or beauty mark. "Spot" works, too, though. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spot" might not work for a British person, for whom it might mean "pimple." See the theme song to Life of Brian. 63.17.65.73 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But a mole doesn't have to be raised. A big one might be a birthmark. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry FAce

What is the meaning of this phrase and its etymology: chewing on this wasp?174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"chewing" (eating / enduring / tolerating / participating in) on a "wasp" (something you wouldn't want to eat / endure / participate in | something that would in fact likely sting you and cause pain). Etymology: long, long, long ago some guy in a moment of original thought or based on actually witnessing the literal act (less likely, I'd wager :p) spat it out. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This has many forms: the one I'm most familiar with is "a face like a dog chewing a wasp". Imagine what a dog chewing a wasp looks like (especially a bulldog) and then try and transfer that to a human face! It's used to describe someone struggling to hide anger or another strong emotion. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This only vaguely relates, but I just have to bring up the ballplayer Hank Bauer, whose face[1] was said to resemble "a clenched fist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even farther astray: Bugs, your post suddenly made me recall that the baseball glove I used in my youth was a Hank Bauer signature model. I wonder whether any manufacturer ever dared to market a Dick Stuart first-baseman's mitt. Deor (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If they did, it would have been a strange glove. Probably would have had stone fingers. Or maybe a hole or two in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A related phrase used in London is "face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle" which means disgust more than anger. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

'Bulldog licking piss off a nettle/chewing a wasp/trying to lick its ear' are all terms used up North to mean 'ugly', not angry/disgusted, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, you can use it that way down here too - so either pulling a disgusted face or having a face that permanently looks that way. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's a personal attack?174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more like he's saying, "This is y'all's problem to deal with; I won't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Films 'shot on location in'...

Resolved

Why do articles about films say they are 'shot on location in' a place. Why not just say 'shot in'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"On location" specifically means "An actual place or natural setting where filming takes place, as opposed to one simulated in a studio." (quoting SOED). See also Filming location. By contrast, "shot in" could just refer to the location of the movie set. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what I thought. So the article on the film Red Mist is not accurate when it states that although the film was set in the USA, it was shot on location in Northern Ireland? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not enough information in that statement to tell whether or not it is accurate. It's entirely possible that the plot takes place in the USA, but filming took place in Northern Ireland. --Onorem♠Dil 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article amended. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filming took place outside of a film studio in Northern Ireland (in the countryside, in pubs, in people's houses, whatever), it's still "shot on location" in Northern Ireland even if the film isn't set there. Many scenes in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy were shot on location in New Zealand even though the films certainly weren't set there! +Angr 12:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, if anyone wants to revert my amendment to the article, feel free to do so. I asked here first because I wanted to make sure before I did anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that that setting of the story is a red herring here. The "on location" bit means it (or parts of it, at least) was filmed outside a studio, e.g. in a city street, on a highway, in a desert, among hills, on a river, etc. So, "filmed in Ireland" means it was filmed in a studio in Ireland, while "filmed on location in Ireland" means they went to some rolling hills or some city location or wherever in Ireland to do their filming. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the filmmaker or producer who had a yacht that was named "On Location". When someone would call his office looking for him, his secretary would tell them that he was, well, on location. 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. :) I may be wrong, but I think the term "on location" is typically used to mean it was filmed where it was set, as opposed to simply a generic "exterior" shooting location vs. studio or maybe backlot. I'll look into that further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, looks like I'm wrong and Jack's right. I googled ["on location" exterior] and one of many sites that came up was this interesting one [2] which uses the term "location shooting" the way Jack is using it. Principle filming can be done in a studio (i.e. on a soundstage), possibly with background screens allowing for post-production effects like mattes and CGI; on a pre-constructed backlot; and/or on a location that's not necessarily built for the movie, although often there is some construction done to make it fit. A good example that includes all three approaches is Blazing Saddles, which parodies not only the western genre but also filmmaking itself, near the end when the camera pulls back to reveal that all the street scenes were done on the Warner backlot. A great example of location shooting would be Monument Valley, the exterior for many a John Ford western. On and on it goes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm always right ... unless otherwise indicated, naturally. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, being right is your "default value"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can have complete faith in everything I ever say and do when it comes to anything that matters in the slightest. I'm rarely if ever wrong, and then, only in matters that I retrospectively deem to be exceedingly unimportant. You really should model your whole life after me. Well, it's up to you, naturally, but I strongly recommend it, I really do. I can't imagine how Wikipedia ever got by before I deigned to honour it (her?) with my presence. Nohting can poisibyl go worng if you do as I yas.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

Texts in German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese with mouse-over pop-ups featuring translation or grammatical information

Does anyone know if such websites exist? I am thinking of an interface much like that of John Dyer's Reader's Version of Greek and Hebrew Bible.

Thank you in advance,

148.60.182.153 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Passivization

Please explain how to transform the following sentence into passive form.

• " The kingdom needs you "

My doubt is about the preposition 'BY ' or To ' something other than these.Kasiraoj (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are needed by the kingdom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrious 14 Romans

Petrarch's last "Illustrious Romans"

Who are these men?

The first is obviously Scipio Africanus.

Caesar is Julius Caesar.

Pompeo is Pompey.

Octaviano is Augustus.

Vespasiano is Vespasian.

Can someone give me the names of the others.

What does the very last line say?

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The very last line says, "And finally Trajan". +Angr 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthiocore de Asiae may be Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, although calling him "Roman" is a stretch - he lived in Rome for a time, and was recognized as a client king of Syria.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus is any one of the 10 or so members of the Caecilius Metellus family with the same name.

Marco Porcio Catone is probably Cato the Elder.

Mario Arpinater is Gaius Marius, known as Marius and born in Arpinum.

Scipioneafricano emilianae is Scipio Aemilianus

Tito Vespasiano is Titus.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last one that hasn't been mentioned (Pavlo Emilio) is Aemilius Paulus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there also is "Tito Quinto Flimmio", who probably is Titus Quinctius Flamininus. You are in a maze of twisty Latin names, all nearly alike ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What language is that anyway? Italian? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Petrarch wrote primarily in Latin, but also in "Italian". I'd guess that in the 14th century the difference between vulgate and Italian is not that big, especially not in spelling. "Classical" Latin always was a bit of an artificial language, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was most helpful. I think I may be misunderstanding one: SCIPIONENifict, which is probably one you gave me. Can you tell me who this one is again. He is between Anthiocore de Asiae and Pavlo Emilio. I see Scipioneafricano emilianae (Scipio Aemilianus) is between Quintus Caecilius Metellus and Mario Arpinater. Muchos gracias.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we missed that one so far (because, counting Trajan, there are 15 illustrious Romans on the list ;-). I don't know who that is. The Scipiones were a very old and important family, so there is no lack of candidates. See Scipio_(cognomen)#People_of_known_relationship. A lot of them apparently had pointed noses ("Nasicia"), which might be a source of that "N". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess, with what little knowledge I have on this, is that SCIPIONENasiae is Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, the younger brother of Scipio Africanus (the hero of the epic poem Africa).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, it might actually read "Scipio Nasica" (with a very small "a"), which probably indicates it's Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, as all the other candidates have additional nicknames. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Scipio[ne] Nasica" is what it says. Deor (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take your recommendation on this - as I certainly don't know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you guys are so good at this, can you give me your best "guess" what this says. It an introduction to Petrarch's 36 "Illustrious Men." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Repertorio" woud normally mean "collection", in context it's probably best to translate it as "index". I'm also not quite sure if "miser" is an old variant spelling of "messer" or if inclito miser is meant as an ironic paradox. I'd translate the whole sentence as "INDEX of the book here present where will be shown the chapters on 36 leaders/important men whose deeds are extensively described by the honorable poet, Sir (or miserable/poor, depending on the translation of "miser") Francesco Petrarca, and beginning as appears below." --Ferkelparade π 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be something like: Repertorio del presente libro ove seranno signati i capituli di xxxvi Capitani li facti de quali sono diffusamente descripti per lo inclito poeta miser Francisco petrarca et primo cominzando come qua di sotto apare:.

Given the fact that it's in convoluted old Italian, it's somewhat difficult to translate (I'm Italian). I'd say something like: Repertory of this book, where will be marked/noted down the chapters of 36 Captains, whose facts are widely descripted by the illustrious poor ("a form of humility I suppose") poet Francesco Petrarca, and the first one starts as it appears here under. Sorry for my broken English...--151.51.45.45 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the split "mi-ser" be some sort of spelling of "messer" rather than meaning "poor"? Deor (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the great translating work.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of words in English sentences

May I ask that which of the following forms is/are correct?

1. "The request shall be submitted to the court by the party."
2. "The request shall be submitted by the party to the court."

And

1. "The party shall submit the court the request."
2. "The party shall submit to the court the request."

(Generally, it is written "The party shall submit the request to the court.")

Thank you so much, just confusing about word order. Sorry if I am disturbing anyone.

— 118.172.78.246 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No disturbance, that's what we're here for. As a native English speaker, I would prefer 2 in the first set, although I wouldn't immediately think anything was wrong with 1. English doesn't really have strict adjective/adverb ordering rules like some other languages. The difference between the two comes down mostly to emphasis. In the second set, however, I strongly favor 2. In English, indirect objects are only used for certain verb, and "to submit" is not one of them. In general, you'll find that the dative case is rarely used implicitly, and is most frequently signaled by prepositions. Overall, I think that "The party shall submit the request to the court." is the best (active voice rather than passive voice) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the second group, No. 2 is definitely better; but I'm not sure there's any point in choosing between the better of 2 poor options when a best 3rd one ("The party shall submit the request to the court") is readily available. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker and professional editor, I agree completely with Jack. Both options that you have offered in the second group are awkward to the point of being incorrect. Jack's phrase is the only one that is idiomatic. In the first group, neither option is incorrect, but I strongly prefer the second option. The reason is that in English passive constructions, it is best to keep the passive agent ("by the party") as close to the verb as possible. This also sounds more natural. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To amplify what 140 has said: with some common verbs like "give" and "show", either

1. give the letter to him, or

2. give him the letter

would be normal, but not

3. *give the letter him, or

4. *give to him the letter.

With "submit", 2 would not be idiomatic either, leaving only 1. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out (just pro-forma) that legal jargon tends to make very, very heavy use of constructions like this because they try to make everything appear as though it were the action of the law itself, not the action of a court or a person. Thus "the request shall be submitted to the court by the party" is shorthand for "it is ordained by law that the request shall be submitted to the court by the party". It's ritualized language, not much to do about it. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

May I further ask that it should be ("which" in "of which" refers to "printed form."):

1. "The party shall use such printed form while the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
2. "The party shall use such printed form the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
3. "The party shall use such printed form of which the cost shall be designated by the Minister of Justice."

With thankfulness ^ ^ (Ludwigs2 is right. I am a third-year law student and attempting to cope with the complexity in rendering legal "jargon".)

—118.172.69.117 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct version is #2, but there should be a comma after "form". Marco polo (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But not in legalese, which tends to avoid commas entirely, in case somebody bases an argument on the presence or absence of a comma in a particular place.

No. 3 is less natural than no. 2; but I would not be at all surprised to find it in a legal document (I suspect lawyers would prefer it because it keeps the 'which' close to its antecedent and the 'cost' close to its verb).

No. 1 is certainly not normal English: you can't use a subordinating conjunction and a relative pronoun in the same clause.

However all three are odd in their use of "such". "Such" can refer back to a previous description (i.e. the form has already been defined), but usually then takes "a" in the singular ("such a printed form"). "Such" without an article is common in legal writing, but is always followed by a defining clause introduced by "as": "such printed form as the Secretary of StateMinister of Justice shall direct". --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely #1 makes sense in certain contexts? Ludwigs pointed out the implicit "it is ordained by law that...", but we could also have:

Q. Who shall submit the request to the court?

A. The request shall be submitted to the court by the party. 81.131.39.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that you're answering an active question with a passive answer. A better answer would be "The party shall submit the request to the court". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

""Such" can refer back to a previous description" That's correct, but I don't herein mention some previous sentences ("In the case where a printed form...."), that's why the word "such" is there. However, thanks everyone.

—118.174.67.111 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recognised that possibility; but then I would expect 'such a form'. Maybe not in legalese. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)