Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 September 12

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< September 11 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 13 >
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.


September 12 edit

Hardball edit

In the US, is the term "hardball" used interchangeably with "baseball" when referring to the game? My question was prompted by happening across the page at http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/ . I am from the UK and know absolutely nothing about baseball, and previously I was only familiar with the word "hardball" from the expression "play hardball", referring to tough talk/behaviour. Do uses like "hardball talk" on that website refer purely to the game, or do they also have a "tough talk/behaviour" nuance? 81.159.108.116 (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do also have softball. It's thought of as the version of baseball played by amateurs. So, the term "hardball" technically is needed to refer to the version played professionally, but most people just call it "baseball". As for their usage of the term, yes, I suspect they chose it for it's double meaning, that is "a tough, no-holds-barred discussion of baseball" (resorting to another sports metaphor). StuRat (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not big on metaphors on Wikipedia. Hardball is a sports term used to distinguish baseball from its variant softball. Although there are some key differences: softballs are bigger than baseballs, and the pitches are thrown underhand rather than overhand. --Niàobùmíxìn (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not big on metaphors on Wikipedia. We aren't?? 81.159.108.116 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is an old, empty tank of metaphors, rusted out at the bottom, and full of holes. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Softball has got to be one of the most poorly supported urban rumor type articles I have ever read, with random unverifiable websites for its references. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back to the OP's question, "Playing hardball" means to play baseball like professional players do: hard fastballs, a little "chin music", a beanball or two: aggressive and playing to win. It is in contrast to "lobbing softballs", which refers to the sort of amateur "beer league" slow-pitch softball that many Americans play recreationally; i.e. easy going and not that competitive. So if someone tells you that they are "playing hardball" it means they are being aggressive and playing to win. --Jayron32 03:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing StuRat said was a little inaccurate. Regarding professionalism, there are professional softball players in the U.S., as well as amateur baseball players.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but that's not what people think of when you say "softball". They think of people just playing for fun. It's similar to something like skateboarding. Yes, there are professional skateboarders, but that's not what you first think of when skateboards are mentioned. StuRat (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, ignoring the "tough behaviour / tough talking" aspect, are we saying that "baseball" includes both softball and hardball, so "hardball" is used in cases where there might be confusion? 86.160.208.2 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most Americans consider baseball and softball to be different games, albeit played with similar equipment, and would not consider softball a subset of "baseball". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, ignoring the "tough behaviour / tough talking" aspect, when might Americans use the word "hardball" instead of "baseball"? Is it interchangeably used / commonly used? 86.160.208.2 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not used interchangeably. In my experience "hardball" is never used except when referring to tough talk or behavior. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree with Duoduoduo a little bit. As a native American (not a Native American, but, well, you know), I think a distinction would be drawn between the language and the categorization. If pressed, I think it isn't wrong to say that hardball and softball are two forms of baseball, any more than (for the brits in the room) that Rugby League and Rugby Union are different forms of Rugby. In actual word usage, however, the unqualified term "baseball" always refers to the hardball form of the game. If someone called that form "hardball", I wouldn't find it unusual or strange, especially since I could see it coming up in some contexts, such as the following sentence "I've played baseball of some sort my whole life. I played hardball in college, but now I just play softball for fun". It may be more likely for someone to use baseball in the place of the word hardball in that sentence, but I wouldn't find the choice of using "hardball" specifically as awkward of out of the ordinary. Otherwise, however, Duoduoduo is mostly correct, that the word "baseball" always refers to the game with the smaller ball that is pitched overhand, while "softball" always refers to the game with the bigger ball pitched underhand. But if someone called the former "hardball", I wouldn't go so far as to think it odd or unusual. That is, most Americans understand it unambiguously, especially since they know what "softball" always means. --Jayron32 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, in the sports context "hardball" is used sometimes, interchangeably with "baseball", to specifically distinguish it from "softball". ("Hard" versus "soft" makes for a nice contrast.) But I've watched baseball several times a week in-season on TV for years, and I really think I've never once heard a commentator refer to it as "hardball". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a lesser-used synonym, "hardball" can also be substituted in whenever you are saying or writing the word "baseball" too often. I frequently use synonyms this way, to avoid sounding boring and repetitive. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a kid, we referred to our neighborhood ball games as "hardball" or "softball" depending on which game we were playing. By extension, not only is the ball "hard" compared to a softball (though not as hard as a cricket ball, but that's another story), playing the game well is also "hard", as in "difficult", as in one famous scene from A League of Their Own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"People of the Book" in Pakistan edit

"People of the Book" (Arabic: أهل الكتاب‎) is a term used among Muslims in reference to followers of the other Abrahamic religions. How is this idea expressed in Pakistan? Is there an Urdu equivalent that is common or is the Arabic expression used? Whichever is the case, an IPA transcription (of the Pakistani pronunciation) would be helpful as well.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu Wikipedia has article "اہل کتاب", which is basically the same, "ahl kitab" (except the Urdu "h" is written slightly differently, and there is no Arabic article "al-"). Unfortunately I can't read the rest of the article to see if there is an actual Urdu-language phrase. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Urdu expression should read ahl-e-kitab. It shows izafat construction, which is neither Arabic not native Hindustani, but Persian - and widely used in Urdu's higher registers. So we are dealing with a persianized Arabic expression. Of course it is possible to re-phrase the term using native vocabulary: The Urdu Wikipedia article defines ahl-e-kitab as "those who believe in holy scriptures (āsmānī kutub kō mānne vāle)". Still, the fixed expression seems to be ahl-e-kitab - not very surprisingly since virtually all religious terms in Urdu are of Arabic or Persian origin - just as most religious vocabulary in English comes from Latin or Greek. Think or eucharist or apostle - you could say that using native English words, but it wouldn't be the same expression any more. --BishkekRocks (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. ahl-e-kitab is what I was looking for.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pronounced something like [ˈɛɦleː kɪˈtaːb]. Turkish has the same borrowing: tr:Ehl-i kitap. Lesgles (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making verbs out of nouns edit

How correct is the practice of making a verb out of a noun in English? In recent days I have removed two instances where I think an editor has incorrectly turned a noun into a verb - to webcam and to wing suit. I realise English can be pretty adaptable in this way, but am I being a picky old fuddy-duddy? Astronaut (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How correct" is not quantifiable; if people want to do it, it will happen, and some of the new forms will stick. There's some info at Conversion_(linguistics)#Verbification. That said, I join you in your fuddy-duddiness, having just spent several weeks frothing at the mouth every time a commentator used "medal" as a verb during the Olympics. - Karenjc 19:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The method by which a verb is formed doesn't matter. Verbs formed from nouns and nouns formed from verbs ("take your dog for a run at the dog run") are both OK. However, we don't want people just making up new words or new uses for words in articles. If it's not in any dictionary or other reference work, then we shouldn't be using it. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what standard you choose to employ for evaluating "correct" and I might be able to tell you "how correct" something is. --ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given our writing style is supposed to be encyclopedic, not casual, the edits are not problematic. WP:MOS μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you must create a verb out of a noun, please at least make sure the noun doesn't already have a perfectly serviceable verb form. "Orientate" needs to be taken out and shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would say our writing style on Wikipedia should be pretty conservative, not so much that it's archaic, but a lot of these "verbings" which sports commentators and the like use are quite original. The edits were good. As more and more sporting events legacy the future, it's possible that some of these verbifications will become more acceptanced. - filelakeshoe 23:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me leverage that ref as I transition towards goodification and embetterment. I might even rebenchmark the stratospherification of bestitude, going forward progress-wise. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That brash arriviste business-speak type Robert Lowell wasn't above verbing the occasional noun...
This is the way day breaks in Bowditch Hall at McLean's;
the hooded night lights bring out "Bobbie,"
Porcellian '29,
a replica of Louis XVI
without the wig –
redolent and roly-poly as a sperm whale,
as he swashbuckles about in his birthday suit
and horses at chairs.
"Waking in the Blue", Life Studies, 1960 --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, "verbing" has been going on for a long time. Some good examples are the verbs "to iron" (a task accomplished with an iron) and "to water" (a task accomplished with water). If a reference is needed here, I got those from a nice book called The Loom of Language.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can rely on that book for some basic facts, but Lancelot Hogben was not a linguist, and was quasi-eccentric in some ways, so many of the broad sweeping statements and categorical judgemental generalizations in "The Loom of Language" should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Hogben came up with a constructed language Interglossa which is actually pretty good in some ways (often better than Esperanto), but evaluating natural languages by how closely they resemble Interglossa is a semi-pointless exercise. "The Loom of Language" gives great prominence to the Praeneste fibula, which is often considered a forgery (though looking at that article now, I see that this has been recently disputed). AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was some media coverage in the UK during the Olympics that "medalling" is being overtaken by the even more gruesome "podiuming". Here's the NYT bemoaning these barbarities in 2010, tracing the trend back to the early 90s. I almost cheered aloud when I read: "The Daily Telegraph, announced that podiuming and medaling were "unforgivable verbs"." However, I managed to control myself when I remembered that I'd rather emasculate myself with a grimy tin opener than read The Daily Telegraph. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Were it not for the fact that it's intransitive, "podiuming" would be in the same league as the old saw, "Are you copper-bottoming 'em my man?" "No, I'm aluminuming 'em ma'am.". That at least had the saving grace that was it was always meant as a joke. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out with the anecdotes, or someone will soon be hatting this as a thread in need of reffing. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also this question from April about the phrase Water Tankering. Alansplodge (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds of Language series by Bill Martin edit

I've been trying without success to obtain a complete list of titles in the "Sounds of Language" series by Bill Martin, Jr. This is a series of reading textbooks that were popular several decades ago, at least in California. Can anyone help? I have found a few lists online but there seem to be several books in the series that aren't included, which makes me wonder if any of them were ever printed under more than one name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOC had the following with "sounds" in the title.
  • Sounds around the campfire
  • Sounds of an owly night
  • Sounds of children at play on the hill
  • Sounds after dark
  • Sounds around the clock
  • Sounds I remember
  • Sounds of a distant drum
  • Sounds of a powwow
  • Sounds of home
  • Sounds of language readers
  • Sounds of laughter
  • Sounds of mystery
  • Sounds of numbers
  • Sounds of the storyteller

There are quite a few others without "sounds" in the title. Zoonoses (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! When you say "quite a few others," do you mean Bill Martin books in general or books in this series specifically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books and recordings. You can examine the list here. Zoonoses (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few more at LibraryThing:

  • Sounds Around the Mountain
  • Sounds in the Wind
  • Sounds of a Hound Dog
  • Sounds of a Young Hunter
  • Sounds of Our Heritage from the Southeast

Zoonoses (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_September_12&oldid=1146487165"