Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< May 19 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 21 >
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.


May 20

edit

shorthand transcription needed

edit

Hi to the help community, would this be the right place to present a shorthand sample (Germany, 1950's) that needs to be transcribed? The sample can be seen de:File:Unnamed7.jpg (I could not figure out how to download it here locally, because the upload dialogs do not seem to offer threshold of originality as a license. Thanks in advance. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"True" meaning of "poisonous"

edit

I've often seen it said that "poisonous" really means "poisonous when consumed", and that it is "incorrect" to use to the term to describe things (e.g. snakes) that can inject toxins by bites, stings, etc, and which should instead only be described as "venomous". My question is: who or what defines this as the "correct" usage? The "incorrect" use of "poisonous" is extremely widespread, is supported as a synonym of "venomous" by atleast two dictionaries, and I'm pretty sure has been used as such for a very long time. (I'm sure I've seen old texts that refer to "poisonowse snaykes" [sic] or similar, meaning this useage predates standardised spelling). Is this just a case of hypercorrection by people who think "poisonous" should have a more limited range of meanings than it actually does, or is there a genuinely good reason for this restricted meaning? Iapetus (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, having two different meanings for two different words is useful. In this case, the distinction (injection vs. ingestion) represents a functional difference, and having two such words makes sense. Colloquial speech often makes mistakes, however formal speech and writing should use correct terms. Dictionaries note usage without regard to register, oftentimes. --Jayron32 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be hyper-correction if there was no actual difference between the two uses. Since there is, the incorrect use of poisonous is exactly that, incorrect. Especially since venomous is a perfectly good word. Fgf10 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a view contrary to Jayron32 and Fgf10. In my view, the only place where the meaning of a word or phrase resides is in what it is used and understood to mean. If a significant number of people use "poisonous" more widely than by ingestion (as, for example by the proprietors and guides of a place I visited on Monday), then by definition that is a meaning of the word. Of course, it is not the only meaning, and there are possibilities for confusion. In this case, somebody discussing toxicology may find the distinction important, but in ordinary contexts it is unnecessary.
To answer the original question, there is no authority for any aspect of English, except whatever authorities individuals (or organisations) choose to acknowledge. It is clear that some people make the distinction that you are referring to and others don't. (I rather suspect that many of those that do claim to make the distinction often fail to do so in practice, but this is only a guess). --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Context is everything. In what context is the word being used? If the word is being used in, say, some scientific literature or a science textbook discussing the concept, the distinction is real and important. If it is being used between two random joe's on the street, then that's a different context. So, it absolutely does matter which. For example, when my doctor is treating a condition I have, I damn sure hope he properly describes whether or not I was envenomed or poisoned in my medical chart, even if Randy from Boise may describe it as a poisonous snake. That word is fine in that context, but that doesn't mean the distinction is unimportant in all contexts. The "true" meaning does absolutely matter where accuracy of language is important for conveying some bit of information, and where conveying the wrong bit of information by using the wrong word matters. --Jayron32 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't tell from your userpage, but I guess you're not a scientist or medical professional? If so, you'd understand the crucial importance of correctly defined terms. See Jayron above. "Funnily" enough, I had shared rant with someone just today about the sloppy use of the terms 'neural stem cells' and 'neural progenitors' Fgf10 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I ask someone if a snake is poisonous, and they tell me it's not, I expect that it will not introduce anything toxic into me, whether it bites me or I bite it. The semantic difference between poisonous and venomous is useful in some contexts, but there are plenty of others where insisting upon it would be misleading. The idea that the more precise and exacting usage is always the 'correct' one is misleading too, for the same reason. The correct usage (and interpretation) is the one that conveys the information which is important in context. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! "Whether I bite it." That was quite good, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of "venom" and "poison" may be of interest.[1][2] There's no practical difference. It's just semantical nitpicking. The term "poison" is cognate with "potion", which comes from the Latin for "drink". Ther term "venom" also comes from Latin and means... guess what... poison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's most certainly not a "mistake", scientifically or otherwise, to call a snake poisonous. For example, we have "VIPER. The vipers constitute a family of Old-World poisonous snakes, with a pair of poisonous fangs in the maxillary bones, which are short and movable." 1911 Encyclopedia Britanicca And it's used within the Merck Manual (1987): page 1608 Chapter 254 heading VENOMOUS BITES AND STINGS with subheading: POISONOUS SNAKES and lists each snake's envenomation. -Modocc (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be, because little lamsey divey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd name for a botanical entity. How about Urushiol-induced contact dermatitogenic Ivy? Yes, much better. (There was once a skin specialist whose wife gave birth to twin boys. They named them Dermot and Titus.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal languages and natural languages

edit

Does one preclude the other? Or can a language be both natural (as used by humans to interact) and formal?

Could a subset of a natural language be a formal language? If I restrict a natural language to a finite set of words, with a well-defined set of rules (for writing scientific publications, for example), would that be a formal language? Can the description of a limited grammar and finite vocabulary for educational purposes (for speaking a foreign language) also be a formal language? Would esperanto or other constructed language be both formal and natural?--Llaanngg (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Formal language, Natural language, and Constructed language. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also subsets of "formal language" such as Literary language and liturgical language. --Jayron32 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A constructed language, such as either Esperanto or a literary in-universe language (Klingon or Elvish), is not a formal language, and is not considered a natural language, but typically has many of the features of natural languages. A defined subset of a natural language with very precisely defined rules may be referred to as a formal language, but normally the term 'formal language' is used in computing more often than for subsets of natural languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Jayron32 as to whether a literary language or a liturgical language are formal languages. They are used in very formal settings, such as religious rites, but a liturgical language is a natural language (although likely one that is no longer used except in liturgy). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except that liturgical and literary languages don't undergo linguistic evolution as natural languages do. They aren't formally dead languages because they are used, but they also don't change and adapt, as all natural languages do. --Jayron32 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That means that liturgical languages may be neither natural languages nor formal languages. I would also mention that literary languages do sometimes undergo vocabulary development. In particular, Latin underwent vocabulary development when it was used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a language of scientific publication, to describe newly discovered things. It continues to undergo vocabulary development in its use as the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, if the Pope writes an encyclical about proper and improper use of technology, he will condemn pornography on the Internet, so that a Latin word for the Internet is needed. ('Pornographia' is an ancient loan word into Latin from Greek. Ovid was exiled, partly for writing pornographic poetry.) (It is true that the subset of Latin that is used liturgically is essentially static, but Latin as used in official church documents is a literary language rather than only a liturgical language.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is huge difference between the formality of a black tie affair and the formality of a regular expression. The former has to do with sense 1 of the word: "Formal, done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; suitable for or constituting an official or important situation or occasion: a formal dinner party", while the latter is sense 3 (in my NOAD) "of or concerned with outward form or appearance, esp. as distinct from content or matter". I agree with Robert that a liturgical language is not formal, in the sense of formal language, but it is a language that happens to be formal, in the first sense given above. Ecclesiastical Latin is certainly not a formal language. It could probably be defensibly classified as a natural language or a constructed language, depending on what parts of those definitions you focus on. Nothing in the definition of natural language says that it has to change over time, and I also strongly suspect that the Latin in Vulgate Bible is at least a little different from the Latin used in Fides_et_Ratio, though they are both written in "Ecclesiastical Latin." Likewise, few would argue that literary languages are formal languages, they are not a "set of strings of symbols that may be constrained by rules that are specific to it." The point is, a language that is formal is not a formal language, compositional semantics be damned.SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jayron above except where RM disagrees with him. While the distinction between natural and formal language is not exclusive to the point each covers a non-overlapping part of the totality of language. Natural languages are the birth language of some speech comunity learnt often without formal training and suffering "irregularities", ambiguities, and a strain between denotation and connotation, whereas in formal languages all terms are well defined, have a 1-to-1 form and sense relationship, and an unambiguous syntax. There are also creoles, jargons and cants, and liturgical languages are not formal languages for the mere reason that they embody the ambiguity and wordplay of natural languages. "'I am the Way and the Light', sayeth the Lord" is formal in the sense of dignified, but certainly not formal in the sense of mathematics or chemical nomenclature. A look at diglossia might also be relevant. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using "accumulate" as a noun

edit

Can we use "accumulate" as a noun? For example in a phrase like "shifting two years' worth of accumulate". I know the noun form of accumulate is accumulation, but I rather want something along the lines of precipitate (which can be used as both verb and noun, despite the existence of precipitation). Because accumulation tends to emphasise on the process of things getting accumulated rather than the things themselves. 202.153.41.162 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can: you just did, and I understood what you meant (i.e. descriptive linguistics ;) Of course, some readers and editors may balk at the usage. I see no record of any noun usage in the OED or NOAD. The OED does have an entry for an adjectival usage: "Now rare. Heaped up, accumulated; increased by accumulation. In early use chiefly as past participle." With an example usage: "1929 W. Faulkner Sartoris iii. 182 All the accumulate impedimenta." So unless you are self publishing, you will likely get some pushback on that sentence. However, "shifting two years' worth of accumulate [stuff]" would be fine, and supported by the OED, although it is a rather rare and obscure usage, and at that point you might do just as well to say "accumulated stuff." SemanticMantis (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked 34 definition links at http://www.onelook.com/?w=accumulate&ls=a and found no definitions of "accumulate" as a noun, although I found a few definitions of it as an adjective (#9, 16, 19) and a few links redirected to commercial pages without definitions. Links to definitions of "-ation" are listed at http://www.onelook.com/?w=-ation&ls=a. It can mean the result of an action or process (wikt:-ation).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a (not entirely unrelated) aside, my pet peeve for today is the use of the non-word "accumulative" in place of the word "cumulative". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • It's a cromulent noun if pronounced differently from the verb, which has final, long a, stress. The noun is /ə'kju:mjəlɨt/ (uh KYOOM yuh lit) in my dialect. The term is certainly used in Ivory League university science programs. This shift in accent is well known, and paralleled in precipi'tate (verb) as opposed to the noun (or adjective) pre'cipitate (the second with a final schwi). μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The shift in stress is important for speech, but irrelevant for text. Do you have any references or examples to cite of a noun usage in academic contexts? It did seem completely reasonable to me, but I was unable to come up with a reference for that usage in the wild. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very easy if you just Google "the accumulate" which cannot but be a noun phrase. I am not sure if the term came up in high school, but I took AP Chem, and tested out of basic chemistry as a bio major. I just had to take Org Chem/Lab and the term came up all the time. It also comes up in other hard science contexts, such as oceanography and limnology. I suspect the issue is that this noun/verb stress difference is a growing phenomenon, and hence much more noticeable in speach than writing, sinc e English (Gott sei dank) doesn't use accents. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, "accumulate" could be an adjective in such searches, such as "the accumulate precipitate". Of course, that gets us into the question of whether it's a adjective or a Noun adjunct, which is to say whether the word in that phrase is functioning as an "adjective unto itself" or a "noun which functions as an adjective". But the same debate could be had as to whether purple is a reddish blue or a bluish red. --Jayron32 11:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjectives pattern with nouns, not verbs, regarding the alternating stress rule, so it's a distinction with no difference. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A google search is not a citation. I know how to use google, and nothing on the first page of hits supports your claim that it is commonly used as a noun. Most of them are either proper nouns or references to computer algorithms and functions. If it were actually common (as opposed to just intelligible) I'd think OED would have an entry. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed the criterion from use to common use. Who here had said anything about common use? μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have compiled a list of similar words at User:Wavelength/About English/Word list 1. The page is in a draft stage, with a tentative title, a tentative introduction, and tentative section headings.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a google search is not a citation. Did you actually read any of the hits? Many of those hits are grammatical errors or nonsensical ("remove the Accumulate 10 steps back option", "It helps to addition the particular action and remove the accumulate regarding smooth that is definitely in charge"), and most of the rest are adjectival use ("remove the accumulate calculus", " remove the accumulate dusts", " remove the accumulate liquids", " remove the accumulate grime"). This book [3] does seem to be an actual noun usage in a published source. It is the only of the first 10 hits that has a real noun usage, I gave up after that. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I am driving you to distraction over this, but again, the stress pattern of the adjectival use follows that of the nominal use (stressed u, reduced a), not the verbal use (long final a). For examples, see Wavelength's list linked above. The usage does exist, the google results show multiple intentional examples of that use--i.e., they are primary sources. This matter does not bother me in the least. I am quite sure I have been understood, and I am not going to waste space quoting the search results when people can follow the link. (This articleInitial-stress-derived noun is hardly our best, but it mentions the adj/noun versus verb opposition. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2015_May_20&oldid=1073940700"