Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 May 7

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< May 6 << Apr | May | Jun >> Current desk >
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.


May 7

edit

A rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight

edit

Hello, I am German and my English is not so good. I'm looking for a source as early as possible since 1863 in a newspaper, magazine or a book for the slogan „A rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.“ (See also my query at the German Wikipedia [1]) My second question is whether this is already a Winged Word or a catchphrase (in German: Geflügeltes Wort). Thanks for answers. --88.72.111.240 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is from 1864: Raleigh Standard as quoted in the New York Times, January 22, 1864. No luck finding an antebellum source. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That use of the phrase seems to be by the NCpedia editors in introducing the New York Times article. The phrase "A rich man's war and a poor man's fight" doesn't appear to have been used by either the Times or the Raleigh Standard at the time, at least in this case. It certainly sounds like a phrase that would have been used in a Civil War context though. Deor (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody with a NYT subscription (not me) can read the original article here:[2] --136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HHill from the German Wikipedia answered me: „Nein, in dem Artikel FROM NORTH CAROLINA: Excitement About the Rebel Conscription Law. In: New York Times 22. Januar 1864, S. 1 steht dieser Satz nicht. Den auf den auf dem oberen Teil der verlinkten Seite zitierten Text aus der Times vom 12. Mai 1863 habe ich in dieser Ausgabe gefunden. Das hier in Rede stehende Zitat noch nicht. Beide Zeitungen sind übrigens für alle angemeldeten Benutzer, die die Zugangsvoraussetzungen der [Wikipedia:Förderung/The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library] erfüllen, zugänglich (via Proquest bzw. Gale).“ So Deor was right. No sentence in NYT 22. Januar 1864, p. 1. If the sentence can be found in the Times 12. Mai 1863 is still not sure. To read NYT and Times is possible, if you have an account of Wikipedia Library (you might know better than I about this in en.wp). --88.72.111.240 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --88.72.111.240 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it already a Winged Word or a catchphrase today? Can I say this? --88.72.111.240 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, but that might be a matter of opinion; these might help:
  • "Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight". Beyond the History Textbooks. 4 December 2013.
  • Andrea Asoni; Tino Sanandaji. "IFN Working Paper No. 965, 2013" (PDF). Research Institute of Industrial Economics. Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight? Socioeconomic Representativeness in the Modern Military
  • Martin, Bessie (2003). A rich man's war, a poor man's fight : desertion of Alabama troops from the Confederate Army. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0817350109.
  • Keith, Jeanette (2004). Rich man's war, poor man's fight : race, class, and power in the rural South during the first world war. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807855621.
  • "Rich Man's War – Poor Man's Fight – Whiskey & Wickedness".
136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1863: The Rebellion in America by Baptist Wriothesley Noel, published by J. Nesbet, 1863. p 269. "They declare that this is a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight" with a footnote that says "Times, May 12". 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whow. Thank you. Nesbit is published 1863, so Times 12 May 1863 seems now the earliest source, we found. And thanks to all the other answers. (Now time to bed for me. :-) --88.72.111.240 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Geflügeltes Wort

edit

Folowing on from this, the German article for Geflügeltes Wort (literally "winged word") links to the English catchphrase. I would associate a catchphrase with a line used by a comedian rather than something used in politics. Is there a better translation for the example quoted above? Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an(other?) elderly Brit, the comedic application is not predominant for me, and M. Roget has not suggested any better, more politically oriented term. {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I think "familar quotation" might catch at least the gist of the meaning of geflügeltes Wort. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: The origin of this german term is connected to Georg Büchmann. --88.72.111.240 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geflügeltes Wort (also in the Scandinavian languages: bevingede ord in Norwegian and Danish, bevingade ord in Swedish) covers a lot more than the English term 'catchphrase'. It can be a catchphrace, but it may also be a literary quotation, a slogan, a proverb, a maxim, any expression that is well-known enough to have the power of "flying by itself". The term ἔπεα πτερόεντα – words with wings – was used already by Homeros many times, both in the Iliad and the Odyssey. --T*U (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't catchphrases often connected to certain persons, who would use them repeatedly, whereas Geflügelte Wörter could be linked to certain persons, but it might not have belonged to their regular speech habits. Apparently, Bartlett has released a book of "Familiar quotations", a phrase I think functions reasonably well. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geflügeltes Wort seems to be another useful German term that doesn't really have an adequate English corresponding term, (along with fremdschämen and schadenfreude, &c.). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.s: I wonder why this term wasn't created as a single word (as Germans like to do). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would have to be someting like "Flügelwort". Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Hehe, or like the legendary Kindergarten. :-) Maybe, Georg Büchman or his publisher Friedrich Weidling imagined Pegasus. Büchmann was 1848 - 1877 teacher. He wrote: Ein geflügeltes Wort ist ein in weiteren Kreisen dauernd angeführter Ausspruch, Ausdruck oder Name, gleichviel welcher Sprache, dessen historischer Urheber oder dessen literarischer Ursprung nachweisbar ist. The literarily record is one of the main characteristics of a Geflügeltes Wort. --88.72.111.240 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary has an entry winged word, with a quotation from 1591 in the sense as used by Homer. A quotation suggestive of the currently common sense of geflügeltes Wort, but most likely intended in the Homeric sense, is from 1891, by Thomas Carlyle. Here we find, "A proverb is 'a winged word, outliving the fleeting moment'." This characterization is attributed to Cervantes.  --Lambiam 06:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Perhaps English should just co-opt the whole word, like schadenfreude or zeitgeist? Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or incorporate word on wings as an idiomatic expression.[3]  --Lambiam 09:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "winged word" is aliterative, already, which I find phonetically pleasing... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would we prefer "winged word" or wingéd word".? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wang word? Wung word? --Jayron32 18:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody Wang Wung Tonight! 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2023_May_7&oldid=1154845028"