Language desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

Words

I know this is a stupid question, but do we have any idea of how many words there are in the English language? The estimates given there are a bit unspecific on what counts as a seperate word, whether they count both hurried and hurriedly as seperate words or not seems like a bit of an issue. But ROUGHLY speaking, what number seems about right? Thanks a lot, and again, sorry for the stupid question. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stupid question. The Oxford English Dictionary provides meanings for over half a million English words, which are listed under about 300 000 head words. Many of these are archaic, and thus rarely (if ever) encountered in modern works. Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means there are 300,000 words, then. The rest are combinations and derivatives, as the Oxford English Dictionary article says. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you correctly spell, "dubious"?

I was reading an interesting book, and I kept happening upon the word, "dubious", and I have no idea what it means. Please help me out of this dire situation. --The'yellow'poet (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try dictionary.com rather than wikipedia. kwami (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wiktionary. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: Most words with this suffix "ous" go back to a Latin root. In this case it is dubius -a -um [doubtful]. (1) act. , [wavering]; in opinion, [doubting; uncertain]; as to action, [hesitating, irresolute]. (2) pass., [uncertain, doubted, doubtful]; n. as subst.; 'in dubium vocare', [to call in question]; 'procul dubio', [without doubt]. (3) fig., [doubtful, dangerous, critical]. Adv. dubie, [doubtfully]; 'haud dubie', [certainly]., as per http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=dub&ending=io. Any old online Latin dictionary will do. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a Latin dictionary to find this English word. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dubious" is the correct spelling (re: title of this post).--ChokinBako (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew translation

I'm looking for the Hebrew translation for the word Zest. This word was used to describe the name of that particular day you were born. Not sure of its orgin. But I would like to see the Hebrew interpreation based on the Zohar or any other mystical teachings. Thanks for your help. P.Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.141.64 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which language is "zest"? kwami (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "zest" does not "describe the name of that particular day you were born".

The Hebrew lexicon does not contain such a word pronounced ZEST.

The Hebrew word "of that particular day you were born" is: יום הולדת (see: Ezekiel 16,4). Sometimes (and usually in the bible, e.g. Genesis 40,20; Ezekiel 16,5) it's spelled without the fifth letter, i.e. יום הלדת, but it's not the usual spelling in regular texts.

Eliko (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern idiomatic usage runs the two words into one another, dropping the ה. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In slang only. The user who asked for the translation is looking for traditional texts, not for texts written in slang. Eliko (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee that whatever the OP is looking for, it's not יום הולדת! --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's been "looking for the Hebrew translation for the word Zest... used to describe the name of that particular day you were born", so I answered him - as clearly and loudly as I could - that "The English word 'zest' does not describe the name of that particular day you were born", and that "The Hebrew lexicon does not contain such a word pronounced ZEST". I've also added, just by the way, that "The Hebrew word of 'that particular day you were born' is: יום הולדת", thus letting him understand that if he wants to get more information from the judaic sources about "that particular day you were born" - then he may find it by referring to יום הולדת. For example, he may look here, including the bibliographic sources below, mainly footnote no. 10 (about the mystical perspective). Eliko (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP, I don't have a source to back this up, but traditional Hebrew texts like the Zohar may not help you too much, as traditionally not much importance was ascribed to a birthday. Death days, however, were and are recorded and marked and, in the cases of great leaders, for perpetuity. On the other hand, there was some intersection of astrology/Zodiac and Jewish mysticism, but I think it was more about the constellations from which the "star signs" take their names, than about applying them to individuals based on birth date, though I could be mistaken on that. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym for "split up"

I'm currently reviewing a potential FA candidate for LOCE duties, and I come across the phrase "split up" pretty frequently. I've consulted two thesauri for a possible synonym to replace it but haven't come to a good word yet. Any ideas? --^La Pianísta! 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divide, subdivide. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, fast response! However, Wrad, that isn't the context of the word. Here's the sentence: "However, on April 21, 2003, during a live onstage performance, S Club announced that they were to split up." --^La Pianísta! 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Break up", "separate", "go their indivdual ways", "dissolve" the group or partnership? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disband = "to break up or cause to cease to exist" as per http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disband is a possibility. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks, guys, for all your help. =) --^La Pianísta! 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "to be instructed in the ways of sth" mean?

I'm trying to translate some text from english and I need some help. Can someone tell me what does "sb is instructed in the ways of the world" mean. I supposed that it means that that person knows very well how to live, how to work and she or he knows social reality. But I'm affraid that it has some other specyfic meaning. I would be gratefull for the answer! Rafał —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.11.252 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They learned / were taught not to be naive. kwami (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!79.173.11.252 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The ways of the world" means the wicked ways: deceit, and the pursuit of pleasure. The aim of the instruction is usually not to enable somebody to emulate this, but to make them aware of and able to recognize it, so as not to be ensnared by it. --Lambiam 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words in question appeared exactly in that context: of avoiding of pleasure. Your answer helped me so much!

Word Meaning a Small Input Causing a Large Output

Hello,

I'm trying to find out if a word exists, but so far reverse dictionaries have not been helpful. I want to know if there is a word to describe the concept of a small input causing a large output (in any system or situation).

Thank you in advance for your help.

--Grey1618 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Butterfly effect might be helpful in your search. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or snowball - people say stuff like "things just snowballed out of control", or perhaps avalanche - but that's probably not going to get the concept of small-to-large, just purely large. Snowball shows up as "to grow rapidly in significance, importance or size" from here (http://www.answers.com/snowballed&r=67) ny156uk (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what context this is to be used in, how about something related to similar concepts in electronics: amplify or relay? jeﬀjon (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Disproportionate' might help. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Positive feedback is relevant but would be misunderstood. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Smart" effect? The concept is sometimes around "minimum effort, maximum results" as in "work smart", "smart mob" or "smart" technology that does more than is normal (eg "Smart bullet") but can't find in dictionary. Then there are hollow point bullets that make a small entry point, expanding as they leave their target, but no term for that effect in their description. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In electronics, a device that results in a large output from a small input is said to have the property of gain. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient, productive, profitable... Wrad (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you divide one number by another, the more tiny the denominator is, the more enormous the quotient becomes. How about we coin "microdenominator"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disproportionate effect, high gain, chaos, hyperbolic, catalytic, potent, magnify, efficient, influential, impregnate, germinative, virulent, trigger, spark, nudge, voice behind the throne, foment, instigate, leaven ("an agency which produces profound change by progressive inward operation"). kwami (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" is a phrase I've seen used to describe butterfly effect-type situations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling help.

Ok the word is an adjective used when describing art and music its spelled something like (i think) "auviounce" or "onviounce" and sounds somthing like awe (like "im in awe) vi- ounce (like ponce de leon) awe-vi-ounce it sound french hope thats enough info

Ambience. kwami (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, really, I don't know why people try to use the French pronunciation (with a stress on the final syllable and all) for what is now an English word. There's nothing wrong with saying "AM-bi-əns". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people say "ahn-too-RAHZH" instead of "en-TOO-ridge" for what is also now an English word? --Lambiam 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the former is the correct pronunciation of the word in English? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason people in academia pronounce "processes" as "PROH-cess-eez", I suspect. Non-English pronunciation sounds more "learned", and people even use some words with the "learned", foreign pronunciation subconsciously without thinking that they are the same as an ordinary English word. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROcess is the pronunciation of the word process when it is a noun. ProCESS is its pronunciation as a verb. The change of stress also applies to words like upset. As for French pronunciation, there is no stressed syllable in a word in French. It is a delicate matter to adjust the correctness of foreign pronunciation to make it intelligible in common speech. Back in my Francophone days I had to adjust the pronunciation of English words to French ears so they sounded "English" enough, but did not use phonemes that French ears could not assimilate. SaundersW (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I say PROH-cess and UP-set for both the noun and the verb. And I don't understand Rspeer's point, either. PROH-cess is the standard English pronunciation. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British/American thing! The more common U.S. pronunciation has a short O rather than a long O. FWIW I say PRAH-cess (both n. & v.), up-SET (v. & adj.), UP-set (n.) Jack^(Lumber) 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note the final syllable "eez" (rather than "iz") in the pronunciation that Rspeer was referring to. Deor (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that. Yes, I normally use a reduced vowel in processes. Jack^(Lumber) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these pronunciative (?) distinctions are being blurred these days. Once upon a time it was de rigeur to say FI-nance for the verb ("to finance"), and fə-NANCE for the noun, but hardly anyone adheres to that rule these days; no, not even I. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I have a friend who goes apocalyptic when I pronounce "croutons" without pronouncing the final "s". She says I'm being ridiculous and pompous. I say I am ridiculous and pompous, so that's alright then. Actually, and I've no idea about in America, but us Brits are very ambivalent about this issue. There are certain borrowed words we'd always pronounce (or try to pronounce) with their foreign intonation, like "foie gras" (at least I've never heard anyone call it foy grass) and "pièce de résistance", some where some do, some don't ("ambience" is a good example, or "élite") and some where no-one bothers ("cul-de-sac" anyone?). --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purely because this is the language desk and you are a regular (so I hope this doesn't come across as mean) I love the idea of sending your friend apocalyptic with a single word. "Crouton(s)" "And the sea shall be as blood, and the sky shall be aflame, and all shall bow before DEATH! What use then your croutons?" Alternatively, perhaps you meant apoplectic, which isn't nearly as fun :) 130.88.140.107 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I used the word advisedly. The end of days shall be as nothing, for I have verily looked into the abyss and it is called women's wrath. With boiling eyes, a great shrieking as if the heavens themselves had split asunder and vessels growing wings and taking flight without care for the ease of their path. And truly, it is a fearful thing, prompted by the little thing with equal retribution as if it were the Great Thing itself. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 April 8