Language desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 12

Same word with two origins? (i.e. college)

Why does the English version of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College) give the “law” as the origin of the word “college” while the French version of Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge) gives “read” (“lire” in French) as the origin of that same word???

Compare :

English : Originally, it meant a group of persons living together under a common set of rules (con- = "together" + leg- = "law" or lego = "I choose")…

French : Le terme collège provient du latin collegium (du préfixe co- venant de cum, « avec, ensemble » et de legere, « lire » ; d'où « lire ensemble »).

--66.36.139.178 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Roger Socho[reply]

I'm either clarifying or muddying the waters, but from the online etymology dictionary College links to Colleague. If only we could "choose" to "read" a "law" that would make sense of this. :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"leg-" as in Latin "lex" and English "legal", and "leg-" as in Latin "legere", and English "legible", and French "lire", both come from the same original root. So both etymologies are correct. Thanks: I did not know that! --Anonymous, 00:53 UTC, June 12, 2008.

I suspected as much, but need the masked (of sorts) wikipedian to make it clear! :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Latin leg- can mean "to read", I do not think that meaning plays a role in the etymology of collegium. A collegium was called that because the word originally referred to a body of collegae, that is, co-elects: office holders elected together, in the same election. --Lambiam 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambiam. The English college comes from Old French, so it is very unlikely that the modern English and French words have different etymologies. You may find that another masked Wikipedian has just corrected the French Wikipedia. ;-) --Heron (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory subject "there" and subject-verb agreement in English

In English sentences that begin with introductory subject "there" and with "be" (in its various forms) as the main verb, the number of the verb phrase is governed by the noun phrase following "be". This deviates from the usual rule of subject-verb agreement, which says that the number of the verb is governed by the subject.

Is this an isolated exception or is it a special case of a more general rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.23 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is functioning as an adverbial; the subject of the clause is the element after be. Strad (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But note that in informal usage, "there's" or "there is" is often followed by a plural subject (at least in North America). --Anonymous, 05:24 UTC, June 12, 2008.

The first word...

I believe that the first language was sanscrit. But was was the first word that was ever recorded. Also please correct me if I am mistaken on Sanscrit being the oldest language. As for the English language what was the first recorded word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.131.70 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit was certainly not the oldest language. It is known to have descended from Proto-Indo-European. The hypothetical "first language" of the world is called Proto-World, but it existed long before languages were recorded (if it existed at all) and efforts to reconstruct it haven't been very successful. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the oldest inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon runes consists of the single word "cat"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxons must have had lots of free time in those days.....--ChokinBako (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglo-Sakson lolkat" maybe? doktorb _words^deeds 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as we know it first developed in Sumer, so the first word ever recorded was almost certainly Sumerian. Because it is difficult to date the clay stamps and tablets on which the first Sumerian words appeared, it is virtually impossible to know which of the remaining examples is the oldest. Marco polo (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

Not sure if this is the correct RD for this, but...

My younger brother thinks that people from the US call peanut butter jelly and vice versa. Please try to prove him wrong. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He thinks they use the word jelly for peanut butter? (Or does he mean peanut butter v. peanut paste)? Category:Peanut butter brands lists several US brands using the word peanut butter. The article on peanut butter and jelly sandwich should show that peanut butter and jelly are distinct and non-interchangeable items everywhere, and, according to the article the treat is called peanut butter and jam sandwich in some countries outside the US. Maybe someplaces it is even called peanut paste and jelly/jam sandwich, but I don't think peanut butter is officially called peanut jelly anywhere. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onus is on your brother to provide evidence to support his hypothesis. He is probably confused by the fact that Americans call jam jelly, and are inclined to eat peanut butter with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, rather, that the term in American usage is "peanut butter and jelly" and often, even usually, made with other, more substantial preserved fruit spreads (notably jam, preserves, or conserves, each with its distinct definition). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (language refdesk) is indeed the right place by the way. – b_jonas 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communications job title

What job title do you call a person who does research for an organization, writes information material that will go out to the public, and attends conferences and events to represent the organization, convey its message and collect information to bring back to the organization?--99.231.107.226 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's throwing me off is the research responsibility. The other tasks all look like marketing functions to me, so I am wondering what kind of research this person conducts. Is it research on market trends or sales opportunities? If not, then the job doesn't fall neatly into any standard category. If the research is market-oriented, then this is a marketing job. You could call this person a marketing specialist if the person has only a few years of experience and a marketing director if he or she is somewhat more experienced, manages a staff, or is in need of a more impressive title. If the person is also a manager, you could call him or her a marketing manager. If you have a small firm with a corporate structure and this person runs the marketing operation, you could even call him or her the chief marketing officer (CMO). Marco polo (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds like an amalagmation of several roles. Press Officer or something within the realms of the marketing executive/marketing-world of work is probably the closest match. Generally occupational titles nowadays seem to be sufficiently vague as to make it impossible to decipher quite what someone does for a living, so something generic like Marketing Consultant/executive/buzz-word of choice would work in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like a Public relations manager, perhaps with expanded duties. No? Kreachure (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogsbody?86.53.80.11 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native American naming

There's an old joke (it's appeared in a Terry Pratchett novel, though he wasn't the first to use it) based around the idea that Native Americans are given the name of the first thing that the mother (or, in some accounts, father) sees after giving birth. Now I know full well that in most cases that's not true. Sitting Bull was called that because it had been his father's name, not because his mother saw a bull sitting down. I also know that Native American customs were and are extremely variable.

But is the "first thing seen" idea pure folk etymology - Europeans inventing their own explanation for names that seemed strange to them - or does it have any basis in fact, even if only for a specific tribe in specific circumstances? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sitting Bull was not his original name but one he acquired later in life, which renaming was a common practice. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard that in some tribes at least, babies were given simple animal or plant names, but that once they were old enough to have actually done something noteworthy they got a new name based on the noteworthy event. —An gr 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just call me Sitting in Front of Monitor for Ridiculous Lengths of Time - Sitting Mon for short. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I might ask a follow-up question, why were the names translated into English? For other languages it is more common to Anglicise rather than translate. (Such as the Gaelic "Donnchadh", which becomes "Duncan" not "Brown battle".) Was it considered more important to retain the meaning rather than the sound, or is it merely some kind of inconsistent white-sttler high-handedness? Gwinva (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on the semantic relevance of the words used in naming the person (or place), perhaps also taking the difficulty of the original pronunciation into account. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps-amusing follow-up story: when my daughter was young I enrolled us both in the Indian Princesses organization (ill-advisedly (it had a lot of religious content I was uncomfortable with)), in which I was obliged to choose an "Indian name". In the present-tense-verb-pronoun-object-noun style of "Dances with Wolves", I chose "Sleeps with the Fishes". Unfunnily, several members of my "tribe" thought it was an inappropriate reference to bestiality, rather than a movie reference. :( --Sean 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some names that really got mangled in translation. There was a Sioux warrior called in English, "Young Man Afraid Of His Horses", when, in actuality, his Lakota name was "They (his enemies) Even Fear His Camp Dogs" (horse in Lakota was "big dog"). Corvus cornix_talk 20:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's good hardcore names like "Walking Grizzly Bear" - Hwistesmexteqen which can't transliterate to English at all (see Nicola (chief).Skookum1 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diploma

Help! I failed my diploma! What do I do?! What do I do?!Jwking (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking the Language reference desk at Wikipedia? You should be talking to your teachers or a guidance counselor at your school or someone like that. —An gr 20:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your language one? If you really want help from here, please specify.--Faizaguo (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High vs. tall

I am confused with the difference between "high" and "tall". As I've come to understand, "high" is related to position, i.e. distance from the ground upwards, while "tall" is related to vertical size. In Finnish, the same word "korkea" ("high") would be used for both, except when talking about the length of the human body, when the word is "pitkä" ("long"). What are the rules in the English language about this? JIP | Talk 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think English is one of only a few languages that has a specific word meaning "tall". In Irish, a tall person is called "high", and in French and German a tall person is called "big". But in English, people aren't the only things that can be described as tall; buildings and trees can be called "tall" too. Probably anything whose height is greater than its width can be put on the "short/tall" spectrum. I'd say the difference between "tall" and "high" is that "tall" means "having a relatively great distance from the top of the object described to its own bottom" (including a person for whom the distance from the top of his head to the soles of his feet is relatively far), while "high" means "having a relatively great distance from the ground". Thus the Empire State Building is very tall; a window on its top floor is very high, but a window on its bottom floor is not very high. Likewise Shaquille O'Neal is very tall; his eyebrows are very high when he's standing up, but his toenails are not very high. —An gr 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One exception is mountains; they're high, not tall. Deor (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, tall generally only applies to things that are taller than they are wide and deep (hence mountains and plateaux being high instead of tall). A platform, its breadth and depth exceeding its height, is high and not tall. A stool may be tall, but a desk or bed would be high. A fence or wall, being of great length but shallow width, is tall. Curiously, in Japanese, one does not say a person is tall (high); instead one says that a person has a high back. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did say, "Probably anything whose height is greater than its width can be put on the "short/tall" spectrum." —An gr 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, in Korean you say that a person's height is large. --Kjoonlee 09:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another side note, in Chinese, they's also no distinction, afaik. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

extant vs existent

What is the difference between extant and existent? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Extant" makes you sound like a big brainiac, so you should always use that. :) "Q: What's the difference between a flutist and a flautist? A: About five bucks an hour." --Sean 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, extant occurs predominantly in scientific literature, referring to a taxon or a clade of which at least one member has not yet gone extinct. Existent, on the other hand, is a general-purpose, catch-all word in both colloquial and scientific English, denoting anything that, as of this moment, is thought, alleged, or proved to be. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the use of extant is somewhat more extensive than Sean and Dr Dima imply. One might write, "Cotton Vitellius A.xv is the only extant medieval manuscript containing Beowulf," where it would sound mighty odd to replace extant with existent. Deor (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "existing" to complicate things up a little. GoingOnTracks (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to say "still existing: not lost or destroyed", the word you want is "extant". "Existent" would be a poor substitute, and would make you sound funny. - Nunh-huh 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]