Language desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

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.

November 29

war on terror

i am looking for a part of speech. if otto from the simpson's name is palendrome. and plop, bang, and clap are onimatipias. then the phrase war on terror, eg war causes terror therefore war cannot be against itself. or, if the only thing constant is change then change cannot be constant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in terms? Oxymoron? Paradox? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an oxymoron because the inherent contradiction is not deliberately ironic. Reading the page on contradiction plus its linked pages suggested by Sluzzelin, above, should help. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though you are right, I still suspect the answer to the question "I am looking for ..." is oxymoron. Despite the correctness of your distinction, I have noticed that a lot of people use the word oxymoron for any perceived contradiction, whether intentional or funny or not. Oxymoron itself is also a funny word that somehow sticks in people's mind. I may be wrong, and am speculating that the querent has read or heard but can't quite remember the word, or maybe even a tip of the tongue situation. If we're lucky we might even get feedback from 82.3.145...---Sluzzelin talk 07:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I so agree with your take on this, S! In the vernacular (spoken/written), In such cases, I myself would call it a "contradiction in terms" since I'm too Old School to sling around "oxymoron" for its catchy cachet. That English usage continues in perpertual flux (albeit at an accelerated pace in this age of electronic communications across the global village)is no reason to capitulate to blurring perfectly good and helpful distinctions. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there an answer in here somewhere? Is it possible to take this question in good faith? Just asking, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)~~ Don't worry, I get it now. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it can be taken in good faith. The question was most probably posted by someone who wants to express their disagreement with the war on terror by pointing out its inherent illogicalness (is that even a word?) in some other forum and has come here to doublecheck the expression they want to use, so that they won't be called out for their argument on a techicality. In this day and age, I find that quite admirable, actually, what with (deliberate or natural) ignorance rampant on the internets. I would also like to add for the opening poster - your examples are a palindrome and onomatopoeia. Not to be smug or anything, it's just that particularly the second one took me a couple of seconds and a reading aloud to even recognize. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive, feedback, Yes 'twas a tip of the tounge type question, and it was asked and answered. However I wish to point out the oft heard mistake in the pronunciation of "oxymoron",many people refer to it as "oxy-moron" whereas the correct pronunciation is "oximoron" with the accent on the bovine. Furtheremore, oxymoron is a very funny artivle,good work towho ever. :-] 82.3.145.61 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)zionist[reply]

Indeed. When pronounced "Oxy moron" like a compound, it refers to a student or graduate of Occidental College. —An gr 08:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought that meant a teenager who suffered brain damage from excessive use of oxycontin. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too cheesy, but this thread (and the sorting out happening elsewhere) is typical of what i luv about the desks. Cheers all, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To balance the phrase "war on terror," there's always the Unitarian Jihad. --- Brother Lochaber Axe of Reasonableness, otherwise OtherDave (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue it as a repeatitive phrase if you consider both to be a form of intemidation. However, it depends on what angle you approach this. Technically "terror" or even "terrorism" does not have a definition that makes it contradictory or synominous with "war". Terror is simply the state of being terrified or an action causing dread (terrorism is a system of terror). A war is a hostile confrontation between two opposing groups. Thus grammar-wise the two are separate. That being said it can be argued that modern application of war is in fact a system that causes terror. What underminds the argument towards the parent eating the child senerio (or oxymoron as being argued) is the fact that modern application of terror being used in the phrase is a specifically the terrorism applied by extremist groups such as al qaeda. Thus it is not "war on terror" but "war on Terror." Hope you followed that. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "War on terror" doesn't seem like an oxymoron, any more than "fighting fire with fire" is. It's entirely possible to use a thing to fight against that thing. The death penalty for murderers would be another example. Also note that "war" doesn't just mean military conflict, it can also have a broader meaning, such as the "war on poverty", which doesn't mean shooting all the poor people to end poverty, except maybe in Zimbabwe. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that war, by definition, causes terror for somebody (in the war zone), and "war on terror" is interpreted as "war on 'terror in general'", wouldn't it be OK to call it an oxymoron? The "war on terror" is probably intended as a "war on 'terror against the US'" or "war on 'terror against the West'" and so may be logically consistent. Jørgen (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page Criticism of the War on Terrorism calls the term a misnomer. So does the War on Terrorism page, just not in the first two sentences. Both pages mention other terms for the phrase, such as "metaphor". Neither page mentions the term oxymoron. One quote from the War on Terrorism page I liked is, "The term “war on terrorism” is a misnomer, resulting in distorted ideas of the main threat facing Americans today. Terrorism is only a means to an end; in this respect, a "war on terror" makes no more sense than a war on submarines." Pfly (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If we take the Palestinian issue, one can fully support the overall goal of the Palestinians, to have an independent state, without supporting the methods some have chosen to achieve this goal, such as blowing up bus loads of civilians. For other examples, supporters of a particular war may be opposed to the use of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons during that war, or genocide against civilian "enemies" during that war. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you, though I think the phrase "war on terror" is often used in a vague and "distorted" way. But yes, one can be opposed to the use of terrorism and strive to stamp it out. Calling such an effort a "war" might not be a misnomer then. Perhaps a "poor choice of words"? Pfly (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also WW1: "The war to end all wars". Even though it didn't succeed, using military conflict to stop further military conflict was clearly the goal of that statement, so was that a poor choice of words ? StuRat (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. Pfly and the page are not saying you can't be opposed to the use of terrorism nor is it necessarily oxymoric to have a war on terror. What they are asking is whether it makes sense to have a war on a tactic. Being opposed to a tactic is one thing. Going to war against people who support or use the tactic is another. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to have a war on a tactic. (The more complicated question is whether America is really 'at war' with all terrorism or just the instances they don't agree with. This is intrinsicly tied in with the question of how you define terrorism) Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it at all, although my previous post (13:28, 1 December 2008) mentioned another issue. As I mentioned in the post before that (16:36, 30 November 2008) it is indeed possible to oppose particular warfare tactics which you find unacceptable. This can even go so far as using military force against those who employ such tactics, whether they be attacks on civilians, use of WMD, genocide, etc. The "war on terror" thus seems like a perfectly correct phrase to describe the use of methods, up to and including military force, against those who target civilians. What phrase would you propose, instead ? Also note that, even if George Bush's policies vary from that goal, that doesn't mean the phrase itself is bad. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, what the person was asking, and i should know, was, what is the correct english statement for a phrase that opposes itself, like, the whiteness of the black. or the goodness of evil. the war on terror, taken as a statement, war is men killing other men, this is terrifying to those involved directly. threfore war causes terror so the statement refutes itself. is this an oxymoron, moron?

You seem to be missing a very basic fact, that, while "good" and "evil" are opposites (as are "black" and "white"), "war" and "terror" are NOT opposites, therefore it's not an oxymoron, moron. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification [Chinese Muslims' ancestor, in BBC documentary]

I watched a three-part BBC documentary on Ibn Battuta sometime ago. Arabist Tim Mackintosh-Smith retraced his journey from Northern Africa to China and back. The third part finds Mackintosh-Smith in China speaking with the leader of the Chinese-Muslim "Ding" clan. They claim there "first ancestor" came to China from Arabia 700 years ago. Mackintosh-Smith notes the first ancestor's Chinese name sounds like the Arabic title "Son of Religion," which was one of Battuta's nicknames. I can't, however, make out the exact Arabic term. Maybe somebody on here can catch it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8593536325671669539&ei=8B6eSNmAN4zM4ALtvuEV&q=Tim+Mackintosh-Smith&hl=en

It takes a while for the video to fully load since it's an hour long. Fast forward to 36:40. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it for ya. It's actually "Sun of (the) religion": "Shams iddeen". Wrad (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly seem to be far from conclusive from a strictly linguistic point of view. Anyway, شمس الدين ... AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Islam-Chinese connection in the name could be just a coincidence. Wrad (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]