Language desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 8

Shark

Both the shark and the Yucatec Maya language articles contain the claim that the word "shark" may come from the Maya language. The claim seems to be based on an unsourced and rather casual remark made in Michael D. Coe's book Breaking the Maya Code (I have the book). I wonder if anyone here is aware of any scholarly sources relating to the supposed etymology. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin "sharkus" meaning rough skin is the most likely origin according to the discovery website. http://www.discovery.com/stories/nature/sharkweek2000/sharkweek2000.html

Hope this helps. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without looking in my dictionary I can promise you there is no such word as "sharkus" in Latin. —An gr 09:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re sharkus. What is it about this combination of letters that makes it obviously not a Latin word? Just wondering. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Latin had no "sh" sound. 2) Latin orthography had no "sh" spelling. 2) In Latin orthography, the letter "k" tended to be used only in a very few words (almost always before the vowel "a"), as in "Kalendae" (the 1st day of a month), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone could conact the discovery channel and tell them how wrong they are (I was wondering about whether 'sharkus' was real or not too). Wikisaver62 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't even find the word "sharkus" on the page you linked to. Of course, on my computer (with three different browsers) the entire right-hand side of that page is just black. —An gr 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a quiz with four possible etymologies of "shark". "Sharkus" was the first option; another was that it comes from "sharp", and two others I had never heard of before. I couldn't get the page to load the answer but I think Wikisaver may have misread or misinterpreted what he was looking at. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was "sharcus", not "sharkus". But I still doubt it's a Latin word. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is an etymological alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a convincing etymology for the word (actually I don't believe there're convincing etymologies for most words); I'm just curious about how people came up with the (dubious) Maya etymology, and I'm rather inclined to remove the claim in the relevant artitcles, but it's safer to ask the experts here first.--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarx (σαρξ), root "sark-" (not "shark"), is the Greek (not Latin) word for flesh (not "rough skin") , but I don't know of any plausible path by which this ancient Greek word could have acquired the current pronunciation and meaning of the word "shark" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "Of obscure origin. The word seems to have been introduced by the sailors of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins's expedition, who brought home a specimen which was exhibited in London in 1569. The source from which they obtained the word has not been ascertained. Cf. Ger. dial. (Austrian) schirk sturgeon: see SHIRK n.2. The conjecture of Skeat that the name of the fish is derived from SHARK v.1 is untenable; the earliest example of the vb. is c 1596, and the passage alludes to the fish." BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I've consulted the OED, as well as using JSTOR to search relevant articles, but to no avail. The more I search, the more the supposed Maya etymology looks fishy.--K.C. Tang (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider the Homeric fragmental epos, The Hunting of the σnαρξ. The mysterious disapperance of Homer and all trace of him when composing this, his last, poem, has given rise to the theory that the very σnαρξ of the title was a Boojum...... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related question (sort of) about sarcoidosis

The above question got me making some connections. Shark is supposedly related to words meaning skin or flesh. That made me think of skin diseases, and in particular sarcoidosis. According to our article, it's derived from σαρξ (sarx), meaning flesh. Yet it can occur in any organ, not necessarily in the flesh specifically. I think of it as a skin disease, because I had an episode of it some years ago, and I had erythema nodosum and lymph gland inflammation. My flesh was unaffected, but the skin of my shins was red and I had joint pain and fever. (It would probably be diagnosed as Löfgren syndrome these days, given the symptoms I had.) So I'm wondering why they named the disease after the word for flesh, which seems to be not particularly relevant. And do sharks ever get sarcoidosis? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The -oid- suffix usually means "looking like", so if the physical manifestation of the disease merely looked like extra flesh where it shouldn't be to the first person who described the disease, he could have called it sarcoidosis for that reason alone. —An gr 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, Angr. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Don't know about Sharks and sarcs, but as for the diseases naming, it was initially described around 1890-1900 by a few different Dermatologists (Ernest Henri Besnier, Cæsar Peter Møller Boeck and others). Being dermatologists, and living in an age of a less holistic approach to medicine, they would have concentrated on the skin manifestations of the disease. The name stuck and hasn't been changed. Old names tend to stick, while newer ones get challenged as a result of new research: like ME/CFS.Fribbler (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if they were focussing on issues with the skin, why wouldn't they have named it after whatever the Greek word for skin is, rather then the Greek word for flesh? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know what a dermatologist studies, and what dermatitis is, you can guess what the Greek word for skin is... ;-) —An gr 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermoidosis? :) Actually, on reflection, they may have coined the word sarcoid first, then extended it to sarcoidosis. Our disambig page suggests that sarcoids occur only in horses and related animals, but that's not true. (Or, maybe I really am a horse after all.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the only example of a medical term that doesn't mean what it seems to mean; usually because the term outlived the theory under which it was coined. —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

For the sake of this experiment my company is called Blue Sky. Which of the following is correct and why:

Blue Sky supply the food or
Blue Sky supplies the food.

Thanks for any help! --217.227.113.167 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either. If you want to use British English (or a related dialect), the first could work. If you want to use American English, the second would be preferable. See American and British English differences. --LarryMac | Talk 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to remain consistent, meaning, if you treat it as a singular, then you have to use singular pronouns elsewhere in the same text, e.g.

Blue Sky supplies the food ...... it also does X
not Blue Sky supplies the food ... they also do X
or Blue Sky supply the food ... it also does X. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One right out of three! The first one is correct in formal North American English, as you might see in a business report or legal document. But the second one is not wrong; it's standard informal North American English, as would be used in a conversation or casual writing. In the third one, on the other hand, you mean "they also do X". --Anonymous, 21:47 UTC, October 8, 2008.

No, I meant what I wrote. No. 3 was another example of what not to write, the reverse of No. 2. But you're right that the rule applies to formal writing, and you can get away with less rigour in other contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to #2, it's not "getting away with" something, it's idiomatic usage. Outside of formal contexts I'd say #1 is wrong. As to #3, sorry I misunderstood your intention with the not/or thing. --Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Your views are becoming more firm. First you said #1 is correct in formal contexts; now you're saying it's wrong in any other context. I don't subscribe to the view that one must always adopt the idiom of whoever one happens to be with. What if they had the same philosophy? Nobody would know how to talk at all, for fear of getting it wrong. #1 may not be the dominant version in informal contexts, but that doesn't make it "wrong" to use it in such contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there exists a field of usage (milieu, dialect, community, register, call it what you will) in which #1 is wrong, in just the same way as there exist fields of usage where only one of "center" and "centre" is a correct spelling. Obviously other people have conflicting usages. Your comment about "getting away with" appeared to be denying that such usage existed. --Anon, 18:12 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Not at all. That phrase actually acknowledges that deviances from some "norm" (for lack of a better word) do actually occur, because otherwise there'd be nothing to get away with (or with which to get away, if one prefers). To get away with something in a linguistic context is my way of saying it would be generally acceptable, although if you look hard enough you'd find a copy editor who'd change it (and you mightn't have to look all that hard). I agree that you could find a particular milieu, dialect, community or register where #1 would definitely be out of place. But to say it's wrong for all such contexts is itself a wrong statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listas repr.

If I switch my iPod to the Spanish language setting, "Playlists" are called "Listas repr." What is "repr." short for? I can't seem to find any words that would make sense in context. jeffjon (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Google search [1], it's short for lista de reproducción. It seems to be somewhat idiomatic in Spanish, so that's why it doesn't make much literal sense, other than the meaning connection between reproducción and recording, replay, etc.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'd think it would have occurred to me to do my googling on the spanish-language site. Thanks, jeffjon (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reproducir is the most suitable translation of play in this usage. The re- prefix is associated with the idea of producing back the sound. Fair enough, this meaning is not recorded in the current edition of the DRAE, though it will appear in the 23rd edition of the dictionary: "Hacer que se vea u oiga el contenido de un producto visual o sonoro." Pallida Mors 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]