Language desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 8

stairs

If there exist words such as these--

acetabuliform shaped like a shallow cup or saucer
acinaciform scimitar-shaped
aciniform shaped like a berry
aculeiform shaped like a thorn
adeniform shaped like a gland

--what would be the word for "shaped like a stair case"/"shaped like stairs"/"shaped like a series of rising steps"? "Stairiform"? Was there a Latin word for stairs/steps? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

Scaliform is possible (from Latin scala, 'staircase' or 'ladder', usually used in the plural), although the OED doesn't record it as an actually attested English word. The word scalar does have a sense "resembling a ladder"—though it has rarely been used with that meaning—and scalariform has a similar meaning; I can't find any evidence that they've been used to mean "resembling a staircase", however. Deor (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone use the word scaliform, I'd understand it just as easily (perhaps more easily) as the examples in the OP. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick Google search reveals that scaliform is a word in Turkish, although I've no idea if it means anything to do with staircases. Anyway, I think scaliform is great, even if no one has ever used it up until now outside of Turkey. Are there any existing (as in, someone once used it) words for "staircase-like", even if they don't end in "-iform"? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

What's wrong with stairlike? One doesn't always need a Latinate word. Deor (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scaliform" certainly is not a word in Turkish! The second hit I find in googling "scaliform" happens to be a Turkish dictionary, but it is giving the Turkish for the English word "scaliform". The word does not appear in the OED, but the various examples Google turns up mostly seem to mean "shaped like a scale" (in particular 'scaliform leaves'); there seems to be a particular use in hypersolid geometry of "scaliform polychora", referring to polychora which are somewhat less uniform than uniform polychora. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Turkish dictionary that comes up, actually, and that's what threw me. Oh well, I guess I'll take Deor's advice and stop searching for a latinate word. If something's shaped like a staircase, it's just shaped like a staircase, not scaliform... (although if scala means ladder/stairs and not scale, isn't using "scaliform" to mean scale-like sort of off?) 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

Ancient Greek Question: Plural of Maimaktes

So according to Meilichios, Maimaktes means "the raging one" in ancient Greek. What would the plural of Maimaktes be? - in other words, "the raging ones"? Thanks! --Brasswatchman (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionary, it means "boisterous, stormy", and is used mainly as an epithet of Zeus (rather than an ordinary common noun). However, nominative plural would be Maimaktai... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be Maimaktoi, no, since it's masculine? L&S say it has a genitive in -ου. Deor (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ending -oi is the second declension nominative plural, and if a word has a nominative singular in -ês (eta-sigma), it's already not second declension. In fact, the inflection pattern with nominative singular -ês, genitive singular -ou is 1st declension masculine. Such nouns are inflected like 1st declension feminines, except that the nominative singular has a sigma at the end, and the genitive singular is borrowed from the second declension (replacing an earlier disyllabic long alpha + omicron ending seen in Homeric Greek)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just goes to show what one can forget when one hasn't studied Greek for nearly 40 years. Deor (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something at Ancient_Greek_grammar#Alpha_Declension_.28first_declension.29 -- AnonMoos (talk)

Excellent. Thank you both very much. --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the adjectival form of the word 'library'?

Something other than 'library-like' please - thanks, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some people use the word "librarial", but I'm not sure if that's actually listed in any dictionaries. Maybe you can just use "library", as in "library binding", "library edition", etc. (That would only work in certain contexts, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't list an adjectival form. It does say that bibliothec, bibliothecal, bibliothecary, and bibliothetic can all be used as adjectives for belonging/pertaining to a library. It rather depends on the context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going to those places that lend books for a long time, and I've never seen "bibliothecal" or any of its polysyllabic cousins used for a library having works mainly in English. "Library," as Zagalejo suggests, can be a noun adjunct, a noun that modifies another noun. Library edition, library science, library procedure. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Librarial: "glasses made Babel look like a librarian, but his silence is not librarial." Also "librarial and secretarial functions", "librarial support", "a librarial personality", "librarial assistance", "whose aims and objectives are religious, educational, or librarial in nature." —kwami (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, great stuff. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Problems

This paragraph is from the article about the herbicide Roundup:

"Monsanto firmly denies any negative impact on anything, including wildlife, and has many studies it has funded to back up its position.[citation needed] They would also be quick to point out that any possible negative impact on earthworms and nitrogen fixing bacteria, etc., would be offset by greater yields[citation needed], which have not been proven, due to the elimination of weeds, and also would point to soil benefits from less mechanical cultivation of weeds by using Roundup and similar products."

Aside from the lack of sources, I think there are wording problems. Some that stand out IMO are:

"would also be" instead of "are".

"quick to point out" instead of just "point out".

The location of "which have not been proven", interrupting the main thought.

The length of the last sentence due to packing in too many points.

"would point to". I'm not sure how to describe the problem with this but I think there is one.

"cultivation of weeds" I think people cultivate crops and soil but not weeds.

I think there are also wording problems in the first sentence but that sources are needed before these problems can be tackled.

Comments and alternate wording ideas would be appreciated. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "Monsanto...has many studies it has funded" would be better as "Monsanto has funded many studies". Also, If Monsanto is treated as a singular noun (which I agree with), better not to switch to 'They...' - we could say "The company..." instead. Strawless (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, switching to "they" is standard informal North American usage even though companies are treated as singular. In Wikipedia a more formal tone may be appropriate, though. --Anon, 17:36 UTC, September 8, 2008.

Yes. I would change "They" to "The firm", and I would go ahead and make the other changes that you mention. However, the repeated use of the conditional "would" and the lack of sources together are disturbing. I have to wonder how much of this is the writer's mere guesswork or putting of words into the mouths of others. The best course might be simply to delete the passages in question if they cannot be sourced and try to find documents that allow you to state the company's actual position. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an exemplary "role model"

If someone is described as a "role model", is it redundant to add the adjective "exemplary"? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. A rôle model may be good, bad or indifferent. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but "exemplary" wouldn't be my first choice of modifier. Its first def at Merriam-Webster is "serving as a pattern", which is neutral, and means almost the same thing as "role model". If I wanted to stress that somebody is a positive role model, I'd pick an adjective that's more... positive. (I think most people will take "exemplary" as a positive modifier, and there are defs which support this; I just don't think it's the best choice.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first meaning of "exemplary" given in Chambers Dictionary is "worthy of imitation". DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't the same meaning as role model? Chambers says "a good example to follow" for role model. I say "exemplary" is redundant. --23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)

My Chambers doesn't have an entry for rôle model, but I do not think that it is used exclusively for a good example to follow. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was there a memo diffused?

when people write about "diffusing the situation" i always assume they mean "defuse", but lately i've seen that appear in places and/or by people i'd consider not that illiterate. (frinstance http://www.yourdictionary.com/diffuse) am i missing something? Gzuckier (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just careless. The slide is from de-fuse (with a hyphen) to defuse and then to the similar-sounding diffuse, which as a word is more widely used. It's almost a back-formation, like the use of "I'll be out of pocket" to mean "I won't be in touch" rather than the former "I'll have to spend my own money." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how "I'll be out of pocket" might have come to mean "I won't be in touch". Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I don't think I've ever heard it used that way. Gwinva (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you. It's all the rage among U.S. corporate drones, the kind of people who can't say three sentences without including "going forward" and "at the end of the day." Maybe they're shifting paradigms and leveraging their synergies. Or maybe they need more fiber. I honestly can't remember when in the past 10 years I have heard anyone say "out of pocket" to mean "I'm missing money."

My theory, which like many has no supporting evidence, is that they seize on "out," twist it into "away," (as in "I'm going to be out of the office") and drag "of pocket" along as a sort of verbal hostage. Your mileage may vary; past performance is no guarantee of future return; quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --- OtherDave (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always amazed at how quickly these forms of expression catch on. Like "heads up". The first time anyone hears this, they would surely have not the faintest idea what the speaker's talking about. But before you know it, they've abandoned the habits of a lifetime, ditched "I'll let you know" and "I'll be in touch", and started gibbering "I'll give you a heads up". What's my other favourite? Oh, I know. "I have a 4 o'clock, and then a 5 o'clock, but I'll be free after that". I always assume I'm conversing with an horologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll touch base and give you a heads up before that eventuates." Honestly, most middle managers should be shot for the benefit of the language. Anyone touching my base had better be pretty damn cute, is all I will say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my personal relatively recent irritants: "bum rush" as in, "We're all gonna bum rush the gate, they can't keep all of us out" and of course the perennial "on line" as in "i've been on line at the cafeteria for hours just to buy a cup of coffee" Gzuckier (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On line" is a New Yorkism. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On line at the cafeteria? That's the kind of blue sky thinking which really winds me up. Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventuate

"A film version of the Broadway musical, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and an unnamed World War 1 themed musical co-starring Gene Kelly were also discussed, but the projects did not eventuate."

I think that using the word "eventuate" here is pretentious, but is it actually wrong? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect. I would consider 'actualize'. - Lamba jan 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "eventuate" is fairly common in Australia. I used to hear newsreaders saying it. jnestorius^(talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long before 'actualize,' I would consider (and use) "happen." Film versions were also discussed, but the projects never happened. I can't think of any sensible use for "eventuate." In a spelling bee, maybe, but that's quite a reach for "sensible." "Eventuate" may not be "wrong," but it's pompous, self-important, overly latinate, and implies that the writer doesn't know alternatives like "never got off the ground," "never even started," or "went nowhere." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Happen" is a little too semantically empty for me. I'd say "come into being" or "come to fruition" or "materialize" or "get off the ground". —An gr 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much wrong with "eventuate". I might not choose it straight up, but I wouldn't see any need to change it if I were editing someone else's text. I'd certainly prefer it to "actualize", which, if I ever used it at all, which is doubtful, I'd only ever use transitively or passively. OtherDave's and Angr's alternatives are good, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "eventuate" is actually a very appropriate word semantically, but it's so formal as to be precious in almost any context. In this case, I might go with "result". jnestorius^(talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a local thing. Jnestorius and I are both OK with it, and it wouldn't generally be considered precious in Australia. It's concise, it's clearly understood, and it's quite commonly used here. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack: I've regularly heard it used in quite informal contexts, and wouldn't think to change it in the quoted context, where it works well. Antipodean practice, perhaps. Gwinva (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the inputs. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even I'll freely concede it's likely a matter of style. Stylistically, though, "eventuate" is an antimacassar. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, antimacassar happens to be one of my favourite words in the entire lexicon, so I'll thank you not to denigrate it by associating it with something you consider stylistically infelicitous. :) ( I just wish I could get my hands on some macassar oil, the smell of which is incomparable ... ah, the good old days). But to be serious, if it is simply a question of style, then whether it fits or not would depend on which style one adopts, wouldn't it? You can't say that a word is stylistically inappropriate in absolute terms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The leading results of my Google News Search for "eventuate" are links to websites in Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like eventuate! Anywaym realise is surely the mot juste, no?217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in "... the projects were not realised"? Maybe. I have some misgivings about it, but I can't quite put my finger on why. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News from the front. ABC radio news just now had a report that Peter Costello reveals in his just-published memoirs that he prepared a speech in anticipation of John Howard handing over the prime ministerial reins to him after the APEC Summit. But, as the ABC newsreader said, "the handover didn't eventuate". Normally I wouldn't have given this a 2nd thought, but this discussion has sensitised me to it. Here are 2 blogs where the word is used quite naturally (for us) in the same context - [1], [2]. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and here it is online. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opposite of honorific

What's the opposite of "honorific"? I'm thinking of pronouns such as Korean jane "you" which are used towards people of lower social status, as opposed to honorifics used for people of higher social status. kwami (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-honorific forms are usually described as "familiar" or "humble" or "intimate", but I don't know of a specific term for a form that is explicitly below neutral. "Diminutive" maybe, at a stretch? Koolbreez (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Humble" forms are in effect honorifics, since they elevate to topic by downplaying the speaker. That's very different than a form that is insulting or shows contempt. "Familiar" or "intimate" could work, but only if other "familiar" forms are relabeled "plain". kwami (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane is not necessarily familiar or humble or intimate, though. Depending on context, it could be a bit like "sonny boy" (slightly insulting.) --Kjoonlee 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misread your message. --Kjoonlee 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjoon, is jane really a pronoun, or is it a noun like dongsin? kwami (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane really is a pronoun. I'd classify dangshin as three pronouns: an extremely honorific 3rd person pronoun, a polite 2nd person pronoun with polite speech levels, and a rude 2nd person pronoun with casual speech levels. --Kjoonlee 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe that makes two pronouns, not three. But then there's also dangshin used among married couples, as a casual 2nd person pronoun. Which brings us to two pronouns, used in four circumstances. --Kjoonlee 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, what about Japanese kisama or omae? --Kjoonlee 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're either very brusk or rude. But kisama, omae, and dangsin are all nouns used pronominally. kwami (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand; I've never heard anyone use dangshin in a way other than that which I described, and I'd classify those as proper pronouns. --Kjoonlee 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Many east and southeast Asian languages accept multiple nouns for pronominal use in a way that European languages cannot. I'd go so far as to say that Japanese does not have personal pronouns in the Indo-European sense. It looks like historically Korean na- and neo- are true pronouns, but dangsin for example is a Sino-Korean loan word. It may only have pronominal uses today, but it's possible that it isn't as basic as na- and neo-. Or maybe the original pronouns are no more basic than the new ones in modern Korean, as in modern Japanese—I don't know. kwami (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Kisama' and 'omae' were originally made from nouns, meaning 'important person' and 'honourable person in front', respectively. All pronouns in modern Japanese can be said to have originally come from nouns, with the exception of 'kare' (he) which is cognate with 'kore/sore/are' (this/that) and 'kanojo' (she), which is derived from 'kono (or 'ano')' and 'jo = onna, woman'. Interesting to note, while we are on the topic of honorifics, that the words 'kisama' and 'omae' were perfectly acceptable forms of address at various times in history, but have come to be quite the opposite in modern usage. 'Omae' now is only used between close friends/relatives, or when speaking down to someone, whereas 'kisama' is never used unless one is seriously threatening someone. --ChokinBako (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Korean, and nothing relevant to this discussion about Japanese, but when Kwami states above that jane is "used towards people of lower social status", that doesn't necessarily mean it's rude, does it? If I'm a person of standing addressing a servant, I can still be polite while using pronouns that reinforce our relative hierarchical positions. German speakers used to use the third person singular pronouns "Er" and "Sie" (i.e. "he" and "she") capitalized when addressing someone of lower social standing (roughly, you'd ask the stable boy "Where did He put the currycomb?" or the chambermaid "Would She please bring me the mirror?"), but doing so was certainly polite provided the person you were talking really was of lower social status. Obviously it would be rude to address an equal that way, but using the pronouns the way they're intended isn't rude. Is it the same with jane and its Japanese equivalent(s)? —An gr 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, 'omae' can be used between close friends or relatives, and in actual fact it is very common for a man to use the word to his wife and children - with no connotations of impoliteness (or even inferiority) at all. As for 'kare' (he), I have heard on a few occasions people (notably women) talking to me, about me, using this 'pronoun' with the intended effect of it being extremely polite, but not in the sense of me being of a lower social status (higher, in fact, as I was the customer and they were the bar-owners, shop-owners, etc.). I have also heard 'kanojo' (she) used this way, but much less. I get the feeling that you have to be careful when addressing a lady this way, as it may come across as a terrible insult. On a side note, Japanese is notorious for not being explicit on who the speaker is talking about when pronouns can mean practically anything (and are usually left out anyway), and even native speakers get frustrated with each other, so when someone says 'he' meaning 'you', it can be really confusing (Japanese verbs do not differentiate person). When talking to a very young child, Japanese very often use 'boku' or 'ore' (both meaning 'I'), (and sometimes 'watashi', 'I', to a girl) to mean 'you'. The basic idea here is, use the word the person uses to refer to him/herself, which is also why the Japanese very often use a person's name instead of the pronoun for 'you'.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To possibly answer the original poster's question, the "Bengali" chapter of The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5) uses "despective". Part of the reason why the "thou"/"thee" vs. "ye"/"you" contrast disappeared in English was that the "thou" forms acquired strongly despective connotations in many contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, kisama would be despective, then. But still no term for the German use of Er & Sie for polite address of a social inferior. kwami (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a certain punctuation mark

In the dictionary section of my German textbook it uses a character that I am assuming is a hyphen with an umlaut over it. I am trying to figure out how to get that character into Word 2000. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Laptopdude Talk 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first impulse would be to find out if it's a single symbol. If that fails, my next impulse would be to use '-' together with the Unicode codepoint U+0308, like this: -̈ --Kjoonlee 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that's for denoting umlaut plurals (der Apfel, die Äpfel)? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it uses it. After a little searching, I found that it could be made with 3 spaces then U+0335 and U+0308 in word. Thanks, Kjoonlee; I was asssuming it was one symbol. The only problem with your suggestion was that the umlaut was off center. With a little searching I found the hyphen I mentioned before (U+0335) in Word's symbol dialog. Thanks guys =) Laptopdude Talk 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual symbol is U+2E1A (Unicode PDF chart), but you'd need a comprehensive Unicode font installed to access it - none of the standard Windows ones seem to include it. Bazza (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000 has it. I see that the character after ⸚ is ⸛, the swung dash with a circle over it, also frequently found in dictionaries to indicate the headword with the capitalization switched. —An gr 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a bare umlaut with 'strikeout' style: ¨. In my browser the dash is longer than I'd prefer, but try it in your own document. —Tamfang (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]