Language desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3

Fallacy?

I didn't really know where to put this but here goes- what is the name of the argument/logical fallacy of saying "A is worse than B, therefore B isn't bad" (ok that example doesn't describe it well enough, read on). I thought of this because a self-proclaimed psychic in Iceland announced that there would be an earthquake on July 27. When it didn't come true, in her defence she said something like "Yeah I know that scaring people with prophecies is bad but I just read a story about an American woman who decapitated her child- are you really saying I'm worse than she is?" to which the reported admitted "no, you're not worse than a decapitating infanticide". This isn't really a logical fallacy I guess since there isn't any falsehood in it- (since I don't think making predictions like that is worse than killing a baby)- but it's distracts the audience from what she did.

So in short, what is it called when you try to make yourself look better by pointing out worse people than you? --BiT (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, how do we know that no one died from heart failure due to that prediction? In any case, it might come under the umbrella of "rationalization", which means justifying some questionable action by oneself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know for certain that a lot of people (especially children) got scared and some people camped out during that night. But if we just assume that her prediction caused no fatalities then it's not a nice thing to do nevertheless. Yes I guess rationalization describes it pretty well- I was just wondering if there was a sort of name for this sort of 'reasoning'? --BiT (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] By name I mean something like "argumentum ad hominem". --BiT (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds vaguely akin to something that's sometimes called a "fool's choice", when an arguer poses A or B as if there were no other choice. Note the wording, "Are you saying...?" No, the questioner is not saying that - the one defending herself came up with that. That requires a snappy response from the alert questioner, like, "What has that other story got to do with your pulling this scam?" or something equally tactful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a fallacy exactly. See List of fallacies. It sounds a bit like a red herring, though. Indeterminate (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring, yes, could be. "Spurious analogy" comes to mind also. Because it's "not as bad as murder", then it's somehow OK? Nah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my youth we'd respond to this type of argument with "and what does that have to do with the price of fish?" -- but I'm not aware of this (very common) argument having an official name.- KoolerStill (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a type of non sequitur. You say one thing and then say another thing as if the first implies the second when it doesn't, but that isn't particularly precise - most logical fallacies take that form. --Tango (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do languages that use symbols (like Chinese) deal with new or unfamiliar words?

I just wondered how languages like Chinese deal with new or unfamiliar words. For example when there is an invention like "radar" or the "Segway PT" does someone come up with a new unique symbol? If so how do people know how to pronounce it?

A similar issue, what happens when as unfamiliar place, person or object is in the news, for example "Chernobyl" and "Waco, Texas" were largely unknown to international media before hitting the headlines. With alphabetical languages you at least get some idea of how they are pronounced (though I would imagine that a Ukranian would find the Western pronunciations of Chernobyl rather strange). This means that you can immediately recognise the place in a newspaper headline as the same as that talked about on the radio. Does this happen in countries where Symbolic languages are used? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, no. We imitate the sound. For example, bus becomes bashi (巴士) and radar becomes leida (雷達). The same thing goes for the second. Albert Einstein becomes aiyinsitan (愛因斯坦). However, once in a while to TV channels have two individual translations, such as Michael Phelps. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 11:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages like Cinese and Japanese also tend to have Syllabyllic writing systems, which circumvents the problem of having to invent a new sign for each new word. For example: In Japanese Hiragana and Katakana are used to write out approximations of the foreign Words in Japan. The fact that the Japanese language does not contain every sound that is possible in English often yields strange-sounding "translations" of words.--91.6.16.34 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, katakana is used for most(?) foreign terms. So you will see セグウェイ (seguuei). You might find the answers to my question last year, useful as well. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 23#Which Indo-European syllables for Japanese. Astronaut (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about new words that aren't from a foreign language? How are new words invented internally? --Tango (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way they are in English: as the need arises, new terms appear. Think for instance of terms like "upload" and "download." Speaking of computers, if it helps to answer your question, in Chinese the word for computer is 電腦, which consists of two characters literally meaning "electric" and "brain." The character 電 (electricity) itself was created from two characters meaning "rain" and "lightning." Exploding Boy (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we seldom, if not never, create new characters. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Didn't mean to cause confusion, only pointing out that at some point in the now fairly distant past, an entirely new--and in this case incredibly important--concept (electricity) had to be described, and a new character was created for it, not trying to suggest that new characters are regularly created, but rather new terms, just as in English. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but I remember reading that a whole series of new Chinese characters to refer to chemical elements was created in modern times. What do you know, we actually have an article Chemical elements in East Asian languages. 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. I also want to add that we use the same building blocks. For example, jin (金) and li (里) already exist. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In informal cases, we have direct translations, such as facebook and youtube. The translasions for Cambridge and Oxford are also particularly funny. You will also be amazed at how Sherlock Holmes and Formosa sound alike in chinese. Hah! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic language.

Why don't you list arabic (spoken by hundreds mullions people) among the languages proposed by Wikipedia? 193.250.201.121 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://ar.wikipedia.org It's listed on the main page of www.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]Proposed as what? Do you mean the languages Wikipedia is offered in? There's an Arabic version of Wikipedia, if that's what you're asking about. If that's not what you mean, you're going to have to explain what you're looking for. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many articles on the English Wikipedia, have corresponding articles on the Arabic Wikipedia. For example, if you look at the article on Arabic language, you will see a link to العربية in the "languages" box on the left. These are called inter-wiki links. Astronaut (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic Wikipedia has a fair number of gaps (it's interesting that the Arabic Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia contain roughly comparable numbers of articles, despite the fact that there about 20 times the number of speakers of Arabic as speakers of Hebrew). For example, there are probably articles on fewer than half the national flags of the world. I tried to slightly improve a few articles, but am limited since I'm not a native or near-native speaker (for instance, I looked at 3 or four large English-Arabic dictionaries, and still couldn't find an Arabic translation of "naval jack"...). AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term to describe two words that, when pronounced together, create ambiguity as to what the two words are?

I'm wondering if there is a term in the English language for two words that, when pronounced together, create ambiguity as to what the two words are. For example, the following phrase: "peace stain", when spoken aloud, cannot be differentiated from "pee stain." Other similar examples: "Peace train" / "pee strain." "knee strain" / "niece train". "least rain" / "lease train". -- Cobfreak (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When done on purpose, it's a "play on words", which is very easy to do in English due to its mongrel nature. Slurring words together can also create different words. "And per se 'and'" evolved into "ampersand", for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That wasn't exactly what I was looking for as "play on words" is too broad, but it led me to the articles here on Word play and List of forms of word play which in turn led to Mondegreen, which is exactly what I was after. - Cobfreak (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for reminding me of that term. :) It can be done on purpose, as with one of W.C. Field's writing pseudonyms, Mahatma Kane Jeeves, which he got from "My hat, my cane, Jeeves!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought "ampersand" came from the Greek word "ampers" -- "squiggly character meaning" -- and "and"... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the examples are all mondegreens. The two versions (the correct one and the one the listener thinks they hear) don't have to sound exactly the same to qualify as a mondegreen, but at least very close. Yours pass with flying colours. Mondegreens usually occur in the context of a complete sentence, song lyric etc, and are as often as not unintentional. But they can be created deliberately. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcorn is similar. --Sean 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see rebracketing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good style

What is good style? Can it be taught?

For example, comparing:

The most casual wanderer in the British Museum can hardly fail to notice two pairs of massive 
sculptures
Any visitor to the British Museum will notice two pairs of massive sculptures.

... were made in 1814; his later publication bore date of 1819.
... were made in 1814; his later publication was on the year 1819.

Which variant is better? Quest09 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context. In some situations it is best to be concise and purely factual, in others it is better to be more poetic and verbose. There are style guides for various things (like newspapers, or Wikipedia) where a consistent style is desirable. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that neither of the two fragments in the second example are correct. --LarryMac | Talk 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or is, even. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muphry's law. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with LarryMac) For 1/1, I'd rewrite it as "Even the most casual wanderer...". Apart from that, as Tango says, there's a difference in style and emphasis between 1/1 and 1/2, so which is "better" depends on who the writing is aimed at. For 2/1, "bore date" is not idiomatic: it should "bore a date" or perhaps "bore the date". Likewise in 2/2, "on the year" idiomatic: it could be changed to "...was in the year 1819", or just "...was in 1819". With those changes there's not much difference between the two versions. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it sheer laziness

Is it sheer laziness that stops some people putting a space after punctuation, leaving out apostrophes, and not capitalizing start of sentences, proper names and the personal pronoun, "I"? Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, yes. In other cases it is intended to be quicker or to take up less space (eg. in an SMS message). In yet other cases it is done for effect - if you want to fit in with what certain other people are doing for whatever reason. --Tango (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but in your case, was it because of sheer laziness that you didn't even bother to check if everything was alright in your sentence? I guess not. :) Try to figure out what it was. Though this may be completely unrelated to what you are asking, but it could also be related in some way. - DSachan (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think the op is refering to when people leave questions liek this?? - in which case the answer is simple Teenagers - who are of course renowned for their laziness.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, we can all make the odd mistake now and again :-) I think 83.100 has it though... teenagers write things like: "im a gr8 fan of emo.but i hate pop!!!!!!!!!!!". Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and of course I've just noticed LarryMac's link to Muphry's law in the question just above. Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at Muphry's law. Never heard about it but it seems to be true. Yes, teenagers seem to write this kind of language, but more so because they like it rather than due to their laziness, I think. They think it is cool (don't ask me why). Newbies to the English language of course are also candidates for making these kinds of sentences. Though in their case, it may be just due to sheer ignorance about the importance of these rules. - DSachan (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The find it cool for the same reason anything is found cool - it is done by people that are considered cool. (And yes, they are considered cool because they do things that are considered cool. The aspirin is just behind you!) I find non-native speakers are usually less likely to make the kind of mistakes the OP mentions than native speakers. They make other mistakes, of course. --Tango (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you have much interaction with non-native speakers then and I also don't think making these kinds of mistakes is in any sense cool. Maybe I am not cool, but does it mean all those who bind to the rules (for example, here on Wikipedia or elsewhere) are also not cool? What on earth does it mean? Beyond me. - DSachan (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...or maybe, the perception of 'coolness' changes when we are no more teenagers. - DSachan (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spend most of my life online, I have plenty of experience with non-native English speakers. They generally have difficulties with the inconsistencies of the English language (they may use words like "runned" instead of "ran") or subtle distinctions (getting "this"/"that" the wrong way around, say). They usually take a lot of care over their writing, though, so the simple rules like when to use capital letters are followed very precisely. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally find non-native speakers to have better qualities of English writing overall. Perhaps because devolving into txt spk or riting liek a lolcat is more difficult. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is just that written speech, like spoken speech, has formal and casual registers. Many adults grew up primarily using written language for formal purposes, but these days teenagers and kids use written language just to chat with their friends minute to minute. It's understandable that they wouldn't bother with strict adhesion to social conventions. Indeterminate (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, it could be argued that they are adhering very strongly to social convention: the conventions of the society with which they are most intimately associated, namely, their peer group. I'm not defending it, but in a way it could almost be a social death sentence for them to write in a way that would get top marks from the Lynne Trusses of the world. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but a lot of this stuff is driven by texting, where you would want to keep the number of keyboard clicks to a minimum. Regarding foreigners, most of them like to be corrected as long as you don't slam it in their faces (which, I assure, I never do - or hardly ever). English is a tough language to get down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Erm, isn't "being cool" another term for being unconventional? Of course, teenagers are unconventional by convention, but in essence trying their very best to be "different", to stand out from the crowd, to leave their scent mark. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, being cool is very much about fitting in and being the same as your peers. It is a different convention than the adult population, but it certainly isn't unconventional. --Tango (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm reminded of a B.C. panel from sometime in the 60s, in which two characters are seen from the back, and one is talking about how he can't seem to fit in. The second one turns to face the first one, revealing that he looks like a "hippie" or "beatnik", and he tells him, "You'll just have to conform, man!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Perhaps when teenagers grow up, and have to write things to a standard that is acceptable to a wider audience, that is not made up solely of their peers, their use of the language will improve. I have heard of more than one study where employers have said the writing skills of new employees straight out of school (and in some cases university graduates) is poorer than they expect. Astronaut (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry. I'm a non-native speaker, and when I read books like English Vocabulary in Use Advanced (Cambridge University Press, Michael MacCarthy and Felicity O'Dell), they actually teach you how to use those non-standard stuff like CUL8R (OK, so that's from the Oxford Guide to effective writing and speaking). Perhaps it's become more acceptable now. And by the way, I noticed that you missed a 'the' in the question. :) Best wishes, Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I said somewhere recently that when U and R are given as synonyms for "you" and "are", we'll know the apocalypse is nigh. Looks like it's time to duck and cover! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your opinion on this just being teenagers is unfair. I hate it when people don't leave proper messages it's hard to understand and half the time doesn't make sense. I text without abbreviations, the only reason for leaving out punctuation on a text for me is that it's hidden away on mine and therefore I leave out commas. In alot of cases some of it is sheer laziness from the older generation that have given up trying. I know of many adults that also didn't have education to the standards set now and their writing can be hard to read. I bet if you found some actual statistics for this it would show that it's not JUST teenagers --195.49.180.146 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right to duck an cover. In the EVU, there s an exercise in which I'm to decode:

c u 4 t at 3, OK? BTW K's going 2 come 2.

Scary! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (outdent and edit conflict because I was proofreading...) Depends on the context. I have a friend who is a lawyer (just turned 50) who will send text messages or emails with "gr82cu" but at work will dot all of the Is and cross all of the Ts. Same goes for Instant Messenging. Personally I am anally retentive at the age of 38 and a simple email to friends has to be proofread three times, as if it were to be published on the front page of the Times. On a side note, I spend time over at the French Wikipedia, where debates over the 1990 reform of the French language and its application can make a WP:RFAR look mild by comparison. Je vous prie, Madame, Monsieur, de bien vouloir agréer l'expression de mes sentiments distingués. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're friend's right to be careful at work. This isn't even laziness, yet it cost a good deal of people a good deal of money. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [1]. This is probably a teenager girl talking to a grown up guy. :) - DSachan (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]