Language desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Automaton

Almost every word that starts with auto- has the stress on the first syllable: AUTomobile, AUTomatic, AUTograph. The one (?) exception is the word auTOMaton. Why is it pronounced differently? The closest similar situation I can think of is AUtumn - auTUMnal, though that's kind of weird too. Wiktionary explained the etymology, but didn't seem to shed any light on why automaton gets a different stress pattern. Matt Deres (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AuTONomous and auTONomy are also exceptions. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include an arcane word that few of us could imagine dropping (correctly or incorrectly stressed) into a spoken conversation: autochthonous. — And that's apart from twisting one's tongue around the "chth" (chi-theta in Greek). —— Shakescene (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the more familiar Autocracy, following the same pattern as DEMocrat:deMOCracy; PLUTocrat:pluTOCracy; BUreaucrat:buREAUCracy; AUTocrat:auTOCracy. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says AUTomatic? (Is it a Britishism? I'm pretty sure I've heard Brits say "autoMAtic" just like me.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget automoton. Automatic is /ˌɔtɵˈmætɪk/ with secondary stress on the first syllable. The real question is, are there more auto- words that DON'T start with initial stress? This wiktionary list might be a good starting point. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is automoton a misspelling of the word that heads this thread, or does it have a separate meaning? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Chalk this up to asking before thinking clearly! Matt Deres (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In classical Latin the way I learned it in school, the accent is always on either the second or third syllable from the end of the word (which one, if there are more than two syllables, depends on the specific sounds). Obviously English doesn't have that rule, but a lot of words derived from Latin or Greek seem to follow something like it: forms with one more syllable on the end often have the accent moved one syllable later. AUtumn/auTUMnal and DEMocrat/demOcracy, given above, are two examples. On the other hand, I think you don't usually see that sort of accent shift when a word is formed from English elements. If someone invents an "auto-mixing" device for the kitchen, they aren't likely to pronounce it "auTOMixing". --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, December 11, 2009.

In general, the stress pattern of 'classical' words in English has nothing to do with the either their etymology or any stress pattern in a Classical language, but is almost entirely determined by patterns in English. Usually the stress is antepenultimate unless the word has certain endings (-ic, -tion, -tious, -tial are common ones) which draw the accent to the penultimate, and other endings (such as -ly) which don't seem to count in this process. The point about 'auto-mixing' is an interesting one. I believe that if you presented people with a made-up words beginning 'auto-' followed by two syllables and asked them to pronounce them, you would get 'AUto' if the words were readily parsible as compounds of the English prefix 'auto-' with another English word (as in 'auto-mixing') and 'autO' if they resembled classical words like 'automaton' and 'autonomy'. --ColinFine (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans are more likely to favour nearly-equal stress on each syllable where the British may put (or even force) stress on the ante-penultimate (second from last) syllable, as in corollary (US: CORR-uh-lai-ry; Br: cur-OLL-uh-ry). —— Shakescene (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good model for these shifts of stress is PHOtograph, phoTOGrapher/phy, photoGRAPHic. Sussexonian (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this North American English speaker, "an automatic transmission" and "an automatic first down" have the first and the third syllables of "automatic" stressed equally. Only when "automatic" is at the end of a prosodic unit is the third syllable more stressed than the first. --Atemperman (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical. Are you just going on impression or have you measured the acoustics of your speech? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in lieu with?

Is there a phrase like "in lieu with" (not in lieu of)? If there is, what does it mean?--117.204.80.252 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's coming to mind is "in league with." Deor (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it has some jargon-y meaning in real estate. Search google for "in lieu with", and most of the hits have something to do with "deed in lieu with X". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(update) It looks like, in this context, "in lieu" is shorthand for "in lieu of foreclosure", so what people are saying is like "I'm gonna do a deed-in-lieu [of foreclosure] with my phone company". So really, it's still an example of "in lieu of" rather than "in lieu with". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Now, why didn't I do that? We have a relevant article, of course. Apparently, it's called a "deed in lieu" for short, and one can be said to "do a deed in lieu with" a mortgage holder. Deor (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the impression I got. So, in short, the phrase is not "in lieu with". A phrase boundary falls in there...it's actually "do a [deed in lieu] with X", not "do a deed [in lieu with X]". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "in lieu with" may be used in Indian English - I seem to have deleted all the relevant emails in my work account, but the telecom team was regularly sending out missives that began "In lieu with our efforts to keep you informed ...". --LarryMac | Talk 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So used to mean basically what the more familiar "in line with" means? I wonder whether there's Indian French and what lieu would mean in it. Deor (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just Indian English, it happens in American English, too (and I assume everywhere). I agree with Deor that it's synonymous to "in line with" (and it is also used in the same context but as "in lieu of", in which case it's synonymous with "in light of"...), and is probably just based on a misunderstanding of what the term originally meant, which has now been passed down and repeated enough to enter more common usage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I've never heard the phrase "in lieu with". Also "in lieu of" I always understood to mean "in the place of" or "instead of". Doesn't "lieu" mean "place" in French? I stand to be corrected though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used that way either, but nothing would surprise me these days. I'd expect to hear it from the same stable that pronounces coup de grâce as coo de grah. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanspodge: yes, that's what it means. What we're discussing above is a [technically] incorrect usage, and trying to figure out what people are intending when they say it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhooge

There's a word you hear in conversation every now and again, always in the same context - zhoge, or joge or zhuge. It's almost invariably used before the word 'up', and it means to add glamour, make sparkle, as in 'that sad Christmas meal needs zhooging up with some fireworks and go-go dancers'. It sounds like it could be Yiddish descent or Polari or something - anyone know what it is? FreeMorpheme (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer but it always struck me as a mispronounciation of the word Jazz (as in 'Jazz it up'). Nanonic (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never known how to spell this word, I know exactly what you mean ("Nice dress, but it needs zuzhing up with a bit of sparkle"). Given that it needed 4 goes before I was happy with the spelling, it may be hard finding out here it comes from! doktorb _words^deeds 11:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite informative. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summarize what's there? Its blocked for me (stupid work restrictions!). I'd always (naively?) assumed the word in question was coined by Carson Kressley on Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. --LarryMac | Talk 14:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look in the Polari article - I should have looked there first, I knew it sounded very like it, but I'm still not thrilled with the spelling. FreeMorpheme (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some more spelling and derivation discussion here.~~ Ka renjc 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Should have followed Jack's link before I posted. Ka renjc 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

("Nice dress, but it needs zuzhing up with a bit of sparkle"). What I hear (as a native Californian) is "it needs juicing up." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basque translation

Is there anyone who can tell me what the text below the image in eu:Euskal_Herria#Historian_zehar says and what the image depicts? I'd love to use it in my presentation of the Basque country but I want to be sure what it is in case my teacher asks (and she likes to ask ;) Thanks in advance -- Gerolsteiner91 (glugg) 10:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask someone listed at Category:User eu. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German translation please

I hope this isn't too cheeky a request, but it's for a good cause (a future Featured Article, I hope). I'd love it if one of you good people could possibly translate this German newspaper article for me. Many many thanks (and do say if it's a cheeky request - might stop me asking again in a similar vein) --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Beckenbauer: "The others all faced pansies - we could have played our reserves and still beaten them"
Bayern is out and the Kaiser forgets his manners

"This is like at school, when you are the only one receiving a six" [lowest grade, see Academic grading in Germany] Bayern coach Erich Ribbeck put it in a nutshell: After the early exit in the second round of the UEFA Cup against Norwich City, FC Bayern Munich's disgrace sits deep.

A tie on the island - the German record champion could live with this. What is embarassing to the Bavarians, however: All other Bundesliga clubs advanced in the European Cup. Only the Bavarians flunked.

The club's leadership tried to put a gloss on the failure. Ribbeck stated that his team had "held its own against a top English team". Manager Uli Hoeneß ranted: In comparision, (Dortmund opponent) Maribor is merely a customer from the provinces.

The "Kaiser" even forgot his good manners. Franz Beckenbauer's crude comment on the opponents faced by his German competitors: "The others merely had "Topfen"-opponents. Domoprowski - or whatever that nonsense's name is: We'd beat them with our reserve team." In Kitzbühelerisch, Topfen means Quark (cheese), and Domoprowski is Beckenbauer's mangling of Eintracht Frankfurt's opponent Dnipropetrovsk's name.

Only captain Lothar Matthäus didn't agree with his boss. He commented: "For me, Norwich is an absolute average team."

Bayern Munich will survive the black night of Norwich and "wasn't counting on the income (from future cup games)", the club's boss Fritz Scherer assured. But from the 15 million Mark earnings that would have been possible until the finals, "we could have created reserves". Franz Beckenbauer complains that the team's reputation has taken a hit. For two years the former leader is running behind the European top clubs: In 1991 too, they were booted out in the second round, and last season the Bavarians were not even represented in any European championship.

While Munich failed to win in England for the tenth straight time, Norwich is celebrating its greatest success. The press too chimed in with the cheers of the nearly 21,000 enthusiastic fans in the sold-out stadium at Carrow Road.

The "Daily Mail" commented: "The little boys of Norwich have initiated a devastating campaign through Europe by first neutralizing the relatively modest Vitesse Arnhem and now the aristocrats from Munich.

---Sluzzelin talk 15:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few small changes in Sluzzelin's otherwise excellent translation. --Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's super, thank you both. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a tricky "let" in a sentence

The globalization of the present day covers the whole world without letting any nation or corner of the world being subjected to the process.

I found the sentence objectionable on the face of it. Then I thought, if let could mean omit, leave etc. (and if there were a "from" to follow "let") wouldn't it be rash to call it utterly wrong? As such, without that "from", how does this sentence sound? Does it really mean both ways (letting no nation to be subjected to the process/letting no nation from being subjected to the process) or does it mean only the opposite of what the author intended?--Ping matt (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply change "being" to "be". +An gr 15:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the author wanted to say was globalization is leaving no nook or corner out of its coverage (and probably said quite the opposite). While "be" reduces the chance for ambiguity, it emphasizes the opposite of the author's intent, doesn't it?--Ping matt (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would change "being subjected to" to "out of". +An gr 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The globalization of the present day covers the whole world without exception"? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt both suggestions would convey the idea much better. (The author belongs to a world where brevity is a sin rather than a virtue. I mean, the realm of those theoretical creatures.) I would like to get opinion on the original sentence's scope, though. It is not very often that a sentence can express two mutually exclusive meanings at one go. What meaning do you get reading the sentence? Is it ambiguous? --Ping matt (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's simply ungrammatical, but I would probably interpret it the way I corrected in my first post to this thread, which (now that I think about it) renders the sentence self-contradictory. +An gr 16:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as simply an omission of something like 'escape from' before 'being'. I agree that it is rather awkward, though. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC

The globalization of the present day covers the whole world without ~~letting~~ allowing any nation or corner of the world to escape being subjected to the process. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's process of globalization is truly global: it exempts no nation, nor any corner of the world.—— Shakescene (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, why replace let with allow? Both are synonymous in this sense, aren't they? Looking at it again, I feel Angr is right about the original sentence being ungrammatical. --Ping matt (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's no question; it's ungrammatical (at a minimum, letting ... being should be letting ... be, but most of the above suggestions are preferable).

It's also nonsensical: as it stands, it says there's no nation or corner of the globe that's subject to globalisation, yet the whole world has become globalised. Work that one out.

Fix both those problems, and it's still tautological. The globalization of the present day covers the whole world gets the point across succinctly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping matt, that is true. I need not have replaced "let" with "allow." There is nothing (that I'm aware of) that is incorrect about the use of "let" there. "Let" just strikes me as a "simpler" word. I think I felt that in keeping with the somewhat grandiose, sweeping statement that was being made, a three-syllable word was preferable to a two-syllable word. I think "let" also has a more dispersed array of possible meanings, and "allow" a more focussed meaning, perhaps consisting of fewer varieties of meanings and uses/applications. A quick glance at their respective dictionary definitions seems to confirm this for me. But you will have to be your own judge of this for yourself. From Dictionary dot com: Let. Allow. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it a day or two later, I think it's just what's the plague of editing on a computer (as opposed to a typewriter or a notepad), inadvertently dropping a single word. "Escape" works, and so does "avoid". The redundant and cliché'd phrasing reflects incomplete and fuzzy thinking, but that's a different problem.

The globalization of the present day covers the whole world without letting any nation or corner of the world avoid being subjected to the process.

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lover of bitter things

Is there a word for such a creature?

(This was inspired by my recent reference on the Entertainment page to our need for a Gorkophile; "gorky" means bitter). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Greek stem for "sharp" (as of taste) is Οξυ-, so maybe "Oxyphile" (however, this word could have a number of possible meanings). AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about picrophilia (see for example Picrotoxin)? Google yields hardly any hits for picrophilia, picrophile, or picrophiliac (and the latter refers to picross). There is the family of Picrophilaceae and its genus Picrophilus. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pikro- is better than Oxy- (since Oxy- is not too specific in meaning), so "picrophile" would be good, I guess. The only current Google hits on "picrophile" appear to be from old French-language biology papers... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back up a sec! Are we confusing sour for bitter? Sour is like lemon juice, and acids in general. The prefix oxy relates to acid. Bitter is a different taste, it's the coffee taste, and seems to use the prefix picro (from the discussion above). To reiterate acid is not the same as bitter! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient Greek, Οξυ- meant "sharp" in quite a general way (including also of taste). AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a hard one because bitter things (foods, experiences, emotions ..) are by definition unlikable. Bitter and sour are distinguished in foods, but tend to merge in emotions. We talk of some infelicitous event leaving us with a "bitter taste" or a "sour taste" interchangeably. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diludium

What is this and of what language:
Diludium de proprio et accidente Porphyrii tractatum dialogo‎--64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's Latin, to start with. And my latin is hopeless - but the individual words mean: interval (diludium), personal (proprio), to fall (accidente), a giant (Porphyrii), handling/enabling (tractatum), communication (dialogo). A personal interval and the fall of a giant enable communication? That can't be right... It's also the title of a treatise by Theodorus Marcilius, and is available on GoogleBooks here. Anyone here speak the lingua? Grutness...wha? 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's Latin, and it's the title of this work by Theodorus Marcilius—meaning, more or less, Interlude, in the Form of a Dialogue, on Porphyry's Property and Accident. (For "property" and "accident," see Isagoge#The Predicables.) Deor (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor did it again! Thanks all for the answers.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, be sure not to confuse diludium with illudium phosdex (the shaving-cream atom). The result could be catastrophic for life as we know it. Deor (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diludium crystals cannae handle it captain! :) Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew right away what you were talking about. The Scottish accent gave it away.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was dilithium crystals! Don't you understand KLINGON!!?!! --Jondel (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diludium I am beginning to understand to be as related to interlude as an early English comic sketch performed between parts of a play. As related to interval as an intervening period in time. Looks like also something similiar to intermission.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]