Language desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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 21

Hanging

If he committed suicide by hanging then he hanged himself. What about another person who strung himself up neither intending to die nor dying as a result? Kittybrewster ☎ 00:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoerotic asphyxiation, or, if that seems to necessarily indicate fatality (which I think it does not), asphyxiophilia? - Nunh-huh 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what if they strung themselves up not for sexual pleasure, but to make it look like they wanted to commit suicide? We apparently don't have a "cry for help" article (or, ha, we do, but it's sort of a Rickroll). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article on Harold and Maude. It might also be considered a form of self-injury. +An gr 07:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question was grammatical. E.g. "Nine is a significant number in Norse Mythology. Odin hung himself on an ash tree for nine days to learn the runes." Kittybrewster ☎ 10:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a quirky mistranslation. You don't use the term "hang xself" in English, unless with the meaning of an execution technique. Did Odin tie himself to a tree? Or suspend himself from the branches of a tree? --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Exception - corpses can be hung without it necessarily meaning by the neck, but arguably corpses aren't people. And they certainly can't do so reflexively (hang themselves)) --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Hávamál leaves the means by which Odin hung from Yggdrasil (while pierced with a spear) rather vague; I don't think it's necessarily true that any rope was involved. The imagery is more reminiscent of the Crucifixion than a gallows hanging. - Nunh-huh 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the means are vague, I'd go for "suspended" to avoid ambiguity. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the old hanged vs. hung. This says it's only hanged in case 2, which specifies death. So, you hung yourself by your neck until you're dead, at which point you were hanged. In Odin's case, you'd probably say "hung by the neck" if you mean he hung himself in the style used on people who were hanged. That's assuming the Compact Oxfrod English Dictionary is right in specifying death as a necessity. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter which word you choose, you can probably find a dictionary to justify it... which is to say, this is a matter of style and not of right or wrong. Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate contains the following "usage note", which echos the "until dead" but is lenient on choice of verb form: "For both transitive and intransitive senses 1b [to suspend by the neck until dead] the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard. Hanged is most appropriate for official executions <he was to be hanged, cut down whilst still alive…and his bowels torn out — Louis Allen> but hung is also used <gave orders that she should be hung — Peter Quennell>. Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings <by morning I'll be hung in effigy — Ronald Reagan>." BTW, I don't think there's anything to indicate Odin hung by the neck. - Nunh-huh 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the grammar of the situation and the method (rope, nails etc) this folklore motif is almost always called "the hanged god" as it is known in the influential work The Golden Bough meltBanana 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The hung god" would probably be something entirely different. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie: They told me you was hung!

Sheriff Bart: And they was right!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely similar comparison: The batter flied out to left. The ball itself flew. The batter flied. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic theory of Lexical Phonology (which I mentioned in my comment in the Dec. 21 thread below) also has a lot to say about "flied" vs. "flew". For a popularizing account, see chapter 5 of Steven Pinker's Language Instinct... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation for the sires of Enghien

Hierna volgt een lijst met de heren van Edingen. In 1394 gaat Edingen naar Jan van Luxemburg, schoonzoon van Lodewijk. Met de echtgenoot van Maria van Luxemburg komt Edingen terecht bij Bourbon-Condé en wordt het nadien een hertogdom (Hertogen van Enghien).

-1092 : Engelbert I
1092- : Engelbert II, zoon
-1190 : Huwes I, zoon
1190-1192 : Engelbert III, zoon
1192-1242 : Engelbert IV, zoon
1242-1256 : Zeger I,zoon
1256-1271 : Wouter I,’’de Grote’’, zoon
1271-1310 : Wouter II, zoon
1310-1345 : Wouter III, zoon
1345-1364 : Zeger II, zoon
1364-1381 : Wouter IV, zoon
1381-1394 : Lodewijk, neef

The list is in Dutch. The ranks of nobility don't tranlsate well from one country's system to another. I would have said Lord of Enghien, not Sire. Hertog is a duke, a higher rank. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Here follows a list of the Lords of endingen. In 1394 Endingen passed to Jan of Luxemburg, son-in-law of Lodewijk. With the marriage of Maria of Luxemburg, Endingen passed into the House of Bourbon-Condé and was later raised to a duchy (Duchy of Enghien)." In the list itself, zoon is son and neef is cousin or nephew. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English we also have Sohier of Enghien, Walter IV of Enghien, and Louis of Enghien, although apparently none of the others. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Derwood

Derwood (place name, from Deer Wood)

Does the first part sound like "dare" and rhyme with "pear" (IPA [deɑɹwʊd]), or does it sound like "dirt" without the final "t" and rhyme with "her"? (IPA [dɚwʊd]) Or does the first part sound like "deer"/"dear"?

Thanks! 96.244.43.203 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Ianthe[reply]

On Bewitched, Endora always pronounced it to rhyme the first syllable with "her". +An gr 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's the same for Derwood, Maryland?96.244.43.203 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Ianthe[reply]

Evocative

Is there a word to indicate that a word needs a subsidiary phrase. Eg Evocative or reminiscent which need the "of ...." Kittybrewster ☎ 16:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasal verb seems to be what you're looking for. (But note that "evocative" can be used on its own, to refer to something that brings up emotions. (e.g. google {"very evocative" -"evocative of"} with the quotes, but without the curly braces). -- 128.104.112.94 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evocative of" is not a phrasal verb, because "evocative" is not a verb. --Anon, 06:26 UTC, December 22, 2009.

Also see subcategorization, though the article is woefully exiguous. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some languages might have evocative markers in their lexical or grammatical marking. In English, I doubt there is such thing; other than in poetical or periodical natures. However, if you can clarify this with a sentence, then it is easy to understand what you are saying. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of eg "It is evocative of the spirit of Manderley", "the smell is reminiscent of an abattoir". Kittybrewster ☎ 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is better. My answer is then these words (which I have not read often in contexts but according to corpuses) usually form as a nominal in a sentence (though the examples are adjectival here), i.e. by taking of a subsidiary phrase (usually a prepositional phrase, as you said). And as they are adjectives, they can function as adjectives.

And to a different question on whether a word needs a subsidiary phrase in phrasal categories, other than ‘Comp phrase’ which requires a phrase, all other words can stand alone within their phrasal categories.

However, you may be correct on the assumption that ‘evocative’ as a rhetorical marker needs a subsidiary phrase in discourses (not just mentioning the grammatical aspect). If that is case, I do know the word for such feature either. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Kitty's question was perfectly clear (to a native speaker) in its original form. I'm glad Kitty's examples made the question clearer to you, Mihkaw.

I'm going back to the first anon, in the very first answer. The phrasal verb is is evocative of or is reminiscent of, with is as the verb.

You can replace "is evocative of" with the verb "evokes", for example It is evocative of the spirit of Manderley: It evokes the spirit of Manderley. You cannot similarly replace "evocative" when is evocative is used intransitively, because the verb evoke is pretty transitive. For example: It is certainly evocative: *It certainly evokes (although I suppose you might try, it would always sound like it was missing something to me). The of transforms it from intransitive to transitive. Perhaps a linguist could comment. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woman as an adjective

We sometimes see sentences like this:

She is the state's first woman premier.

"Woman" is chosen because "female" is a gender term that does not necessarily refer to women.

But when we come to the plural, "woman" changes to "women":

Australia has now had four women state premiers.

Since adjectives in English are indeclinable, this leads me to believe that "woman/women" here is not an adjective (whereas "female", had it been used, most definitely is). What's the relationship of "women/women" to "premier/s"?

Why can't "woman" be an adjective, leading to such sentences as:

Australia has now had four woman state premiers? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a noun adjunct. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase woman painter is ambiguous. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a little laterally: when there's an occupation that's predominantly occupied by women, a man who does it is not called a "man nurse/secretary", but a "male nurse/secretary". Why is it ok to use "male" to refer to a man, but not to use "female" to refer to a woman? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women state premiers sounds odd to me, as does robots state premiers, although rangers hockey game sounds fine (and so does woman state premiers). All the plural noun adjunct examples in the article are types of container, such as a club or an agency. And female bodybuilder gets more ghits than woman bodybuilder. (30 times more, if you put the phrases in quotes.) Felis cheshiri (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles beginning with female, including Female athlete triad, Female guards in Nazi concentration camps, and Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries; and articles beginning with woman, including Woman warrior.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also man servant, for some reason, and man child and man whore. I don't know why man secretary and man nurse aren't common. Felis cheshiri (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, the plural of 'manservant' (NB, single word) is 'menservants' (so saith the 1979 Collins English Dictionary). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just compound words? --88.74.30.79 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Australia's first female premier describes her as "the first female Premier of an Australian State". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, see this summary of Australia's "women premiers", who all succeeded "male" premiers. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which I've now corrected, thanks to the advice given here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This type of construction was discussed intensively by Otto Jespersen in his grammar of English many decades ago, and also was discussed by linguists (generative phonologists to be precise) in the development of the theory of lexical phonology (redlink which should probably be an article) in the 1980's. To begin with, it's highly dubious whether the first element in phrases such as "woman doctor" or "boy doctor" etc. is an adjective at all. Such elements certainly don't take comparative and superlative degrees, and cannot be ordinarily preceded by "very", etc. etc. It turns out that a non-final noun in such a construction being plural in form is fairly closely correlated to irregular plural morphology (i.e. something other than the standard "-s" suffix). AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<quoting AnonMoos> ... it's highly dubious whether ... is an adjective at all. Such elements certainly don't take comparative and superlative degrees, and cannot be ordinarily preceded by "very", etc. etc. </quote>
You could say the same about "unique" but it's definitely an adjective (according to SOED). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People actually do say "very unique" reasonably often (some think they shouldn't, but they do). In any case, the question is whether there's any test of adjectivehood which would reveal that the word "boy" in "Doogie Howser, the boy doctor" etc. is distinctively an adjective (rather than a noun which happens to be serving in the role of modifying another noun). I don't think that there is any such test. AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Oddly enough, this very question was discussed by Jan Freeman in her weekly language column in the Boston Sunday Globe yesterday (20 December 2009). See The Female Question. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the problems that sexual/gender style guides cause. When The Guardian carried Carlo Ponti's obituary, they were forced to print the following correction: "A rigid application of the Guardian style guide caused us to say of Carlo Ponti in the obituary below that in his early career he was "already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ..." This was one of those occasions when the word "actresses" might have been used." It seems to be that "woman premier" is trying to point out the premier's sex, so there need be no consideration of her age; "female" does it best. - Nunh-huh 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think that "female" has inappropriate connotations, since it seems to focus narrowly on biological sex, and is a word that can be applied equally to animals and humans (unlike "woman", "lady", etc.). However, in the nineteenth century, "female" was sometimes kind of an elegant alternative -- a "female seminary" would have been more pretentious and expensive than a mere "girls' school"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a sports-related example, the article on South Carolina Gamecocks states that the women's teams, formerly known by the somewhat peculiar name "Lady Gamecocks", are now also just the "Fighting Gamecocks", like the men. Presumably "Gamehens" was not given much consideration as an alternative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All very fascinating. Thank you, men and women of Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good Latin, or Dog Latin?

The quote is by Terry Pratchett:

Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardiaet cerebellum. Woogee (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of...currently it says "whose balls you have, you should have hearts and a brain", which I assume means "let he who has balls also have a heart and a brain". Actually "cardia" is Greek, since "hearts" in Latin is "corda". I would say "qui testiculos habet, cor et cerebellum habeat." Adam Bishop (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like "If you have their balls, you'll also have their hearts and minds". Woogee (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then future indicative habebis might be preferable to present subjunctive habeas. AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost definitely supposed to refer to the old aphorism "if you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". Grutness...wha? 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so 'cuius' is better than 'qui'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that does make pretty good sense then. I've never heard that before. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither good Latin, nor dog-Latin. It's Latatian. Some denizens of Pratchett's Discworld, particularly wizards, often use Latatian which, purely by coincidence, looks to a Roundworld reader like Latin as spoken by someone who will try to translate the inscription on a gravestone but come up with a recipe for lentil soup. See also http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Latatian. One of the better-known examples is Rincewind's "incantation" - Stercus stercus stercus, morituri sum. These are more examples. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony, that never crossed my mind. Woogee (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]