Language desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Produce vs Product, noun

When is produce, n, to be used rather than product? I understand a lot of agricultural products are commonly called produce. Is there any better way to limit the use of these two to different places? 90.149.144.31 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but the use of "product" as a mass noun when a simple plural would do makes me want to tear my hair out. "We're expecting a shipment of pork product (= products) this afternoon" - that sort of thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To produce means to bring forth or yield (a result). So "produce" is usually used for farm products, because they were "brought forth" by natural processes. Product is more commonly used for things produced by human or mechanical effort (and also for natural processes such as the products of chemical reactions).

In the pork example? pork is a farm produce. Pork products are manufactured or processed, eg ham, bacon, salami etc. Expecting a shipment of pork productsplural implies a shipment of mixed varieties. A shipment of pork product singular/mass noun implies a shipment of manufactured or processed items of pork origins, variety unknown. Neither strictly speaking can refer to a shipment of pork meat, unprocessed except by butchering. (To confuse the issue, the word variety as in variety meats refers to offal, ie all non-flesh meats, such as tongue, liver etc).- KoolerStill (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kooler as to the distinction between mass noun "product" and plural "products", but I would not say that "produce" could apply to pork. I know the term only in connection with the produce department of supermarkets, and meat is sold from a different department. I would say that "produce" is limited to parts of plants (i.e. fruits, vegetables, roots, berries, etc.) sold as food in an unprocessed state (i.e. not cooked, canned, dried, etc.). --Anonymous, 22:40 UTC, June 20/09.

The OED says of 'Produce, n (meaning 4)': "Agricultural and natural products collectively, as opposed to manufactured goods. Also in raw produce. Now the principal sense." so this implies that it can include meat as well as vegetables, though none of the examples given for this use refer specifically to meat.

Incidentally, KoolerStill, beware the etymological fallacy: 'product' and 'produce' are both derived from the verb 'produce' (one from Latin, and the other within English), so an etymological argument is unlikely to explain the difference between them. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your input, it has cleared the fog around the terms. =) 90.149.144.31 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine - I didn't intend to imply any etymological difference. The question was about common usage. It is because they are closely related that there is an issue about which to use where.- KoolerStill (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But you said 'To produce means to bring forth or yield (a result). So "produce" is usually used for farm products, because they were "brought forth" by natural processes'. This would be equally convincing - though, as it happens, wrong - if you had said "product" rather than "produce". --ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA question II

Another one for you - the article for Hall i' th' Wood railway station has an IPA guide but probably needs double checking. For those not aware with northern English pronounciation, it is approximately "AL [as in Al Gore] i thwood". Many thanks doktorb _words^deeds 09:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the final vowel is supposed to be the vowel of 'wood', it should be /ʊ/, not /ʌ/. Algebraist 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure 'AL as in Al Gore' is anything like the usual pronunciation. Many northerners don't drop their Hs, for a start. I'm also not sure that anyone would pronounce the "th'" element with a thorn or eth sound; I've usually heard it rendered as a glottal stop or a tounge-tapping 't' sound. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/ʌ/ does not exist in any dialect of Northern English that I know of (and nor does /ʊ/, both being replaced by /u/). I don't call myself an expert, butI am from the North and have lived/worked extensively from Merseyside in the west right up to North Yorkshire in the east. Thorn and edh are common in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but not in Merseyside (the dialect of which extends into Lancashire, Cheshire, North Wales, and the Isle Of Man), where they are usually replaced by 't' and 'd' respectively. Glottal stops, however, are common in all of the areas above. Considering Hall i' th' Wood is near Bolton (Greater Manchester?) I would guess the 'th' are pronounced fully, but whether they are voiced or not, I couldn't say. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the station will be pronounced in the way the speaker pronounces it with reference to their regional and social class accent. The Queen would probably pronounce it rather differently from the postman who delivers the letters to the station. It is an inherent problem in the inclusion of IPA guides unless it is understood the the IPA pronunciation is, for example, RSE. Perhaps it would be more interesting if all place names did have an IPA guide in the local accent. Ba'ersea, Too'in' in London. Debn and Zummerzet in the south-west, and so on. Richard Avery (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Local places are pronounced with local accents, and some of these local places are so obscure they may only be pronounced by an RP-speaker once a year (when the elections come round). Maybe we could add both, one written for RP-speakers as a guide, and one written by locals. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/ʊ/ doesn't exist in the North? I'm sure it does. I know some North-Western accents use /u/ rather than /ʊ/ in words like 'book'; but 'cut' and 'cook' are both pronounced with /ʊ/ here, in West Yorkshire. --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Cut' and 'cook' are different from 'book' on your dialect? I would understand 'cut' neing different (as it is in RP), but 'cook'? All three of them are the same in mine (this is KageTora, I can't login because Wikipedia won't recognize my account). --211.198.250.155 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

true official name of the barcode system

The barcodes on packages that have the different arrangement of vertical lines and below them numbers. Is there another name for that system and if so what is it? 69.113.130.180 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the ones used on retail packaging in the United States and Canada, see Universal Product Code. For other uses and countries, see Barcode#Linear barcodes and the articles linked therein. Deor (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conciencia fiscal - what is it in English?

Hello there:

I was wondering if anyone could translate the phrase 'conciencia fiscal.' I can't find it in any of my dictionaries.

All the best --134.151.34.100 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any context is needed - it seems to be more about individuals and taxes than governments. The author also says that the task of measuring 'conciencia fiscal' is difficult because, to translate, 'it involves trying to measure an activity that continues to be secret, given its undoutable illicitness.' But then it later says 'by conciencia fiscal we understand that it is the intrinsic motivation of an individual to pay his/her taxes.'

All the best--134.151.34.100 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What language is it in? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish --134.151.34.100 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess would be "fiscal conscience", a phrase that gets about 800 googlehits. +An gr 19:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiscal awareness" wins the business buzzword contest hands down :-)68.208.122.33 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eulsa Treaty

Hello! Can anybody translate the table "조약 전문" on [1]? Yes, I know, it is a lot of stuff, but I need the translation for recherches on Eulsa Treaty. And is anything about signing or sealing of the treaty stated in the discussion on this site? Thank you, very much. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic

When writing the article on the Arabic Toilers' Movement, I stumbled across some problems. Could anyone help me properly explaining the meaning of وبعد ١٨ نوفمبر ١٩٦٣ بدأت الحركة الكادحين العرب بالنشاط العني وتم لها الأتصال بلجنة تنظيم القطر و كذلك بالدكتور جورج حبش. وذهبت الحركة الكادحين العرب إلى التعاون مع الاتحاد العربي الاشتراكي عام ١٩٦٤، وقد رشح مسؤول الحركة عبد الاله البياتي نفسه إلى عضوية الاتحاد العربي الاشتراكي.

I think I know more or less the meaning, but can't understand exactly what Abdul Ilah al-Bayati did (did he join the ASU, leaving the other movement? --Soman (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monies

One occasionally sees phrases like "federal monies", when it seems that the singular "money" would fit just as well. Since "money" is a mass noun, what difference in meaning is conveyed by using the plural? (I realize that pluralized mass nouns sometimes denote different varieties of the thing named, such as "the wines of France", but that doesn't seem to be the case with the uses of "monies" I've seen.) 69.224.113.202 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's just a fossilised phrase, in the same vein as "those who do business in great waters". I was once a "Collector of Public Moneys", and on my first day in the job, I was told to always keep firmly in mind that the spelling was "moneys", not the expected plural "monies". This was considered terribly important back in the Stone Age, but these days, such jobs have become mere "Collectors of Public Monies". In any case, they collect money, not either of the plurals. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Money" can mean ALL money (in the world). "Moneys" or "monies" implies distinct accumulations or batches of the stuff. The Collector of Public Money would have to collect all money owed by the public; the Collector of Public Moneys would be collecting from all members of the public who owe money, or money owed to various different government departments or accounts. By the same token, "Federal monies" would not be the total dollars under federal control, but discrete amounts in separate (and not mixable) accounts. So this spelling denotes "varieties" in the same way that "fishes in the sea" denotes all the species, not all the individuals. - KoolerStill (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Different sums of money owed by different people are not 'different varieties' any more than different shoals of fish are.

That apart, I agree that your explanation is plausible as the origin of the distinction; but unless you can give solid evidence, it ranks as speculation, not fact. The OED says (meaning 3): "In pl. (now chiefly in legal and quasi-legal parlance). Sums or quantities of money", but does not make any suggestion about why this form persists in those particular fields. --ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties was the wrong word. "Discrete sums" is the meaning. I have three sums of money, or three monies, owed to me by three people, one is a sum of $40, the other two sums of $80 each. The SUM of the debts is $200. In common language you'd say "I have 3 lots of money owed to me". This "lots" is the idea conveyed by using the plural monies. "Money" is a mass noun referring to all or any money. This is exactly analogous to the usage of 'fish' and 'fishes', as your own OED definition implies. As total WP:OR I'd suggest it persists in official circles, and is not used in private ones, because of the difference in how these groups source their funds. KoolerStill (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation on the survival of 'moneys' in legal usage is that it was once used to forestall an argument that only one of a set of payments was to be refunded or whatever, and has now become ossified. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]