Language desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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 22

Correct terminology

What are the correct terms used for the two men (or the two women) who get married in a same-sex marriage? In other words, what are the analogous terms for "husband and wife" or "bride and groom"? Is it just the very generic word "partner"? Or is that term used only for domestic partnerships which (I believe?) are a wholly separate category from same-sex marriages? If a man marries a woman, we might have a sentence that reads, for example: The groom paid for the honeymoon while the bride paid for the reception. Or ... The husband works in advertising, and the wife works in sales. In a same-sex marriage, we would say: The __________ paid for the honeymoon while the __________ paid for the reception? Or ... The __________ works in advertising, and the __________ works in sales? (or similar uses) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's usually separated by general terms of reference, or by given name. E.g. "Chris works in advertising, Peter works in sales." or "One of them works in advertising, the other [or "his partner"] works in sales." At the ceremony itself, there's a bit of variation, sometimes people will talk about "the grooms" or "the brides", not differentiating them, other will use "the couple", "the newlyweds", "Chris and Peter", etc. Because there's no gender differentiation, and usually it's an egalitarian partnership, there's no motivation to distinguish two different roles like bride and groom. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who find same-sex marriage itself improper might well say that there are no "correct" terms for it. However, as to the terms actually used by those who don't take that position, I've both seen and heard same-sex spouses called "husbands" and "wives". In this context the words are used symmetrically: just as two women might be each other's sister, two other women might be each other's wife. (Google shows an estimated 140,000 hits on a phrase search for "wife of Ellen deGeneres", so it appears this usage is fairly well established.) Similarly, two men would each be husband to the other.

In a legal context, of course, "spouse" can be used for either person in relation to the other without regard to their sexes. --Anonymous, 07:45 UTC, June 22, 2009.

The California marriage certificates at the time that same-sex marriage was legal, said "Party A" and "Party B". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dashes Hyphens in "one year long"

"They were selected through a one year long process." My question is simple: How many ~~dashes~~hyphens, and where? I conducted a search through our articles [1], and it seems that all the different combinations are being used. "one year long", "one-year long", "one-year-long", and "one year-long".

Thanks in advance, decltype (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dashes should be used here. Only hyphens should be used. Our style guide entry has nothing very specific to say. I think I would favour one-year-long. Algebraist 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm sorry, I was confusing dashes and hyphens. decltype (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular example, I think I'd just write "They were selected through a year-long process". But I can imagine contexts where "one-year-long" would be appropriate, and in that case I'd agree with Algebraist. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "a year-long process" carries a mild suggestion that it relates to a calendar year, university year, or some other preexisting sort of year. It can be used if you just mean that the process lasted from some date in 2007 until the corresponding date in 2008, you could use "a year-long process", but I would prefer "a one-year-long process" or perhaps simply "a one-year process". Of course there are still other alternatives such a "a process lasting one year" or "...a year" or "...one full year", or "a process one year long" or "...a year long". Note that when you write it this way around, there are no hyphens. --Anonymous, 22:05 UTC, June 22, 2009; missing words restored 03:20 UTC, June 23.

The hyphens serve to join the words. So "one-year long process" would imply the existence of a one-year short process as well. The "one year-long" process implies it may have been possible to carry out two or more such processes. A "one-year-long" process is one that took the length of a year to do. But the formats proposed by Anonymous, or "selected through a process taking a (full or whole) year" would better convey the meaning, that the process was complex enough to take a year.- KoolerStill (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uou ?

The word mellifluous contains the unusual vowel sequence "uou". Are there any other English words that contain the letters "uou" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:superfluous. Algebraist 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The regex dictionary gives 45 matches, all in the -uous ending. Algebraist 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful site, which makes my question quite superfluous. Despite strenuous efforts, I had failed to think of some of those quite conspicuous instances. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has "-uous: a compound suffix, repr. L. -uōs-us (-a, -um), OF. or AF. -uous, -uos (F. -ueux), occurring in a number of adoptions from L. (or F.), as fructuous, halituous, impetuous, †monstruous, †portentuous, sumptuous, tempestuous, virtuous; and hence by analogy employed with the sense ‘of the nature of, consisting of’ in a few E. formations on L. stems, as ambiguous (1528-), strenuous (1599-), †subsiduous (1490), torrentuous (1840-)." Algebraist 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle

I'm searching for the correct etymology (as exhaustive as possible) of the word Riddle. Also, is it related to the German Rätsel and the Dutch raadsel? If so, are there other cognates in other languages? --151.51.19.115 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymological Dictionary says "A word game or joke, comprising a question or statement couched in deliberately puzzling terms, propounded for solving by the hearer/reader using clues embedded within that wording" [Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore], O.E. rædels "opinion, riddle, counsel, conjecture," from P.Gmc. *rædislijan (cf. O.S. radisli, M.Du. raetsel, Du. raadsel, O.H.G. radisle, Ger. Rätsel "riddle"). Related to O.E. rædan "to advise, counsel, read, guess" . Other Germanic languages may contain cognates. The Latin languages seem to use variants of "enigma" to convey the same meaning. - KoolerStill (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy

What is timboism?174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of vandalism that went unreverted for 2½ years. (And I see that you asked the same question, and received an answer, a few days ago. Disingenuousness indeed.) Deor (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

handicapped? retarded?

I've noticed both of these words used in various (Or in some cases, both in the same) articles. When referring to people with impaired physical or mental capacity, which of the followings is the correct (Not the politically correct, the correct) usage of the term:

Mentally challenged
Mentally impaired
Mentally handicapped
Mentally retarded
Cognitive disability

Thank you in advance :) -- Floydian ^τ _γ 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as the correct answer, political or otherwise. 'People with disabilities' is pretty standard these days - in government communications, for example, which is my line of work - and you can specify mental, physical, etc disabilities as appropriate. 'Challenged' never caught on, 'retarded' isn't current and has been a term of abuse for too long. 'Cognitive disability' would be appropriate in certain specific cases. 'Impaired' and 'handicapped' are both clear and not generally terms of abuse, but are less current generally, and certainly don't get used by groups of people who themselves have disabilities. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alex. See Euphemism#The "euphemism treadmill" for a discussion on the changing terminology for the condition described above, and people-first language for the tendency to use "people with disabilities"-type phrases (which is nearly universal in government communications, especially in the U.S.). Lately one term I've been seeing in the mainstream media is "intellectual disability". A less formal term is "special", though that's starting to follow "retarded" in the ranks of schoolyard insults. szyslak (t) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attributive use of 'special' to mean 'having special needs/requirements/disabilities' is about as 'wrong' an answer to the original question as you're likely to get - it's a deliberate subversion of the educational term 'special needs', which is itself a euphemism. Avoid. 'Intellectual disability', like 'cognitive disability', has a specific technical meaning. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have never heard "special" used in that context in anything other than a pejorative manner. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive seems like the best term, paired with handicapped, which is gentle, and disability, which is accurate and unflinching. Cognitive is good because it has the most pedantic ring to it. That is a good thing, in this situation, because you want to take the high road, while still hewing to accuracy. Cognitive disability has a slightly clinical sound to it. Cognitively handicapped is friendly and overall the best choice. These are just my opinions. Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps cognitively impaired? Keep in mind whatever term is chosen also has to work in a variety of contexts and tenses (as a verb, adverb and adjective if I'm not mistaken). While cognitive handicap works in a (I honestly don't know the various structuring terms for the english language) way, it would come off quite odd when reworded as "the cognitively handicapped" -- Floydian ^τ _γ 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mom happens to work in a non-profit organization for these folk, and they have taken it for granted that disabled, whether mentally or physically, is the right terminology. They haven't insulted anyone yet. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess disabled is OK too. It certainly is widely heard. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled will not do. It isn't specific enough and could be interpreted as an almost limitless number of debilitating conditions. I specifically need something for mental disability (And mentally disabled almost sounds like they've had their brain removed) for Rumination Syndrome, which has a huge prevalence (up to 10%) amongst the {insert term here}. Sorry if it seems like I'm rejecting everything - I'm not, love the ideas so far and just want to see what many think before making a move. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "impaired" because it is used for people driving under the influence (of something). Impaired I think can also be used for inanimate objects sometimes. But "cognitive" is an aloof word. It is standoffish. A listener has to think for a fraction of a second longer when hearing the word cognitive to comprehend what was just said. "Cognitive handicap" is respectful, without hiding the facts. (Just my opinion.) Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deinitely prefer cognitive because it sounds much more sophisticated than mentally. Perhaps just cognitive disability. Specifies that its mental, but is also straight to the point. -- ʄɭoyd̪iaɲ ^τ _ç 03:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "Cognitive disability" might include things such as mild dyslexia. "mentally impaired" may be the result of severe head injury, and "mentally retarded" would be the only accurate description of an adult with a mental age of 3 (although now avoided because of the over-use of "retarded" as an insult). The external links in the article use "mentally handicapped", which seems a good compromise, clearly omitting mild cognitive disorders. Using "cognitive", without details of the type of conditions associated with rumination. is very close to saying "just about anybody"....although the article does go on to say "healthy" individuals may also suffer from it. Sounding 'sophisticated' is, in my view, no substitute for sounding clearly understood. - KoolerStill (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of sounding sophisticated. It is a matter of conveying the high-mindedness of the person speaking. I think the aim is for the speaker to distance themselves from the often insulting reference to inferior intellect that humans are prone to seize upon in every other occasion where insult is needed. People of normal intelligence are commonly called stupid. And retarded. And "mental." Even "impaired" carries a slight tinge of insult to it. But we rarely hear someone being insulted by being called "cognitive." It is only the second term that brings the intended meaning to cognitive. I think any of the terms are acceptable, but this is what I see as a special quality that cognitive has in this instance. There may be good reasons not to use cognitive also, such as that it may not be the first word that comes to mind, when speaking. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]