Language desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

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 9

Term for a list of words, all of the same length

I'm trying to coin a word to describe a list of words all having the same length (for example, a list of all seven-letter words). Inspired by such words as isobar, isocheim, isochore, isochron, isocline, isodrosotherm, isogeotherm, isogloss, isogon, isohel, isohyet, isomer, isopach, isopleth, isotach, isothere, isotherm, isotone, isotope, and isozyme (and the mongrels isoquant and isospin), I thought I could combine the iso- prefix with a Greek root that means "length." So I asked Google to translate "length" into Greek, and it answered with μήκος. Does this mean that "isomek" is the word I'm looking for? That really looks strange. —Bkell (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

isomecic, perhaps. —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this URL: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2351090 -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I was looking through my library's copy of that book earlier, and I found a few words that can apparently mean "length", but I didn't find that. In a different lexicon (Yonge's), I found ὁμοιόχρονος, but it wasn't quite right either. —Bkell (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter/trans/pan

I can't quite determine the correct usage of the above prefixes and hope someone could help me. As I understand it, inter- means among/between; trans- across/over; and pan something like throughout. So inter-school sports would be sports between schools (as opposed to intra-school, which would happen within the school) and inter-state is moving between states, transalpine - across the alps; pan-Pacific - throughout the Pacific. Correct? Now, if you wanted to say that something happened across several regions or districts (eg. three states working together, equally, on a project which might involve all or part of their area, or an organisation which works across the three districts), which would you use? Inter-district? Trans-district? My thanks (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, I'd use inter. Trans-district could mean activities of one district authority outside its own district (e.g. the San Francisco Water Department has properties in various other counties, which could be called its 'trans-county' facilities). —Tamfang (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Trans" is usually "across" in the sense of "from one side to the other". "Trans-county" in reference to San Francisco sounds to me as though it ought to refer to something that passes through San Francisco County only for the purpose of connecting Marin County with Alameda County (for example). If I was going to express "facilities outside the county" in a single word with a Latinate prefix, it'd be "extra-county". (That is, "extra-" means "outside of".) In normal English I'd be more likely to say "out-of-county" or just use the phrase.

As to the original query, I agree that "inter-" is the right choice.

--Anonymous, 07:28 UTC, June 9, 2009.

Good point. Perhaps I was misled by thinking of words like transcend and transgress. —Tamfang (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Interdisciplinarity, Crossdisciplinarity, Multidisciplinarity, and Transdisciplinarity. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the prefix pan is a bit different in that it's from Greek and not from Latin, and it's from an adjective and not a preposition; it means all/whole. Some examples: pandemic, panhellenic, panorama, pantheist... &c. --pma (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish language

The article Cornish language contains the following passage:

This revival can be traced to the work of Jenner, who in 1904 published his work A Handbook of the Cornish Language. This formed the basis for the language revival and learning. In his work he observed There has never been a time when there has been no person in Cornwall without a knowledge of the Cornish language

The sentence "There has never been a time when there has been no person in Cornwall without a knowledge of the Cornish language" was difficult for me to parse, and I had to read it a couple of times to interpret it. It appears to be equivalent to saying that "At all times, there has been at least one person in Cornwall who did not know the Cornish language". That strikes me as being true, but trivial. Keep in mind that during the century before Jenner's work was published, most people in Cornwall did not speak Cornish. Am I interpreting Jenner's statement correctly? Or is it more significant than I thought it was? (For example, if there were times in most other countries when 100% of the population spoke the local language, but Cornwall had never experienced 100% knowledge of the local language, that might indicate the significance of Jenner's statement.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is "At all times, there has been at least one person in Cornwall who did know the Cornish language". In other words, that the language never ever died out completely. --Pykk (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pykk is right about what Jenner is trying to say. I doubt Jenner is correct, though, unless having "knowledge of the Cornish language" includes merely being aware that such a language once existed. In 1904, there were people in Cornwall who had "knowledge of the Cornish language" in about the same way that I have "knowledge of the Albanian language" - I'm aware it exists and have even seen it written down with my own eyes, but I've never heard it spoken and don't understand a word of it. +An gr 09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article does state:

"There is also, however, evidence that Cornish continued, albeit in limited usage by a handful of speakers, throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century. In 1875 six speakers all in their sixties were discovered^[22]; some claim that John Davey from St Just who died in 1891 at Boswednack, Zennor should be considered the last traditional speaker.^[23] Others, however, dispute this, saying that Alison Treganning, who died in 1906 was the last traditional speaker^[24] and by this time the revival was well underway."

On a more trivial level, many Cornish place names not surprisingly include Cornish-language elements, and many people probably continued to understand the meaning of those elements, which could be argued to constitute "a knowledge" of the language. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User kw. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? I don't mean to offend, but I see you doing this a lot, in response to practically every question where a language is mentioned... -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipated that the relevance would be obvious. If people editing this page are unable to answer the question, or even if they are, the questioner can consult a list of Wikipedians with some knowledge of the language to ask the question or even to discuss the language in more depth. Occasionally, my comment of that type is the only answer that anyone has made to the question (see, for example, the recent section "Lithuanian translation"). The first link in the comment provides a means of finding the lists for other languages. What might seem to be repetitious to frequent visitors to this page might not seem to be so for others who visit this page very seldom.

I am not offended by your question, and I do not mean to offend by saying that it is an exaggeration to say that I do that in response to practically every question where a language is mentioned. I am more likely to make a comment of that type when the language is less prominent globally and therefore less likely to be well-known by people providing answers on this page. I know that some of my comments of that type have been helpful, and some Wikipedians might wish to express their appreciation for them. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe benefit is the publicizing of ISO 639 language codes, which, like anything else on this page, might not be equally appreciated by all readers. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

radio coding

What is old time pilot lingo for "loud and clear"? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five by five? Deor (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorry or truck

I had always heard that lorry was British English for what we Americans call a truck. I was surprised to find this article in the Independent ([1]) mention trucks but never used the word lorry. Is it a matter of that paper's style guide, or of using a different register or is it necessary to make the distinction from vans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OR alert) It's more the case that some people use language that is more American than that used by others. In particular, people in the media tend to use more American language than the average person on the street, and the sort of people writing and reading the Independent and the Guardian (for example) tend to use more American language. These are also people who are likely to have more contact with Americans, view more American media and be more likely to spend more time in America. Sometimes it can be really quite grating (the juxtaposition of language). 80.41.126.158 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many distinctions between US and UK English terms are pretty blurry these days, as our cultures intermingle and cross-fertilise. I'm English and use lorry, truck and HGV interchangeably without any sense of one term being more "foreign" than another, but would never use any of them for a van. Other terms remain more distinct: I would never opt for "diaper" instead of "nappy", for example. If pressed hard to describe the difference I would probably say that this was a truck and this was more of a lorry, but that's my opinion only. Ka renjc 17:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karenjc, can you explain why you consider one of those vehicles a truck and the other a lorry? I understand that you're not presenting any sort of rigorous definition, but I just don't see what there is about them that would cause someone to categorize them differently. John M Baker (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You only really see that kind of vehicle in the US, so it makes sense to use the US term. The only time I would use "truck" is in the phrase "pick-up truck". --Tango (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully understand Karnejc's distinction. The first, defined "truck", has a cab which is not seen in the UK, and thus has an exotic American sense to it. The 2nd ("lorry") is absolutely typical. Can you really not see the difference in the cab? Interestingly, and quite randomly, the most common use of the word "truck" I ever found in the UK is "truck and trailer": a maul tactic in rugby union (common enough for Semi-trailer truck to have a hatnote to that effect.Gwinva (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above (I'm also British). I found the Independent articles quite grating, although I wouldn't mind if they were talking solely about Karenjc's definition of a truck. I'm not sure where it comes from, but a truck could also be something much smaller, and pushed, although that is rare here. I've never seen the first 'truck' on British roads (although I did on Ice Road Truckers, a TV programme, set in Canada or Alaska, which I didn't mind). I think they're somewhat bigger as well, and unsuitable for many British roads (imagine trying to get through Cornwall!), hence the second type is used. Just a thought. It's actually quite an easy distinction, since I've never seen anything in the middle. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. The cab with forward-projecting engine compartment, large vertical exhaust chimneys and (often) quite a bit of shiny chrome is not commonly seen on British roads and conforms for more to my idea of a US truck than the less bulky and exotic lorry of my second example. Ka renjc 11:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent blog post on trucks and lorries. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truck is a, or to, cart. A lorry is a loadable carriage. The truck word is ambiguous and lorry is usually the word but you will be understood if you say truck. It is far from exotic (sorry). Diapers is a rare word and the measurements are different. Biscuits are cookies not burgers, thats about it. ~ R.T.G 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do biscuits have to do with burgers (anywhere)? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, if that person travels to Britian and talks all day, they will understand every word even if he barely catches a sentence himself. Biggest differences are, in America, a biscuit is a kind of burger you get in McDonalds and the word for nappy is diaper. 'Buck' is also a unique word for money but so is every money in the world so doesn't count so good. This guy thinks that because we say lorry that the work truck is alien. The word cookie is a prime example for discussion and biscuit is cookies best buddy, okay? Oh, and chips, chipped potatoes here are french fries and crispy slices of potato here are called Potato Crisps. You would find it very difficult to make crisps with a chipping motion. Lorry (horse-drawn), it is a toungue-twister on the words 'loadable trolly'. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A biscuit is not a "type of burger you get at McDonalds." A biscuit is a savory quickbread, somewhat similar to a scone, which generally serves a purpose akin to a dinner roll. McDonalds serves breakfast sandwiches with breakfast meats (such as sausage) on a biscuit. I've never heard of anyone eating a burger on a biscuit. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a biscuit in a Carolina McDonalds and I thought it was like a burger, with chips/fries, bun and drink and all. If I went to my local McDonalds and asked for biscuits they might have chocolate chip cookies or something. Bourbon creams for your coffee... not buns and fries. ~ R.T.G 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This biscuit was a breakfast thing with eggs and bacon, drink and fries. Maybe it was the bun but definitly not a bourbon cream cookie which is what I would call a biscuit. ~ R.T.G 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what you had at McDonald's was an Egg McMuffin, which is served on an English muffin, not a biscuit. +An gr 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it was a bacon, egg & cheese biscuit. As you can tell on this menu, McDonalds has several biscuit items for breakfast, but it does not serve them the rest of the day. John M Baker (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never forget it. I was taking out as a treat (as a small boy) and the man who lived around there all his life I guess, he said he would buy me a biscuit for breakfast and it was some sort of breakfast burger thing. Check the page biscuit and it is actually covered in detail. An old southern state tradition or something since the 1800s. I was hoping somebody would suggest a page on the wiki where words like biscuit/cookie and nappy/diaper were all listed. ~ R.T.G 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you want on one or more of these pages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking those up Wavelength but I looked through the "a" section of that list and so far all words claimed to have a meaning in America not commonly used seem to be wrong including words such as apartment, attorney, ace etc. "A la mode" as "with ice cream" is an unfamiliar one. Other dubious differences are stuff like "beaver" for vagina and "batty" for homosexual. We have bogey, bonk, boob, box as supposed not to be slang for some sort of beaver in British English, brilliant in the sarcastic, bug as to have 6 meanings in America not in use across the water such as bug off and firebug, buggy supposed not to be the word for a baby carriage, the word bum supposed to mean actual anal buggery in British English, that a carnival wouldn't be a sort of funfair in British English but more likely to be the days before lent, casualty supposed not to mean in British English a person who has died in unfortunate circumstances. If you don't mind my use of some colloquial language I must say the list is full of crap (I'm sorry but ask around, I don't know how well the Americans will understand my use of the word "full" so I suggest they all consult the list, maybe someone here will be interested in fixing some of that list). ~ R.T.G 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your examples of the list being 'wrong' conflict with my day-to-day experience of the language. So maybe the list just doesn't fit with your personal experiences. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about that on the talk page of the list if you want. ~ R.T.G 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Labour Organization

Why is this so called? Labour is the British spelling; Organization is American. The question is, is there a more historical reason for this, or is it that the second sentence is too much of a generalisation - there was a particular nuance, or historical usage (around 1920 it was set up, I'm not sure when the name was settled) of which I'm not aware? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN uses Oxford spelling. Algebraist 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have there every been any complaints or that sort of thing over nomenclature? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that UN Delegates, unlike many Wikipedia editors, it would seem, have less trivial matters with which to concern themselves. 217.19.134.11 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the confines of history, there have been a fair few: the Malvinas/Falklands, the whole Macedonia thing, I was wondering if UN naming conventions have created any others. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of substantive issues doesn't seem to prevent the UN, or any other political body, from perennially declaring a Year of Symbolism. —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spendthrift

So, according to the wiktionary (and, I'm sure, English dictionaries in general), spendthrift = someone who spends money wastefully or not carefully. However, thrift = "The characteristic of using a minimum of something (especially money)". I'm trying to wrap my mind around the common element of "thrift" in both of these words, because it seems to be used in contradictory ways with these words. The wiktionary entry gives the etymology as coming from Old Norse meaning "thriving condition, prosperity". No etymology is given for "spendthrift". I'm confused how "thrift" can mean both "wasteful" and "using a minimum of something" at the same time? Or is it just some weird coincidence that caused those two words to look alike, and they don't actually share the same root? Dgcopter (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "thrift" in this sense means "wealth". So a spendthrift spends his wealth. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... I guess my confusion came from me parsing the "thrift" part of "spendthrift" as an adverb rather than a noun (that is, "one who spends thriftily" vs. "one who spends thrift"). Dgcopter (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting about thrift meaning wealth. We tend to use the word thrift to mean the practice of spending money parsimoniously. All other considerations aside, a thrifty person probably has a better chance of becoming wealthy than a non-thrifty person, but being thrifty per se is not necessarily a guarantee that you will become wealthy (pace my grandmother, who always said "Take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves". But then, she was Scottish.) Some people who were formerly cashed up but are now not so, are forced by circumstance to watch every cent. They're now thrifty because they have no other choice, but they're certainly not wealthy. And at the other end of the spectrum are the Hetty Greens and the J. Paul Gettys, who were rich beyond the dreams of avarice but maintained their thrifty habits to excessive degrees. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]