Language desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

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.

March 3

What is a "killing oak"?

In studying Icelandic magical traditions, I have frequently come across instructions to carve the magical sigil or runes on a piece of "killing oak", which I assume is a type of oak. 4.158.3.154 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But I do know they don't have oak trees on Iceland. Not many trees in general. --Pykk (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief internet search, apparently oak trees were introduced to Iceland by the Vikings, but there were so few other trees there that "oak" became the generic word for tree. Not sure if that's relevant. Indeterminate (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absense of an immediate answer, it might be helpful to include the original Icelandic words, and maybe a link to the text it appears in (the sagas are available on line I think)

Assuming the intention is to harm, then perhaps looking at poppet or sympaphetic magic might help understanding the prectice. The term 'killing' might be an adjective to describe a particularily suitable piece of wood for the act (rather than a species of tree) - eg having associations with the recipient, or having some infered powers through its own history (ie the handle of an axe that was used to kill someone)FengRail (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(It's possible that it's a kenning)FengRail (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the original language or context would be very helpful here but the oak tree has long been associated with lightning, detailed in great length in The Golden Bough. It may be an overly poetic way of suggesting lightning or fire scorched wood from a dead tree. meltBanana 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's sympathetic magic. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acorns have varying degrees of toxic tannins in them. If they were more common in Iceland than indicated above then one species or individual tree might have been called that because their fruit are more harmful when consumed than the others. But I don't even know if the Vikings did leech acorns (would be surprised if they didn't, though.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a long shot (pun - see later). Don't a lot of plants have tannins in - most plant things except apples and carrots are harmful.

My guess is Yew - if it is a kenning related to 'bow' (as in longbow) - ie "killing oak" = "bow (weapon)" = "yew" - oak being taken as generic for wood.

(still could be the wood giant 'cluesticks' are made out either...)FengRail (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't ring a bell. Is this from the Galdrabók? Haukur (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot 'em Up

Shoot 'Em Up

Image:Shoot em up ver2.jpg

I think the capitalization of the title words are right. 'Em shall be set in lowercase. However, do you guys find the use of contraction incorrect? I think they should use an apostrophe rather than using the left quotation mark. Am I right? -- Toytoy (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Em is short for Them, which normally in a title, would be capitalized, therefore making 'Em capitalized. Also, the punctuation is not a left quotation mark, it, in fact, is an apostrophe. A quotation mark looks like two apostrophes. Yakeyglee (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the capital T is part of what's omitted. – Some British publishers use a single mark for quotation, and double for nested quotation. – For elision, use ’ (’) not a left single quote mark. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inlined the image since it's non-free and so can't be shown on this page directly. I agree it should be an apostrophe, not a lefthand single quote. As for capitalization, I've always found the rules for "title case" in English to be completely impenetrable. I don't see why we can't be like virtually every other language and use the same capitalization for titles as we do in sentences. Why not just call the film Shoot ’em up? —An gr 07:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because me British and read it as command to commit drive-by. ;-) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'd never given it much thought. I'd always assumed it was just an extension of the capitalization of proper names. Indeterminate (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some people view "em" as a direct descendant of Middle English "hem" (Middle English#Pronouns), not necessarily a contraction of "them". --Kjoonlee 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should capitalize all three words, because there are no articles, conjunctions, or prepositions. You have a verb, a contracted pronoun, and an adverb.71.30.254.216 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin paradigm populations

Any idea how many roots belong to each of the major Latin conjugations and declensions? Is there perhaps an exhaustive list of fifth-declension nouns? —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to create a list of fifth-declension nouns, there are only a handful of them. This may be exhaustive, although you should note that not all possible forms actually appear in Latin literature (except for dies and res). As for roots, well, what do you mean by roots? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By specifying roots I mean to avoid the problem of counting verbs that differ only by a prefix. —Tamfang (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read this question to mean:

How many nouns belong to the 1st/.../5th declension?

How many verbs belong to the 1st/.../4th conjugation? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Tamfang (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of comma

The article on Dan Orlovsky begins with the following sentence --> Daniel John Orlovsky (born August 18, 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut) is a quarterback for the Houston Texans of the National Football League. I added in a comma after the year "1983". It was reverted not once, but twice, by two different editors. I referred to the article comma. This article states: Additionally, most style manuals, including the Chicago Manual of Style [7] and the AP Stylebook,[8] recommend that the year be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after it: "Feb. 14, 1987, was the target date." However, an editor who reverted me stated that comma is not the controlling force here but, rather, that WP:MOS is. I looked at WP:MOS ... which simply states that commas must be used correctly ... and it directs the reader back to the comma link. The (reverting) editor's edit summary states: Comma is completely separate from WP:MOS; commas should be used in prose after dates, yes, but the standard for introductory sentences like this is to not use a comma between the date & place. So, my question ... is there a comma after the year "1983" or not in the introductory statement of the article? Why or why not? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph, I think you got everything right. --Anon, 06:31 UTC, March 3, 2009.

I agree. In the "month-day-year" format, the year is preceded and followed by a comma (unless it's followed by a period, of course), so "born August 18, 1983, in Shelton, Connecticut" is correct. In the "day-month-year" format, however, there are no commas, so the alternative is "born 18 August 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut". But "born August 18, 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut" does not follow the usual rules for commas. —An gr 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct usage. Maybe the editor should have said that such minor changes shouldn't be executed? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, introductory sentances don't get a special sort of grammar. Commas there follow the same rules as everywhere else, there should be commas before AND after the year. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the comma before the year only in the "month-day-year" format. I'm forever correcting dates in the "day-month-year" format that appear as, e.g. "18 February, 1985". There's no comma needed there. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could avoid the problem by changing it to "(born in Shelton, Connecticut, on August 18, 1983)". :P —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name for a person who makes excessive spoken use of a particular word?

What would you call such a (medical?) condition, and is there a name for a person who exhibits such behaviour, please? The word that a person I know uses a lot is 'so'. The word is used to start a lot of this person's speech. (It's not me, in case you were wondering!). Thanks in advance. Trafford09 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Tic it's involuntary. But look at the way some people over-use "um" – "Um is an English exclamation or interjection expressing confusion or hesitancy in spoken conversation. It is often used compulsively and unintentionally as a space filler in an impromptu or unrehearsed discussion." Like Ah, Oh, Oh yes, it's also used to break into speech: So! there's a cab rank on the corner... So, they tell me you're looking for a taxi... So Trafford, howzit goin?... Or to keep a thought going so other people can't interrupt. People who have training for public speaking soon learn to overcome this kind of overuse problem. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are the German modal particles, which can be used repeatedly as fillers in sentences. There is a lengthy article on these "Modalpartikel" here [1].

Whilst I am aware that some people use these with a nauseating frequency I don´t know a term for such users. Poking around in WP I found the term discourse particle under the entry for "like". There is also speech disfluency, discourse marker and expletive, but, again, no term for the excessive use of these fillers is mentioned in any of these articles. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncritical" might cover it. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Tourette's Syndrome, where people make weird noises and say random words, often swear words. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the big end, Tourettes is not about starting every sentence with the same word but is marked by bizarre interjections, and at the mild end, "eye blinking, coughing, throat clearing, sniffing, and facial movements". Julia Rossi (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse. I once listened for an hour to someone whose hesitation-sound, emitted frequently, was: "Um. Ah. Then." – in unvarying staccato. —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-tal vs. -thal (ending for surnames and place names)

The online German/English dictionary LEO gives "valley" for tal and no results for thal as an isolate. The meaning of the latter, when found in surnames and place names, is sometimes glossed as meaning "valley." What's the difference between the two spellings? (Regional? Historical? other?) Are they pronounced differently? (This affects their transliteration into Hebrew, at least according to a current discussion at my workplace). -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in sheer speculation here, but I'd guess it's a historical spelling issue, especially since there is the valey Neandertal in Germany, and the hominid first found there some 150 years ago was named Neanderthal, suggesting that that was the accepted spelling at the time. Also, the pronounciation is the same in German, as far as I know. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to talk origins, the "-tal"/"-thal" distinction is a matter of spelling reform. Neanderthal man was discovered and named in 1856; German spelling was reformed in 1904, and "-thal" became "-tal" to more accurately reflect pronunciation. - Nunh-huh 13:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I don't know about the origin of the variant spelling, but they are pronounced the same. I'd transliterate both as טל-. Isolated "thal" also appears in some placenames, cf. Thal. — Emil J. 13:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tet (ט) and not tav (ת)? There's some rule of Hebrew orthography (of whose exact nature I'm guiltily ignorant)—though perhaps only relevant to words that entered Hebrew from Greek—that th (from theta) in the source name is represented by tav, rather than the t (from tau) with tet. The actual problem surfaced when we encountered an absolutely literal טהאל in transliterations of names ending in "-thal". -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thal is an archaic spelling of Tal in German. There's no difference in pronunciation, so there shouldn't be a difference in Hebrew transliteration. —An gr 13:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really know enough of Hebrew orthography (less than you, I assume) to tell for sure whether to use ט or ת, but I would go with ט: the "h" in "thal" is just a spelling oddity, it does not really mean anything, whereas in Greek, "t" and "th" (i.e., τ and θ) represent different phonemes. The "th" in "thal" has exactly the same value as "t" in other German names like Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Trier, Göttingen, and as far as I can see these are all transliterated with ט in Hebrew. The transliteration טהאל looks very weird, as the "h" is silent in the original German. — Emil J. 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Greek has nothing to do with anything. If -tal is normally transliterated טל-, -thal should be too, just as "Green" and "Greene" would presumably be transliterated the same way into Hebrew. —An gr 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a German spelling reform in 1901 (as Nunh-huh states above), when words like "Thür", "Thor" and "Thal" were modified to Tür, Tor (both mean door) and Tal (valley). Proper nouns were excepted, as they were excepted in the last reform. The etymological Duden notes the spelling "tal" in the Old and Middle High German, as well as "dal" in the Gothic. As you mention Greek possibly being relevant in the transliteration to Hebrew, the further etymology is "tholos" (Greek, but there is no Greek alphabet used, so I don´t know if that is theta or tau) and "dhel-" (IE).. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Tal isn't derived from Greek tholos, but they could be etymologically related. However, the AHD entry for "dale" (the English word cognate with Tal) says nothing about its coming from an Indo-European root (and AHD is very good about Indo-European roots!), so I'm skeptical. —An gr 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Duden states: Tal: Das gemeingerm. Wort mhd. tal, ahd. tal, got. dal, engl. dale, schwed. dal is z.B. verwandt mit der slaw. Sippe von russ. dol "Tal" und griech. tholos "Kuppel" und geht zurück auf die idg. Wurzel *dhel- "Biegung, Höhlung; Wölbung". Sorry for my misleading translation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting aside, "-thal" is actually also the root of the word Dollar, which derives its name originally from a coin called "Joachimsthalers", literally "Coins from Joachim's Valley". The area today is in the Czech Republic area of Jáchymov. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Th' is just a fancy variant of 't'. It's not pronounced differently. AFAIK, using 'th' for the 'þ' sound is unique to English. Using 'th' as a fancy version of 't' in names is not unique to German though. It exists in Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Hungarian, to name those I can think of. Due to spelling reforms (also not unique to German), using 'th' spelling in words is usually no longer acceptable in these languages. --Pykk (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'th' is used for /θ/ in English, Welsh, and Albanian at least. If Greek roots with 'θ' are indeed transliterated into Hebrew by 'ת' as opposed to 'ט', this is entertainingly ironic, because it is 'θ' which derives from (a Phoenician precursor of) 'ט'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically entertaining as it may be ;-) I must reiterate that I don't know the origins of this practice (if indeed I understand it right; my acquired Hebrew has been a haphazard process characteristic of an adult immigrant; I'm still amazed and gratified that I can make my living translating from Hebrew, albeit thanks to a superior command of the target English). I believe it's intended to make some sort of distinction as to the Greek origin of a word, otherwise represented by [ tet ] in borrowings from other foreign languages. The actual th sound is unsuccessfuly treated in Modern Hebrew transcription, but that's another story for another time unless someone wishes to chime in here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The transliteration of Greek τ and θ as ט and ת, respectively, makes perfect sense in view of historical Hebrew phonology. While ט and ת both denote [t] in modern Israeli Hebrew, ת without dagesh was traditionally pronounced as [θ] (or even [s] in Ashkenazi pronunciation) ever since the late Roman period, which agrees with the pronunciation of θ in post-classical Greek. — Emil J. 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it went both ways. I believe Hebrew and Aramaic names with ט were transliterated with τ in the Septuagint and New Testament, while those with ת were transliterated with θ. This is true even when the ת did have the dagesh, e.g. תום‎ = Θωμᾶς. —An gr 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, yes I was going to write 'unique to English among Germanic languages' but then I thought of Hungarian (which derived its orthography from German). Which is why I referred to the 'þ' character (Icelandic still uses it). I guess it's worth noting that English used a 'y'-like character for 'þ' too, before 'th' won out. Which is why you can see 'old' style spellings of 'the' as 'ye'. Important then to note that it's still pronounced as 'the', and not the same word or character as in the old pronoun 'ye'. --Pykk (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't. The use of 'Y' for 'Þ' was a device of printers, whose font lacked 'þ'. See Thorn. You're right that it is still the word 'the', and should be pronounced as such; but it was a 'y' used in place of 'þ', not a distinct character.

Of course it makes sense that 'θ' and 'ת' should correspond in post-classical Greek, now you explain it, Deborah. I have supposed that the reason for the original adoption of 'θ' from 'ט' was because 'ט' represented the marked ('emphatic' - probably velarised) consonant as opposed to 'ת', and so 'θ' was used to represent the marked variant, as against 'τ'; even though the distingishing feature in Greek was spiration rather than velarisation. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how there's a clear definition of what constitutes a 'different character'. Obviously I think 'y-for-þ' does and you don't. It's not very clear. E.g. in Dutch 'ij' is considered by some to be a single 'letter', and by others to be two. German doesn't consider 'ö' to be a distinct letter from 'o' (collating as o then ö in a dictionary), but Swedish does (where ö is the last letter of the alphabet). --Pykk (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay son

George said of John's father, Victor, that Victor never understood his son, John, being gay. Then he (G) said he (V) would of course have come across "homosexual" and "queer". What would George have meant by this? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to clarify your question. What do you mean by he would have come across "homosexual and "queer"? Do you mean that Victor would come across the words "homosexual" and "queer" or that he would come across the concepts? By the way, who is George? LANTZY ^TALK 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Pink Panther: Lord Victor Hervey - a TV documentary aired on Channel 4 on March 2, 2009. I am confused by what George was saying. George was a friend of John and knew Victor. My own thought is that queer is derogatory, while homosexual is factual and gay is friendly. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, many find 'homosexual' to be clinical, cold, dehumanizing, and offensive, especially when used as a noun ('Ellen is a homosexual') and in formulations such as 'homosexual marriage' and 'homosexual agenda'. Almost no gay people describe themselves as homosexual, while homophobic organizations strongly favor the term. Many gay activists have raised this point. There's even a right-wing news website that automatically converts the word 'gay' to 'homosexual', resulting in an article about Tyson Homosexual. On the other hand, 'queer' has been largely reclaimed, and is generally understood by the LGBT community to be a positive term, especially when used as an adjective. In the context you mention it's being used as a derogatory epithet, but that function has largely been superceded by 'fag', at least where I come from. LANTZY ^TALK 18:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that letter is extremely interesting. If gay people regard "homosexual" negatively then I must take that on board and avoid it. Having said which I would naturally use the word gay in preference, so I suppose at some level I had absorbed the point. Learning all the time. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does vary between individuals, Kitty. I don't have the slightest problem with being referred to as a homosexual, whether adjective or noun. Gay is good, too. Queer - mostly OK, although it is sometimes used pejoratively. Fag - I use it jocularly, in private, among close gay friends, but never in other settings. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer queer, which is broad enough to include people of my persuasion. I dislike 'bisexual' for the very same reasons that John Aravosis dislikes 'homosexual'. But I tend to defer to gay men on the issue of nomenclature. For instance, I'd never presume to use the term 'fag', though as Jack points out, and as the gay linguist Arnold Zwicky discusses in this article, even that word is being reclaimed by the likes of Dan Savage. LANTZY ^TALK 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still confused. I've just looked up John and Victor. John was the homosexual one, and Victor his overbearing father. You report that George said something to this effect, "Victor would of course have come across homosexual and queer", The plain meaning of which is that Victor would have left the impression by his demeanor that he himself was homosexual. I can't make sense of that. "Come across" can also mean "encounter", but I can't make sense of that, either. I'm sure I'm just being thick and/or overliteral. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it just means that George thinks Victor was unable to relate to John because he disapproved of John's sexuality. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This (above) is a confusing discussion. Since this was a TV show, can you give us the exact words (transcript) of this relevant portion? That will give us context, to make sense of the comment ... and will also remove any possible errors in your reporting of the exact comment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For context, see Reappropriation and Reclaiming. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think about this old Fry and Laurie sketch now..--Pykk (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be making myself clear: The question as stated by the OP is nonsense. I can't tell from the words it uses and the order it uses them in what is being asked. Please either explain or rephrase. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I didn't record it. So it is not an exact quotation. Maybe I can contact George himself and ask him. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, what? I'm saying I don't understand what you wrote, not that I don't understand what George said. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice

I am trying to find an appropriate word ... I don't care if it is a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc. The only word that comes to mind right now is "hypocritical" ... but I think that there must be a better word out there. This is what I am trying to describe. Say that a person (John) is a very strong advocate for some issue (let's just say, the death penalty). And if you ask John, who so strongly supports the death penalty, "Well, would you yourself go and perform the lethal injection?" ... and John would be horrified to actually do the lethal injection himself. So, John is "OK" with the death penalty, as long as someone else has to carry it out ... but he is not "OK" with the death penalty if he himself had to carry it out. Or, maybe another example: A person (John) supports abortion. Then when John's own daughter considers having an abortion, John is outraged and opposes it. As I said, I can only think of "hypocritical" ... or, on some level, "nimby" (not in my backyard). Is there a better word to capture this description? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not a single word, but "He can dish it out but he can't take it"? —An gr 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, that does not apply to either the death penalty or the abortion ... does it? Your suggested phrase implies "I will do something to others and that's OK ... but I am not OK with others doing that same thing back to me." That's not quite the same as what I was getting at in my original question. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I think "hypocritical" probably is the best word for it. The only other phrase coming to mind is "He doesn't practice what he preaches". —An gr 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "hypocritical" covers t best for a single word. For a phrase I like the colloquial "He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk". -- Q Chris (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only applies in a limited sphere, but Chickenhawk is similar... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a term, but I haven't been able to come up with it yet. In the meantime, here are a couple of related terms: Thomas Paine's "sunshine patriot", a variety of "fair-weather friend" who is all for a cause as long as he doesn't have to suffer any personal inconvenience for it, and Pontius Pilate, whose personification will "wash his hands of [a thing or person]" thinking to absolve himself of tacit complicity in evildoing. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those all seem on the negative side, but it doesn't have to be. Most people accept that a country must have a government and laws, and these are seen as good things, but only a tiny % of people ever consider a career as a politician or a legislator. We all want our countries to be well defended and we all expect our soldiers to go off and if necessary die on our behalf. Hence, being a soldier is an extremely honourable profession. So, why do so many countries have to resort to national service? It's because the bulk of people (myself included) expect nameless others to die for them, but are not prepared to do the same for them. I wouldn't call that hypocritical, except in a narrow, technical sense. It's in the nature of a life calling. Some are called to be soldiers, some are called to be entertainers, some are called to be tax accountants - and some are called to be executioners. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's the "lip service" we pay laudable ideals until we're asked to actually do something. We used to "let George do it". We can be two-faced or Janus-faced. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to clarify what the question is asking. Consider:

Man A is strictly heterosexual and would never marry another man, but is in favor of same-sex marriage as a civil right issue: he believes that members of the same sex should be allowed to marry if they want, and says so.
Woman B believes that a pregnant woman should have the right to an abortion and says so, but cannot imagine a situation where she would herself choose to have one.
Man C believes that justice requires convicted murderers to be put to death, and says so, but would not accept a job as an executioner.
Woman D believes that it's a person's responsibility to perform military service if called on, and says so, but when actually drafted herself, she tries to evade it.

Are A, B, C, and D all examples of what we're being asked about? Because I see two or more distinctly different categories here. --Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, March 4, 2009.

A and B are not inconsistent at all. They recognize that not all people are the same, that what is right for one person is not right for everyone else. C could also make this argument: he could claim that some people are suited to the job of executioner, but that he is not. There are many other examples of this, for example a person who eats meat but cannot imagine killing an animal. D could not justify her position: If she truly believes that a person must perform an action when called on, and refuses to perform that action when called on, then she is a hypocrite. LANTZY ^TALK 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a may and must distinction. Or may and should distinction. The OP was, I think, asking about the latter. Examples, A, B, and C are all examples of the former.

To add to the list of quips, a Chinese idiom comes to mind: "Ye Gong hao long": "Master Ye loves the dragon". The story is that Master Ye loves the Chinese dragon. He wears dragon robes, he has dragons painted on his walls, he buys matching dragon-pattern crockery. Then one day, a dragon shows up in his backyard and he is so scared that he runs and hides under the bed (more or less). The phrase is used for those who act differently when faced with a theoretical question in general, as against when faced with the real question in specific. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrase paper tiger applies here. I had a great example when I was asked to check in on the pets of a family which was out of town. They had a cat and a dog (well, an ankle-biter, at any rate). I went over and was having some difficulty finding the right key to open the door. The dog ran up to the inside of the door and barked at me like it was going to rip my throat out. The cat sauntered up to the door and yawned. I then got the door open and the dog's expression changed immediately. It stopped barking, let out a yelp, ran upstairs, hid under the master's bedsheets, and peed there. Meanwhile, the cat rubbed against my leg as if to say "Did you bring me something ?". StuRat (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is hypocritical. Consider John and his daughter. He feels that a woman should be allowed to abort if she wants but is upset by his daughter's decision to abort. Is he still a hypocrite if he's only outraged at her decision but still believes that she should be allowed to abort if she wants? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what everyone else has said, "inconsistent" or "contradictory" might apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parents often have fond hopes for their children, and when they choose the "wrong" career or marry into the "wrong" religion or a person of the "wrong" race, it sometimes causes trouble. I've known my Mum .. well, all my life, and I've never seen any evidence that she's racist. Except for one thing she once said that really stuck in my mind: "I'm certainly not a racist, but I'd be very unhappy if either of my daughters announced she was marrying an aborigine". She went on to explain that it wasn't about their race per se, and therefore it wasn't, as far as she was concerned, a racist statement - but about the social implications for the daughter that she believed might ensue. We had quite a debate about it, and I think I got her to understand that it still amounted to a racist statement, even if she was speaking purely out wanting the best for her daughter in terms of social positioning, etc., and not speaking against aborigines as such (although, in effect, she was, because you can't have one side of a coin without the other.) So, at that time she was 99.99% a non-racist, but 0.01% a racist. Is this an example of hypocrisy, a double-standard, inconsistency, or just, as she would put it, putting practical considerations ahead of purist ideals? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist, too, if she's only concerned about her daughters marrying an Aborigine and not her son(s). —An gr 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP, how about "Sunday Morning Christian? "http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Sunday-Morning-Christian-lyrics-Harlan-Howard/2F41ACE4BA4757C048256E2A00127135 DOR (HK) (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is this rhetorical tactic called?

When I want to make a particular controversial point, but I do not wish to make it appear I am sullying myself by making the point, I can say "I am not going to lower myself to discuss <a paraphrasing of the point>".

A typical example would be when a politician has been accused of some malfeasance, and their political adversary, when asked if they'd care to comment on the allegations, says "I don't think it proper for me to comment on <politician>'s indiscretions." They are having their cake and eating it too, rhetorically speaking, as they have implicitly supported the allegations while appearing to stay uninvolved.

Some time ago I saw an article about this type of tactic, but I cannot remember it. Any insight as to what this is called? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though not an actual query, it is similar to a Loaded question, such as "When did you stop beating your wife?"; i.e. you can make an accusation without making it directly. Happens all the time in Yellow journalism, where a newspaper will run a headline "Governor Smith denies taking sexual indescretions with a minor!" The statement may be true, but it may also be quite true even if no one has seriously accused the Governor of such indiscretions. It allows the newspaper to be literally truthful "We asked the Governor if he ever had sex with a minor and he said "no"" even if there was no reason to suspect the Governor of those indiscretions, the "fact" that the Governor had sex with a minor now gets stuck in people's minds. Its a nasty rhetorical device, and has been shown to be quite effective from a pyschological point of view. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan used it very effectively when he said he was not going to use his opponent's youth and inexperience to his political advantage (or words to that effect) - thus denying the opponent an opportunity to make any mention of Reagan's advanced age. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well is close, but also not quite what I think the OP is looking for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation tells me that "On Friday, February 13, 2009, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Noonan v. Staples, that even a true statement, if made with malicious intent, could stand as the basis of a defamation suit". Politicians are good at bringing up material about their opponents that may well be 100% factual, but is not relevant to the issue at hand, and is introduced solely to blacken their name and undermine their standing about whatever the issue is. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather unwise ruling, as it makes the (nearly impossible to determine) intent of the speaker a matter for the court to determine, versus the actual truth of the statement. And I'll miss "His sister is a known thespian and his entire family frequently masticates together in public restaurants !". StuRat (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) Wow, I appreciate all the quick feedback. However, none of these is exactly what I was looking for. My concept hinges on the use/mention distinction: saying one will not mention X is still mentioning X.

I think my original example was unideal: I should have said "I don't think it proper for me to comment on <politician>'s tribulations." Thus the complex question issue is quite tempered, as I note many posters picked up on that issue or some variant of it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example might be "I rise to honour my esteemed colleague <name>. As this is a time for putting our political differences to one side, I'll make no mention of his encounters with <name of issue/prostitute/ whatever> but speak only of happier things ...". You can't say you're not going to mention or refer to X, without actually mentioning or referring to X. Now, what's this called? Linguistically, it might be something like self-negation. Like saying "I know nothing whatsoever about how to write a sentence" (I just did, so I know at least how to write that sentence, thus negating "nothing whatsover"). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The technical name for this rhetorical device, at least in Classical rhetoric, is paralipsis, that is, mention by omission. Saying "I won't mention the numerous reports of my opponent's drunkenness" serves your purpose of mentioning it. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Paralipsis. Thank you, Sputnik. (I do recall the word "apophasis", now that I looked at that page.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same thing, but my favorite along these general lines is a certain style of 19th-century supposedly "outraged" journalism, which went something like this: "How long will Mademoiselle Fifi be permitted to continue to perpetrate her debauched exhibitions of terpsichorean lewdness which are corrupting the very moral fabric of this community, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at 7 o'clock in the second-story rooms at 123 State Street, admission price fifty cents? How long?" (I'm exaggerating, but not by all that much...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Awards

I am a big science fiction and mystery fan. And of course the Hugo award winners and Nebula award winners are some of the best science fiction books and stories written. My questions is that is there something analogous for mystery books every year? Is there such an award for mystery books/stories which is given every year to the best mystery fiction of the year? Maybe, if readers and fans have gotten together and voted for the best mystery novels or something, that would work too. Is there a list on Wikipedia perhaps just like how there is one for Nebula and Hugo winners? Thanks!-Looking for Wisdom and Insight! (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Edgar Awards (named for Poe) are given yearly by the Mystery Writers of America. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Dagger Award was an award given annually by the Crime Writers' Association for best crime novel of the year. BrainyBabe (talk)

It's still given: just renamed as the "Duncan Lawrie Dagger". Gwinva (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Shamus Award for those who would be famus. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the smaller ones is the Scarlet Stiletto Award for Australian female crime authors. I like the title. Steewi (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more: Agatha Award, Anthony Award, Arthur Ellis Awards, the Best Swedish Crime Novel Award and the Glass Key Award (sadly, neither were established until after legendary Sjöwall and Wahlöö had written their last novel, but hey, there is an award named after S&W's protagonist: the Martin Beck Award!). Moreover: Dilys Award (for a bookseller's take), Grand Prix de Littérature Policière, Gumshoe Awards, Macavity Awards, Nero Award, Riverton Prize, and Theakston's Old Peculier Crime Novel of the Year Award. There are also more CWA Dagger awards: Dagger in the Library for a librarian's take, CWA Ian Fleming Steel Dagger for thrillers, CWA New Blood Dagger for newbies, Cartier Diamond Dagger for lifetime achievements, and in 2005 there was a Dagger of Daggers (won by John Le Carré). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]