Language desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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.

May 27

Is there a more formal term than op-ed?

I authored an op-ed in a software development magazine and want to include it on my resume. Is there a more formal term than op-ed? Op-ed 'feels' right to me, but this is for my résumé, so I'm wondering if I should use a more formal term. I don't like "opinion" because that just doesn't sound very impressive. I don't think I should use "article" as that might be misleading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the terms "opinion piece", "featured opinion", and even the dubious "freelance editorial" used, but as far as I know, op-ed is the standard term. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed really probably is the best term. You might consider "guest editorial" or "guest column" if you think they apply. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "editorial" -- an editorial is written by the newspaper's editorial board. If you don't like "op-ed," you can say "opinion piece." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're just called "Opinion [articles]" in Australian newspapers, I believe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "op-ed", everyone knows what it means and there is no ambiguity. If you try and find another phrase it is likely to be either unwieldy or ambiguous. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't the slightest idea what it meant, even in the context of the question, until I looked at the linked article. Is this a US thing, or am I just ignorant? --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British, and it is a fairly common term here. Perhaps you are just ignorant! --Tango (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually an American term. Tango is just unusually worldly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I like to display my ignorance from time to time. It gives one a certain je ne sais quoi". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the OED seems to agree with you "Chiefly N. Amer.". I've certainly heard it used in the UK, though. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a widely used term here in New Zealand, though I have heard it before (mind you, I work for a newspaper and have written such pieces, so I would be more likely to have heard of it). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing word definitions

I want to change the current "common parlance"-->"idiom" situation here at wikipedia. They are not synonyms. "Common parlance" is really just a fancy equivalent of "ordinary speech" according to a college English professor (retired), and I had wanted to place it as a sense antonym of "jargon", which would not MAKE sense at present. Can anyone help with standards to get this done.Julzes (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the redirect for common parlance try discussing this at Talk:Common parlance or Talk:Idiom and if you come to consensus or receive no objection, be WP:Bold. Bear in mind wikipedia is not a dictionary so you'd need to find an appropriate redirect or create one that is a suitable wikipedia article and not a dictionary entry Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice.Julzes (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing new verbs with prepositions

Today, someone told me to "kill off" and I know that he meant to go away and scram because there was an altercation there and he didn't want me to be there. This definition isn't in the dictionary {http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/kill+off] [1].

Several months ago one of my commanders in the U.S. Army told me that the consequences of not making it to an appointment would be that I would get "scuffed up." He meant that I would get reprimanded or punished. This definition isn't in the dictionary either. [2]

What the heck? Are these guys just morons making up new terms? Am I wrong? Is there a rule for affixing prepositions to verbs to make up new words? --70.196.101.7 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard scuffed up used in that sense before, I would understand it more in the sense of a beating or similar 'unofficial' punishment or perhaps some sort of of corporal punishment. E.g [3] Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "scuff up" used to refer to marring the finish on something. (A scuff is a mark left by scraping.) The commander could be using "to be scuffed up" as a metaphor, meaning your disciplinary record will be marred. I've never heard "kill off" used as an imperative. (I've heard it used in contexts like "an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs".) I have heard "fuck off", "piss off", "sod off", "bugger off", etc. The first word in such constructs is invariably a profanity, usually with rude sexual connotations. The person using "kill off" may have bowdlerized the phrase, using a euphemism to make it a little less rude/profane. - 128.104.112.106 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 106 meant to say that kill off is always transitive in normal speech. —Tamfang (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would dispute that people who make up new terms are morons. Perhaps they are bravely leading the way. Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries describe the language, they don't prescribe (or at least, modern dictionaries don't attempt to, though some people choose to believe that they do so) - and they always lag behind. The two examples you quoted appear to have been neologisms - maybe the only time they have ever been used, maybe they are already standard among some community. The speakers may have been using phrases already known to them, they may have been creatively inventing new ones, they may have just got their words mixed up: we can't tell. But from what you've told us, there's no reason to conclude they are morons. Since you understood them, they would appear to satisfy one of the primary purposes of language: communication. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't prepositions in that context. In the phrase "scuff up", the word "up" serves as an adverb. It's like many familiar expressions: "stand up", "walk off", "fall down", "freak out". None of "up", "off", "down" or "out" takes an object, so they're not functioning as prepositions. I'm pretty sure about that anyway. This is why Churchill's famous, "This is something up with which we shall not put," is funny, and not correct. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "up" in that sentence by Churchill was a preposition. However, you are right that in the cases you cite, those words, including "up" are not being used as prepositions.

I have long believed that in the English language, prepositions should be ended sentences with.

English has lots of phrasal verbs like "give up", in which a verb together with a particle that is sometimes in other contexts used as an adverb or a preposition means something altogether different from what it would mean otherwise. And "give" and "up" need not remain next to each other: one can say "Give it up." German also does this a lot, but with German the story is more involved than that. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every word was newly made up once...88.96.226.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Prime

How would you say, "I can't talk right now, I'm eating dinner," in E-Prime? There doesn't seem to be any real "Englishy" way out of that present progressive. Thanks, 84.97.254.68 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be getting on in my years... Remind me, what's E-Prime, again? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, there's an encyclopedia just around the corner: E-Prime. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't talk and eat dinner at the same time"? "Eating dinner ~~prevents~~ precludes me from talking right now"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the Alice in Wonderland example in the article: "I can't talk right now; I eat dinner." Although I fail to see how eliminating the present progressive and replacing it with the simple present (if I have that right) makes a better result or leads to greater clarity of thought. [The previous sentence brought to you, with great difficulty, in E-Prime]. 80.41.18.94 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, "I can't talk right now, eating dinner." I agree with 80.41.18.94; whoever proposed E-Prime, has thrown out the baby with the bath water and eliminated "to be" even where it ~~is used~~ functions as an auxiliary verb. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I played with that version, but it doesn't seem in the spirit of E-Prime. You've just elided the verb 'to be'; ~~it is still assumed to be there, functioning~~ I still assume it exists for the sentence to work. Otherwise we could just say "Can't talk; eating."

What about "When eating dinner, a state in which I currently exist, I cannot talk."? Clarity! :P 80.41.18.94 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't talk right now; eating dinner commands my attention." -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it simple: "I can't talk whilst eating"? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually say that you are eating at the moment, though. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the big brains here have been outdone by Homer, who already summed it up nicely with: "Can't talk. Eating." Matt Deres (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80.41.18.94 thought of that already! --Tango (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Version of Word

I would like to know a scientific version of the term: "someone who knows a psychologist". I know it won't be pretty, but any help is appreciated. RefDeskAnon (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean a coinage formed from Greek and Latin roots (some scientific terminology is formed from Greek and Latin roots, but so is a fair amount of non-scientific terminology). If you're satisfied with a mixed Greek and Latin word, it would be easy to toss something rough-and-ready together with cognoscens, but if you insist on an all-Greek word then it would be more difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything at all would be very much appreciated. Thanks, RefDeskAnon (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description of pictures, phrasing problems

Resolved

– Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading a series of pictures on Commons, and since I totally hate the usually sorely lacking descriptions of pictures uploaded there, I was trying to come up with a proper routine to fill in the description field, I was going for "<Name of picture>, <drew/painted/taken> by <author> [in date], representing <subject>, conserved at <museum/whatever>, reproduced by <whoever produced the actual digital copy>.". I'm not quite sure the phrasing is quite right however, in particular I'm thinking "conserved" - while not entirely incorrect - might not be what an English speaking person would naturally say. So right now, I'm wondering if "kept at" or "held at" might be better, possibly "in" instead of "at" ? I'm not entirely sure "reproduced" conveys the right idea either. Could use some advice. Equendil Talk 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"currently in the collection of" or simply "in"; "photographed by..." (if a photo), "scan produced by..." etc. "Reproduction" and "copy" would have a specific meaning in relation to a work of art such as a painting or a sculpture and would not usually include photographing the work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Made me realise I should change my plan and use more specialised templates with adequate fields. Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whence came Jessica?

This graph shows a rather strange distribution regarding the name Jessica. Until the 1960s, Jessica was a very uncommon name in the US, then surged in popularity in the 1960s, reached a peak (most popular) in the 1980s and then started a sharp decline (though according to our article, it's still quite popular in the UK). The decline probably has much to do with the hugeness of the peak; every class in my elementary school had a Jessica in it; people probably started getting sick of it. But what drove that sharp increase? Was there some famous starlet that inspired everybody? A popular book? Sexy rabbit? Damn, who'd have thought "Jessica Rabbit" would need a DAB page. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Freakanomics Levitt and Dubner argue that common names often start out as popular in the upper classes and then "trickle down". Might be relevant. Mo-Al (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what the average GDP (relative to population of the time) of people who named their daughter Jessica looks like. According to Freakonomics it should start high and decline over time. Eiad77 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister Jessica was born in 1959, just before the surge in popularity. At the time, my parents congratulated themselves on picking such an unusual name, but then just a few years later suddenly everybody and his brother was named Jessica. Who knows, perhaps everyone wanted to name their daughters after my beautiful and talented sister! +An gr 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mitford was moderately famous in both countries, and started publishing books in the early 1960's... AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The daughter of Shylock is named Jessica. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allman Brothers Band released "Jessica" (1973), which became famous in the UK as the theme tune to Top Gear.--88.108.222.231 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Tandy was a well-known actress of the time, but I don't know if I'd call her a "starlet". +An gr 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happened to "Joshua"; it was nowhere, and then became the third most common boy name. Annoys me some; I was the only Josh anywhere, it seemed, and then all of a sudden there were all these little kids with my name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things tend to go in cycles. In the 70s, every 2nd girl was Tegan or Tennille. These days, it's the loopy practice of using surnames as given names - Madison, Jackson, Mackenzie, Taylor ........ - and, as always, for no better reason than "everyone else is doing it". It extends to fashion - one bright spark got the idea of deliberately ripping holes in the knees of their jeans, then everyone got on the bandwagon. At one time, virtually nobody wore a shirt with a t-shirt underneath - now, a lot of males would rather eat their own grandmother than be seen in public dressed any other way. It's still very common to see groups of businesswomen all dressed all in black, as if they're off to a funeral (and they say women like to dress individually - sure). Next year, it'll be something different that "everyone's doing". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The baby name graph is completely at odds with your impression regarding the names Tegan and Tenille. Perhaps they were popular only in your area? Matt Deres (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right about Tegan, but it was astonishingly, irritatingly popular in Australia for a while. I thought Tennille had a world-wide run after the initial success of Captain & Tennille, but maybe it was short-lived. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, the practice of using surnames for given names has been around in English for centuries. They generally started out as middle names, got used as the name a person was known as, and then became regular first names. Sometimes they're intended "literally", e.g. a man named (for example) Jack has a son and names him Jackson. What's relatively modern is using surnames as first names for girls, although even then it's long been the case that surnames-used-as-first-names have migrated from being predominantly boys' names to being predominantly girls' names. Some examples that spring to mind are Kimberly, Leslie, Tracy, and Kelly. +An gr 08:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was startled to learn of the success of Madison for girls (being then unaware of its use in Splash (film)); at the time, the only bearer who had come to my attention (on Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater) was, well, not most parents' notion of a role model. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that, before the sudden burst in popularity, the Shakespearean character cited by Who then was a gentleman? above was probably the direct or indirect inspiration for most namings of Jessicas. As for why there have been such fads for certain names, a few (but not enough) studies of the topic have been undertaken; there's a citation of one—unfortunately, the corresponding bibliography appears to be absent from the Google Books view—in this paper, which itself contains some suggestive analysis of similar fads. I think the reasons are various: "Elizabeth" seems not to have been a very popular name in England before the accession of Elizabeth I, for instance; and, having recently worked on some articles relating to Gavin Douglas, I'm reminded that the popularity of "Gavin" in Scotland went hand in hand with the popularity of French Arthurian romances (and thus of Sir Gawain) in that country. Ultimately, though, many of these increases in popularity probably have to be attributed to nothing more specific than the "madness of crowds." Deor (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of most popular given names. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're up, where the heck did Jayden come from? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]