Language desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

"Gaffe"

What is the etymology of gaffe?96.52.92.93 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not known, exactly. See [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the future, you can request etymology right on the Wiktionary page: just add {{rfe}} in the appropriate language section (in this case, English, French, or Italian). (I've added it for you s.v. English.)—msh210℠ 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from the French colloquialism "une gaffe," a remark by which one "puts one's foot into it." John M Baker (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also has something to do with a hook. I wonder if there's a common root there, or if it's a coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for that big hook used to drag bad performers off-stage? Does such a thing exist outside of cartoons? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it did, used only when the bad performer wouldn't get the hint and leave. Maybe that's why "gaffe"? And there's also the "gaffer", a member of a film crew. Regarding that hook, though, they have had a similar device on American Idol. It's called Simon Cowell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Is "his pipe"?

What is a pig meeting?96.52.92.93 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The poster seems to be saying that the pigs (slang for "police") swoop down on him (to prevent him from trespassing) whenever he attempts to enter the abandoned Charles Camsell Hospital in Edmonton to retrieve a pipe (device for smoking tobacco) he inadvertently left there while exploring the disused building. Deor (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, of course, that the device named "pipe" was used for smoking plants unrelated to Nicotiana. 80.219.8.3 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are the building is now used to raise bacon-producing animals and the person involved is plumber who inadvertently left a length of hollow metal tube used for conveying water. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword

I finished all but one space on a crossword puzzle and I don't know what goes in that space. Could you help?

Clue #1: And the following, in bibliographies: Abbr.
- Answer: ETSE_

Clue #2: Four-sided figs.
- Answer: S_S

The spaces in each are the same empty square. Is the missing letter a Q? If so, I don't know what ETSEQ is supposed to mean. Dismas|^(talk) 03:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Et seq.. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Light goes on!) And four-sided figs has nothing to do with scientifically enhanced fruit, but the plural of the abbreviation of square - SQS. Get it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that "figures" was abbreviated to "figs." in the clue was meant to tell you that the answer was also an abbreviation. "Four-sided figures" would have had the answer SQUARES (or RECTANGLES, etc.). This is a common convention in American crosswords. Of course, they may also tell you explicitly that it's an abbreviation, as with the first clue. --Anonymous, 05:42 UTC, January 20/10.

Yep, I got the squares part. That's why I guessed a Q. I just didn't know what Et seq. meant and when I tried to look it up, I wasn't putting in the space between et and seq. Thanks for the help! Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mental pejorative

If someone is described as 'mental', it's at best a joke (in the same vein as "He's crazy but we love him anyway") and at worst severely pejorative. In this sense, 'mental' means insane, mentally unbalanced, deranged, etc.

But describing someone as 'physical', 'emotional' or 'spiritual' carries a neutral or even positive/complimentary tone.

Why is 'mental' the odd one out? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this question is really answerable. Words acquire meanings, particularly slang meanings, because people use them in a certain way, and the people who use them that way don't stop to make sure that other words with parallel formations also acquire parallel meaning. (And anyway, I'd say calling someone "emotional" can also be negative.) +An gr 10:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's short for "mental patient", one who is by definition, mad. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my neck of the woods, Tammy. "Don't take any notice of him/her, he/she's mental" could be said of many people, from the Prime Minister down to some of my work colleagues, none of whom are mental patients as such. In fact, I'd say the term is far more likely to be used of people who are not mental patients, because its use for mental patients would be contra-indicated, PC-wise, just as a psychiatrist would never say to their patient "Well, I've worked out what's the matter with you: you're crazy". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you've just said bears out what I've just said. To say that someone is "mental", is that you're saying of someone that they are so mad they should be locked up in a mental hospital. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is short for "mental patient" (or some similar term), but it is idiomatically used as hyperbole. In the same way, words like "retard", "idiot" and "cretin" are used to describe people whose intelligence is nowhere near low enough for the technical (albeit obsolete) definitions of those words. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near low enough: usually, not low at all. People tend to use those terms to mean "someone I disagree with" - or, more accurately, "someone who refuses to see it my way". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is an odd one out. Depending on context, the other three could all be negative. "Physical" can mean someone tends to resort to violence. "Emotional" is often used to describe someone that is letting their emotions get out of control. Whether being "Spiritual" is good or bad is highly subjective. "Mental" is more often used pejoratively than the other three are, but that's all. --Tango (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really address the question, but I have to mention a C. S. Lewis anecdote (from the introduction to Studies in Words). When confronted with a test question asking for an explanation of a bit from Julius Caesar, "Is Brutus sick and is it physical / To walk unbraced and suck up the humours / Of the dank morning", one student responded that physical meant "sensible, sane; the opposite of 'mental' or mad". Deor (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deor. If I'd known that anecdote, I'd also have felt compelled to mention it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This use of "mental" seems to derive from the many terms that include the word and refer to the mind being in an abnormal or unhealthy state, such as mental breakdown, mental deficiency, mental disease, mental disorder, mental incapacity, mental retardation, mental illness, and many others. Uses like these date back to the 18th century, while the OED traces the meaning you cite only back to 1927. There is no similar panoply of negative terms for, e.g., "physical," since physical disorders generally have more specific descriptors. John M Baker (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see I was a little too sweeping in my initial generalisation. But then, what's the use of a generalisation if it isn't all-encompassing. Is there such a thing as a selective generalisation? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're always right, generally speaking." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I may not always sometimes be right, but I'm never usually wrong". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do no evil" vs. "Don't do evil"

Are they the same?--ProteanEd (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's primarily a difference of formality in written English. But they do feel somewhat different: "Don't do evil" is kinda like "Hey! Don't do that!", whereas "Do no evil" has more the feel of "Live your life this way: No evil." But that might just be the connotations of formal written English, or because it recalls those three monkeys. "Don't do evil" could have that nuance too, with the proper intonation, esp. if pronounced under three tone contours: "Don't↘ do↘ Evil!↘" kwami (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have many people heard of the Three wise monkeys, from where that may originate? 92.29.57.199 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with kwami, and it's because "Don't", being an admonition, has a different tone than "Do". Other than that, my OR reaction is that "Do no evil" sounds much more formal and more poetic and maybe more archaic. But I don't think there's a difference in the actual instruction being given. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if the reason this is coming up is that Google is in the news, I'll point out that their actual policy is neither of those: it's Don't be evil. And yes, Wikipedia has an article on it. --Anonymous, 19:37 UTC, January 20/10.

is

Resolved

Is the word "is" present tense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "is" is the third person singular present tense form of the verb "to be". — Kpalion^(talk) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. :-P --Nricardo (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Control" mistranslated from French?

The article on Fayolism says that the word translated as "control" in English, actually means "checking" in French. Is that true? It would make a lot of sense if it was. Unfortunately not being a French speaker I cannot quote the relevant part of Fayol's writing, but the article says: "Control (to verify if everything happens in accordance with defined plans, orders given, and accepted principles). The word Control clearly provoked some misunderstanding by English-readers because its 1st meaning in French is "to check" and its 2nd meaning is "to have a grip over". And it is the other way round in English. So for the French-reader Fayol clearly meant "Check everything!". Since probably thousands of future managers study Fayol every year it is rather important. Thanks 92.29.57.199 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My French isn't strong enough to say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me, because it's definitely the case in German that kontrollieren more often means "check / check up on" than it means "control". +An gr 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My big fat Collins French College Dictionary says: "Contrôle nm checking no pl check; supervision; moitoring; (test) test, examination". Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, The Canadian Dictionary -- I'll expand its abbreviations -- defines "contrôler" as "1. to check, inspect; to verify. 2. to hall-mark (silver, etc.). 3. [Figurative] to correct (something), to supervise (someone)." For the noun "contrôle", the entry is longer and includes several examples, which I'll omit. The actual definitions are: "1. [Military] roll. 2. check point, inspection point; box-office (theatre). 3. inspection, checking; suspension. 4. control. 5. hallmark, government stamp." --Anonymous and out of control :-), 19:44 UTC, January 20/10.

This feels a bit like the meaning of "control" as in, controlling for variation like control groups in studies and experiments, where research have a group called the "control group" that doesn't have the experiment performed on them. This is the group that they check to see if any perceptable difference exists. They don't actually control the "control" group. 72.2.54.36 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every time I saw "contrôle" in France it was for some official to check something. Not surprisingly, in the French version of the article (fr:Fayolisme) there is no ambiguity. As for whether in English "The word Control clearly provoked some misunderstanding by English-readers", I really don't know, but that phrase has been quite rightly flagged as ^{[citation needed]} Astronaut (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quiz in French is also often called a contrôle (it "checks up on" your learning). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meandering from the point a little, this reminds me of a liason problem between English and French fire services on either side of the Channel Tunnel in case they should meet in the middle. UK firefighters don't "go" to a fire, they "attend". However attendre in French means "wait"; so the same word could mean "go" or "don't go" and had to be dropped from both vocabularies. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Eurostar vocabulary, Tunnelspeak, is both an orphan and a stub, and could use any sources you've got! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! There's the rub! Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article in latin

Bizarrely enough, someone recently created an article in Latin: Matheus Lundberg. Swedish music teacher? Help with translation would be appreciated. decltype (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it. Latin is surely not the user's native language, which means he chose to use it on purpose--clearly the only reason for placing the article there was to be a pain. If he can't be bothered to write it in English, there's no reason to keep it around. There's already a Swedish version of the article, if it's important enough to be translated then people can translate it to that. (Besides, the Latin version seems to have been nothing more than a truncated translation of that.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing to do with articles written in other languages is to tag them with {{notenglish}} so they can be translated. You could also tag it for transwikiing to the Latin Wikipedia. +An gr 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with {{notenglish}} when I deleted it, but I IAR'ed since this seemed like a particularly (and intentionally) pointless one. I suppose transwikiing to Latin Wikipedia would have been fine too, although I do wonder why the user didn't just post it there in the first place. In any case, it doesn't look like a very important article so I'm sure the encyclopedia isn't suffering over its loss. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Swedish version of the article is tagged as possibly non-notable. Anyway, while it cannot be assumed that the user knows about Latin Wikipedia, it can be assumed the user knows there are non-English Wikipedias, seeing as the Latin and Swedish articles were basically laid out the same way, and even the "bibliographies" were the same. I support the assumption that the user knew about Latin Wikipedia and was being disruptive, but there is a chance the user did not know about the Latin Wikipedia but decided to post here anyway rather than looking for it. Rjanag, have you considered leaving a note on the user's talkpage to at least notify them of this discussion and get their input, if possible? Xenon54 / talk / 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether he knew about la-wiki, the point is that he knows languages other than Latin and chose to use it for some reason or another. Sometimes we are patient with people adding non-English material to en-wiki because we assume it's in the only language they know, they're trying to help out but just don't know any better. That can't be the case here; it's not like Latin is the only way this person knows how to communicate. So I don't see a point in holding his hand when he made a deliberate choice to be disruptive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to get across (but it didn't go so well). We can't assume the user is being disruptive by consciously making the decision to post here instead of la.wp. What we can assume is that the user is being disruptive by consciously making the decision to post here. The difference between those two is in the first, the user knows of la.wp, while in the second, he does not; regardless, in both cases, he knows this is the wrong place. You can make a strong case that both are forms of disruption, as they require a conscious decision. Therefore, I support your deletion. Xenon54 / talk / 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sic transit gloria Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Wrad (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's "gloria Wikipediae". +An gr 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Latin WP calls itself Vicipædia: Libera encyclopaedia. (My underlining; odd that it uses the æ ~~thingammy~~ typographic ligature in the title, but not in encyclopaedia.) Anyway, that would make it Sic transit gloria Vicipædiae, or possibly Vicipædiæ. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commodo vindicatum bonus fides pro deleting articles in Vicipædiae. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]