Language desk
< April 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 2 >

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 1

Hospitalised

People taken to hospital and admitted for treatment are "hospitalised".

But people admitted to an asylum are not "asylumised".
And people admitted to a clinic are not "clinicised".
And people sent to prison are not "prisonised" (although they are "imprisoned")
And children who go to school are not "schoolised".
And people who attend university are not "universitised".
And children who live in an orphanage are not "orphanagised".
And those who spend time in a monastery or a convent are not "monasterised" or "conventised".
And workers who spend a third of their lives in an office are not "officised".

What's special about hospitals? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is "institutionalise". I'm actually surprised here, the etymology, according to my source is hospital + ise. That doesn't give much scope for being special. [OOI, first use recorded is 1901.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only a matter of time before those words are in common use, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy game can be played with many parallel words but language has no requirement that a single word expansion must be immediately applied to any others that seem similar. Hospitalization is a word that was invented in the 20th century because it was needed for medical context communication: noting previous hospitalizations is a standard part of a medical history. While hospitalize is only a minimal improvement over admit to hospital, there is no single word equivalent for the noun hospitalization. alteripse (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian also has spitalizare, with the same meaning as hospitalization, and none of the others (except for instituţionalizare). Rimush (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, which to my regret abounds with foreignisms, has the noun хоспитализация (hospitalizatsiya) and the verb хоспитализирам (hospitaliziram). Luckily, the others don't exist in English, otherwise we would have borrowed them as well! --Магьосник (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK this term is regarded as a frightful americanism. We usually say 'admitted' to hospital. Younger doctors with a viewing history that includes House and ER may use the term. Incidentally, are young Jewish boys taken to a 'circum'? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jewish males are traditionally taken to a Mohel (circumciser) where they are circumcised in the ritual called brit/bris milah (covenant [of] circumcision). As with KS's description below, an infant would be very unlikely and unwilling to do this to himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a (poor) joke for Chrissake!!! (learned explanations not required!!) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hospitalized" has 4 syllables and "admitted to a/the hospital" has 8 syllables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? "I'm sorry, I really like you, but I've been thinking a lot and think it might be better if we spend some time apart" has 29 (?) syllables and "Go away" has 3. Doublegood! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is used because the second one could end up with someone being hospitalized. :) I'm talking about the British tendency to shorten things rather than lengthening them. Like pronouncing "forecastle" as "folks'll" instead of "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these verbs are actions the person takes him or herself, so a transitive verb wouldn't really fit. (He was officised? By whom?) However, typically a physician admits a patient to hospital (the patient cannot hospitalize him or herself), so the physician is the one hospitalizing the patient. I'm not sure what admitting to a clinic would mean. Being sent to prison is the other notable action that is taken by a third party, and so it has its own verb as well (imprison). An asylum would also fit the pattern, though the term asylum isn't often used by doctors, at least not where I'm from. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 makes a good point. We add -ise to 'hospital', but -alise to 'institution'. Odd. Probably part of the medical fraternity's tendency to always use a long word, and if one's not available, to make one up. Like the sesquipedelian monstrosity "symptomatology", which is used instead of what they actually mean, "symptoms".
Caesar's Daddy: I can see your objection to 'hospitalise', but the word isn't just about the fact of being admitted; it extends to the treatment provided there and the length of stay. One can be said to have been hospitalised for 3 months, whereas the admission part takes 15 minutes.
Knowledge Seeker's point is key: it's about actions taken by a 3rd party, so anything one chooses to do is not a case of being -ised. Kids who hate school, won't go without being forced, and have to be driven there to make sure they actually attend - this might be a case of being "schoolised". Otherwise, there's no real scope to make these words up.
Thanks, everyone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "at" in "symptomatology" is in the combining form from Greek. See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/symptomatology.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we add '-alise' to 'institution' or '-ise' to 'institutional'? I suspect it is the latter. Incidentally, in what way does 'symptomatology' have one and a half feet? --Tango (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be consistent, you're saying we add -ise to the adjective "hospital", not to the noun "hospital"? Interesting idea. Alternatively, if do we "-ise" the noun 'hospital', why not do the same with the noun 'institution' (> instutionise)?

'Symptoms' is readily available and has only 2 syllables; 'symptomatology' has 6 syllables and any use of it to mean 'symptoms', unless absolutely necessary, is inherently sesquipedelian, not to mention monstrous. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agreed with my point, though I think your characterization of the medical profession is somewhat unfair. (Bias: I am a physician, but perhaps this gives me a perspective into reasons beyond just wanting to create long words.) In the case of institutionalize, I don't even think the primary definition is the medical one. In any case, it wouldn't make any sense to add -alise to hospital, since it already ends in -al. I don't consider symptomatology and symptoms to be synonymous. If I were to use symptomatology, the sense I'm intending is perhaps "the symptoms or symptom complex typically associated with a disease". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Seeker (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that "hospitalalise" would be a dumb word. But adding '-alise' to institution looks like the person is being made "institutional", rather than simply being admitted to an institution. What's the -al- doing there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

The article refers to him as "Leonardo", but shouldn't his surname, "da Vinci", be used instead? In formal writing, a person's surname is supposed to be used to refer to him after his initial introduction. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Da Vinci" is not Leonardo's surname. It's not a name at all; it simply means "of Vinci", Leonardo's birthplace. The Leonardo da Vinci article details this here. --Магьосник (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like me. Were I a real person, my surname would not be "of Oz". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew we had bots working on Wikipedia but not an AI!! Are you the only non-real person on Wikipedia, Jack? Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heavens no! We've been here for millennia, watching, waiting .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, this shows how extremely little Dan Brown knows about the topics he writes shoddy novels about. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliusz Machulski went even farther in his comedy movie Vinci (about a painting by Leonardo). One of the characters in this film asks his friend, "Why do you always say Vinci and not da Vinci?" The answer: "What, you want me to say da like Russians?" — Kpalion^(talk) 02:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we have every reason to refer to him as "Leonardo of Vinci", just as we refer to Leonardo of Pisa, Augustine of Canterbury etc. On the other hand, we do talk about "Joan of Arc", when we should really be calling her by her actual name, Jeanne d'Arc, because "d'Arc" was her surname, rather than an indication of where she was from. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most "comlpex" ("complicated") Chinese character. Any suggestions?

By "complex" I mean "having too many strokes". I'll be more satisfied by an answer considering all four categories: 1. useful characters. 2. rare/ancient charactes. 3. simplified characters. 4. traditional characters. However, partial answers will be appreciated as well. 80.230.208.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See Chinese character#Rare and complex characters. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most commonly cited example in the mainland is this one

; see the article biáng. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And have a look at the discussion page of biáng for some other suggestions. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you use

? It looks more impressive:) 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihongo translation please...

Hi. Um... what is the bunny girl on the right saying on this page? (Maybe you need to wait for the animation to load.) Thanks in advance... ^_^; Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She says "The 84th Kasou Taishou will be aired on May 4. The special pre-program will be aired on May 2 in Kantō region. Don't miss them!" Oda Mari (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu. m(_ _)m Kreachure (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this before recently, and I answered it....... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about hospitals...

An American friend once asked me why English people go to hospital, whilst Americans go to the hospital. We also go to church and go to school but go to the theatre, the cinema and the pub. Can anyone explain this please? Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are similar discussions from the Archives (search each page for "hospital").

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those are directly relevant (the only one that seems close is the "in bed" discussion). I don't have an answer to the original question, but I can offer some observations:

The two that can appear article-less in both varieties ("go to church" and "go to school") both refer to habitual activities with regular start and end times. (School is every weekday from something like 7:30-2:30; church is every Sunday morning. Of course, this varies depending on the person, but you know what I mean.) "go to hospital" seems to be an exception. Theater, cinema, and pub are things that are not habitual and regular (of course, they might be for some person, but culturally they are not) and perhaps don't have specific and regular start and end times.
The article-less ones have article-d equivalents ("go to the church" and "go to the school"), which emphasize the building rather than the activity. The article-d ones have no article-less equivalents (*"go to cinema", *"go to pub"). So it seems that "go to the..." is the 'default' for English, and the article is dropped in some culturally common activities that are discussed a lot.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is not always about habitual activities. If I worked in a jail, every single working day I would "go to the jail", but I would never "go to jail". But a person who is frequently imprisoned often "goes to jail". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could say the same about "go to court". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go home vs. go to the home (the old-folk's home). — kwami (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no intermediate option: go to home. Aside: It must be terribly confusing for elderly folk when told they're being taken from the home they've lived in for 65 years, and are being put into a home. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I will tell you what I was taught in my English classes. A noun of that kind without the definite article refers to the institution and a noun with the definite article refers to the particular building. Thus, go to hospital means "get/be hospitalised" (no matter in which hospital); go to prison means "get imprisoned" (no matter where); go to school means "be a student". On the other hand, go to the hospital means "physically go to the [particular] hospital [that is known from the context]" (no matter for what reason), analogously go to the prison/school. What would you, as native English speakers, say about this? --Магьосник (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the general idea (cf. watch TV (a show) vs. watch the TV (make sure no-one takes it), go to bed (to sleep) vs. go to the bed (to say goodnight), etc.). But it's not 100%: it doesn't explain e.g. why we say 'to hospital' in the UK but 'to the hospital' in the US. I think a lot of it is just lexicalized, even if what you were taught was the original motivation. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are clubs: "I'll see you at the club" would be used in reference to a gambling/eating/drinking establishment, but "I'll see you at club" would be about a political/professional group. Nothing to do with how often one attends either of them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., I don't think "I'll see you at club" would ever be correct. I'm not even sure what exactly that signifies — perhaps the equivalent would be "I'll see you at the meeting" or just "I'll see you at the club". In response to the original question, you're asking why there's a difference between the way Americans and the English use the phrase differently? I doubt there's any identifiable reason — the dialects just evolved differently. (I am not a linguist!) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK) I'd say "I'll see you at music club", and at a stretch I'd say "I'll see you at club" if club had become the word we used to refer to a particular political/professional group. To say "I'll see you at the music club" would suggest either a particular location (as opposed to the activity), or that going to the music club wasn't something we usually did. Are these not options in the US? 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rjanag is onto it: "Go to [church, school, court, home, etc.]" indicates an activity more than a place, as such; "Go to the [hospital, pub, theater, office, etc.]" indicates a place. Regarding clubs, the phrase seems to be to "go clubbing" (not to be confused with activities concerning baby seals). "Go to hospital" or "In hospital" seems to be a British oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Go clubbing" is talking about a completely different sort of club than Jack and I were discussing with "I'll see you at club". That sort of club would be strongly indicated by "I'll see you at the club". As mentioned everywhere upthread, "In hospital" refers to the activity more than "In the hospital", and thus fits the pattern. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(US) "I'll see you at music club" sounds correct to me. "I'll see you at club" sounds a bit off, especially without the context to know that you're not talking about a club as in a disco. Rckrone (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies - seems to be the institution / location split plus a bit of "British oddity". Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

atweene

There's a word, an old English word, "atweene", that i can't find the meaning of. First I thought it may be an old version of 'between', but having now seen it in a number of other contexts I'm almost certain it's not that. Any help you could provide would be most helpful. Thank you. 86.177.7.170 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of the context that you've seen it in? It might help us help you. Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "atween" or "atweene" means "between" as a preposition, an as an adverb it is "in between" or "between whiles". For the latter it quotes a couple of Edmund Spenser's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching

What does the word "breaching" mean in the following sentence? "Only after raising the floor of one of the pools, breaching the whale, were trainers able to extract Brancheau from his mouth." The context may be found in paragraph 12 of the following article: Report Reveals New Details of Fatal SeaWorld Attack. I read the Wikipedia article on Whale surfacing behaviour, but I am still confused as to what the sentence in question actually means. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

When a sea creature breaks the surface, it is called "breaching". Usually that's a voluntary behavior. In this case, they raised the pool's floor to force the orca to the surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that they pushed the floor of the pool upwards ... and this caused the whale to leap out of the water into the air ... as in the first picture on the page entitled Whale surfacing behaviour? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think they're saying that they raised the floor far enough to force the orca to break the surface whether he wanted to or not. FYI, EO indicates "breach"[1] is derived from the same root as "break", and is a special case meaning "to make a hole in something", hence terms like breaching the surface, or the Enterprise suffering a "hull breach". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here is my confusion. In this context, does "breach" mean: (a) that the whale is jumping up into the air (like the photo mentioned in my previous comment); or merely (b) that the head of the whale is simply above the line of water? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The reason they raised the floor was to retrieve the woman's body and render the orca mostly immobile, as I interpret it. I'm not really certain they used the term in the normal way, as it usually has to do with leaping out of the water. In this case, they pushed the orca out of the water by raising the floor under it (presumably the floor is flow-through). The question would be answered if you could see the video, but it's a "snuff film" in a sense, so it probably won't see the light of day for awhile, maybe not ever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess...I'd bet that they drained the pool to a very low level. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article says they raised the floor. But it could be a combination of both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely people can't 'breach' a whale, the whale can breach the surface or it can 'breach' - period. But I have never seen the verb used like this. Coincidentally it is very close to 'beaching' which means originally to push a floating object onto a beach to gain stability, later it took on the meaning of being stranded for lack of water to float on. If the floor of the pool was raised(!?) it would beach the whale. So maybe it's just a typo. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input. It was very helpful. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]