Language desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

What does it mean: "Don’t take net points over gross

Context: "two main rules of thumb for Hollywood celebrities: 1. Don’t take net points over gross, and, 2. Never tacitly give your support to brutal foreign leaders known for human rights abuses."

There is something about this at Hollywood_accounting#How_it_works. "net points" seems to be a way of calculating an actor's remuneration based on a film's net profit, and "gross points" a similar calculation based on gross revenue. The article does not seem to explain exactly what "points" means, however. I added a "clarify" tag. If the explanation transpires as a result of this thread then perhaps it could be added to the article. 86.179.7.170 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buchwald v Paramount... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Hilary Swank got roundly criticized recently for attending the birthday party of President of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion here, probably worth reading in full if you're interested. To take a lengthy quote: "In almost all cases, [all working on the movie] get fixed compensation for their work, which is unaffected by the profitability of the movie or whatever accounting ploys are used to determine it. They may also get contingent compensation in the form of either "gross points" or "net points" that is dependent on the accounting definitions in their contract. "Gross points" ... are payments based on a percent of the total revenues that flow after out-of-pocket expenses are repaid ... or ... may begin after certain conditions specified in the contracts are satisfied. In either case, "gross points" do not depend on the profitability of the film. "Net points" are another story. The payments here depend on a movie achieving a net profit after the studio [gets] back its investment, interest, overhead, distribution fee and pays all the gross players. In most cases, as David Mamet has said famously, "there is no net." And everyone in the film industry knows that with a standard studio contract, there is little, if any, chance they will see a penny from "net points" So why do they sign a contract with net points? The answer, in a word, is money. They want to be paid the fixed part of the fee and have an opportunity to be in the movie to further their career." Could be worth working into the article. --jjron (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify what Jjron is saying, the term "net" means "revenue minus expenses", and it can be very fuzzy how "expenses" are calulated, so never negotiate from "net" (profits), instead always negotiate from "gross" (revenue). --Jayron32 05:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I think with a slight caveat. If you're a big enough star, always negotiate from gross points so that you earn as much as possible. If you're starting out or aren't such a big star, then it may be beneficial to negotiate from net points if it means (a) you actually get the job and then get paid at least something for the movie based on your fixed earnings (after all something is better than nothing), and (b) get your name up in the proverbial lights in order to further your career, and ultimately get you to a point where you can negotiate from gross for later movies ... --jjron (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me later that "points" probably just means "percentage points". Can anyone verify this? If so, I will add it to the article. 109.151.57.40 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In music at least, performers' share of profits are often denomianted in 12ths - so "6/12th" if the performer gets 50% of future royalties from sale of recordings (or whatever). Not sure if there is or was a similar system for actors, but it is possible - I would be cautious of just assuming the "points" refer to percentages rather than 12ths, 8ths or 16ths or something equally wacky. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 is about making sure you get paid well for your work, while number 2 is about making sure you don't damage your reputation (since your reputation is often all you have that will ensure #1 continues to be true). Astronaut (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pray vs. Beg

Can "praying" and "begging" be used interchangeably?

After betraying her best friend, Mary feels guilty and begs for her friend's mercy.
After betraying her best friend, Mary feels guilty and prays for her friend's mercy.
After committing a grave sin, Mary feels extraordinarily guilty and prays for God's mercy.
After committing a grave sin, Mary feels extraordinarily guilty and begs for God's mercy.

The imagery I get when I see the word "pray" is either the kissing of two palms in Romeo & Juliet, or kneeling on the ground and placing the hands on the hand in front of a god or goddess. The imagery I get when I see the word "beg" is the same, but the palms turn into two hands, left and right, holding each other perpendicularly. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the hand gestures, but the normal interpretation of sentence #1 is that Mary is directly begging her friend, while #2 would tend to suggest that Mary is praying to God that her friend will be merciful... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I think, begging implies a reasonable expectation of response, and praying does not. In addition, begging can be directed at anyone, but praying is almost always directed at supernatural beings. The two only have overlapping meanings in biblical situations (e.g. Jesus praying to God / begging God).--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you pray, you're not necessarily asking for something. For example, you could be thanking [insert deity here]. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the words are not normally interchangeable, but looking at our articles on begging and prayer it seems it depends on where you are, what you want, what you're wearing, and who (or what) you are addressing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and remember the older meaning of "pray", given in Wiktionary as "To humbly beg a person for aid ". Dbfirs 12:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise in EO.[1] The original meaning was not necessarily religious, and it survives in legalese such as Prayer for relief as well as in old-fashioned expressions such as, "What, pray tell, is going on here?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latinise something that Latin-speakers were never aware of please? (might require some creativity/kludging)

If I asked this question once before, I apologise - am refining a piece of writing that I originally worked on, with WP reference desk help, many years ago - too far back for me to find in the archives. Here's the thing: I need to Latinise 'billiard-table'; I think it's probably impossible using proper Latin, but I don't mind some impropriety; if a 17th century freethinker was playfully Latinising the term, what would he end up with? If it helps, I want to come up with a name for a nebula shaped like a billiard table... (PS - I'd like the result to be recognisable to some degree, please, so non-Latin speakers have a chance of guessing the meaning).

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billiard means a little stick, so logically you're seeking the Latin for "little stick table". It comes from Bille, log, which comes from a Gaulish word meaning "tall tree", according to the list of French words of Gaulish origin. (So, a little tall tree table. Getting quite far from being recognisable by this point.) Several Latin and Late Latin words were borrowed from Gaulish, so it seems reasonable to end up with something that still resembles "billiards". You could base it on the root "bilia", and add a Latin diminutive (-iculum or whatever it should be) instead of the French -ard, and then you'd want the Latin for table which is tabula. Tabula biliculum, that's my guess, but I don't know my Latin grammar so I've almost certainly got the wrong ending on the second word. Oh, and bacillus is Latin for "wand" or "little staff", that might be useful instead, although then it would be less recognisable. Card Zero (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula billiardum? Roger (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican, Nuntii Latini, and Latin Wikipedia face similar dilemmas all the time, so if you don't want to reinvent the wheel, you might try to check whether or not there's an accepted equivalence... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about tabula perforata? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see this page (it's pg. 139 of a Spanish-Neo-Latin dictionary), it has a whole bunch of options for "billiards". In case you can't see it, here are some of its translations: bilardum, -i; eburnipilium, pilitudium, pililudium, ludus tudicularis, eburnearum pilarum ludus, ludus globulorum eburneorum, ludus sex foraminum (for the game itself); pilitudiaria mensa, tabula lusoria, tabula ad pilis ludendum, alveus ad eburneis pilis ludendum (for the actual table). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, all of you; really great, helpful answers. AnonMoos, I sent an email to Nuntii Latini, good idea; but even if they don't reply, I think my question's been very well addressed here. Adam Bishop, I couldn't see the page you linked to, but, again, I reckon I've got quite enough to be going on with here. Admodum bene! Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could always ask on the Latin Wikipedia reference desk, they can certainly help. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Typecast" in past tense

Should it become "typecasted"? Or is that not a word? Basically which is correct: "He was typecasted in comedy roles" or just "He was typecast in comedy roles". Thanks in advance. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's always "typecast"; the verb doesn't change. It's cast-cast-cast. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you would never say "casted". Seems so obvious now. I thought it sounded wrong. Thank you! --Lobo512 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion about the OK-ness (or not) of broadcasted, typecasted, forecasted etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What that discussion doesn't mention is that broadcast and forecast were nouns before they were verbs, while typecast wasn't. Since broadcast and forecast are thus denominal verbs, rather than verbs derived directly from the verb "to cast", they're expected to take the regular -ed ending for past tense/past participle. Typecast, on the other hand, isn't expected to do so, since it's derived directly from the verb. Angr (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is it like: "come - came - come" vs. "welcome - welcomed - welcomed"? --Theurgist (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or "stand - stood - stood" vs. "grandstand - grandstanded - grandstanded". It happens in German too, hence "tragen - trug - getragen" but "beantragen - beantragte - beantragt", which is denominal from the noun Antrag. Angr (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let he who is without good grammar casted the first stone. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

millionaire

I have always understood the term millionaire (in the US) to mean someone with a net worth of at least 1M USD. In the recent tax debates, though, it seems to be shifting to meaning an income of 1M or more. Is there evidence that this is part of a more general linguistic shift, or is it (for now) just a way of saving space in newspaper headlines and sound bites? --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The shift is probably to keep the term relatively elitist. Thanks to inflation, it's much easier to be worth a million dollars nowadays than it was eighty years ago, so if the term millionaire is going to keep its panache it needs to be redefined to reduce the number of people it applies to. Angr (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The most obvious case of this is when somebody wins a million dollars in the lottery. They don't get it as a lump sum, though, they get it over 20 years, without adjusting for inflation. So that's $50K a year, minus taxes. Not exactly "filthy rich". StuRat (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys do it tough. When we (hypothetically) win big $$ in the lottery, we get the cash in one lump sum, and it's tax-free to boot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same in the UK and most other lotteries in Europe. I think the annuity type of prize payment is much more common in the USA. Astronaut (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used to refer to income in the UK. It is sometimes used to refer to net worth excluding your primary residence (on the grounds that you can't really sell your primary residence, so its value doesn't contribute to your purchasing power), but that's the only other definition I've seen. Can you give an example of where it has been used to refer to income? --Tango (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/12/news/economy/payroll_tax_cut/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2 --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Angr. Using the strict classic definition of "millionaire", there are large numbers of millionaires in all developed countries. Before the recession, this term technically applied to about 15% of all baby boomer households, most of whom were firmly middle-class. (And that does not include the NPV of Social Security and Medicare, which is, according to WSJ, on the order of $1 million for a typical married couple in their 60's retiring today.[2]) It seems to me that, even ten years ago, the term was normally used to mean "multimillionaire". I spent a few minutes browsing news headlines from the early 2000's. With the exception of people winning money on game shows such as "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", nearly all references were to people with net worth in eight digits. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]