Language desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21

Groups of words built the same way but from different source languages

I'm looking for a term for certain groups of words, if there is one. I don't know how to describe the idea very clearly, so I'll give some examples: "Foretell" and "predict" are both constructed from a part meaning "before" and a part meaning "tell," but "foretell" uses Anglo-Saxon roots while "predict" uses Latin roots. Again, "undersea" and "submarine" both come from a part meaning "under" and a part meaning "sea", but the sources of the roots are different. A less obvious pair is "only" and "unique"—both are constructed from a part meaning "one" and a suffix which forms an adjective, but from different languages. The names of the cities of Montreal, Monterrey, and Königsberg all basically mean the same thing ("King's Mountain") in different languages. Is there a term for groups of words like this, built from pieces that mean the same thing, but using different source languages for the roots? These aren't calques, because, for example, "foretell" wasn't borrowed into English from "predict" by translating the parts—both "foretell" and "predict" arose independently, I think. —Bkell (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same construction, similar construction ...? -- the Great Gavini 05:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that's "descriptive" is liable to use equivalent words in the respective languages. It would be interesting to find out of there's a more specific term than "word-for-word translation". One of my favorite examples is that the mountain ranges called the "Himalaya" and the "Sierra Nevada", which are essentially the same term: snowcapped mountains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a better match for Sierra Nevada - the Snowy Mountains. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "foresee" and "provide". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudocalque" is sometimes used to describe this very concept. However, it is more often used to describe a calque that fails, through naivety or by design, to avoid some amusing pitfall of polysemy: "día del pugilismo" for "Boxing Day"; "pozo en mano" for "well in hand"; "converso" for "unmoored", etc. LANTZY ^TALK 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last one isn't a calque, but you get the idea...LANTZY ^TALK 13:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

A word that means to take advantage of a person of simple mindHess1466 (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

trick ... decieve ... con ... defraud ... dupe ... swindle ... hornswoggle ... shanghai ... "sell someone a bridge" -- 174.21.250.120 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exploit. Bazza (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sell them swamp land in Florida. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a German book title

Another German book title, this time at "commons:File:Fender chains of the Miraflores locks, Panama Canal - 19380308.jpg": Vom Fähnlein zur Fahne in den Tod: Tagebücher und Aufzeichnungen des Leopold Schuhmacher (†1943) Oberleutnant zur See. I translated this as From the Troop to the Flag in Death: The Diary and Records of Leopold Schuhmacher (died 1943), Senior Lieutenant at Sea, but "From the Troop to the Flag in Death" doesn't sound quite right in English. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In den Tod is accusative, so it means "into death", not "in death". (You might want to choose a different preposition than "into", but at any rate it should suggest "and then to" rather than "already in".) Lfh (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "From the Troop into Death in the Flag"? I'm still quite puzzled as to what this means. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either, but Oberleutnant zur See has the equivalence of Sub-Lieutenant in the British Royal Navy and Lieutenant Junior Grade in the US Navy (depending on whether you're translating into Commonwealth English or the American version). See Oberleutnant and Comparative military ranks of World War II. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to reverse "Flag" and "Death" from the original German order. It seems to mean "from the troop, then to the flag, then to death".

Googling "in den Tod", I find that Bartholdy's St. Paul oratorio has a section called Sei getreu bis in den Tod, which we've translated as "Be though faithful unto death". And Romans 6:4 in German includes the line "So sind wir ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe in den Tod", which in English is variously "into", "unto", "to", or "to the" death. So you could choose between From the Troop to the Flag into Death, or variations with unto, until, to, etc. Presumably the "death" in question is Schuhmacher's death at sea during naval combat in WW2? Do we know anything else about the book? Lfh (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I'm thinking perhaps "From the Troop to the Flag, and to the Death" (or "... on to Death") would be a good translation. I don't know anything about this book. As regards Oberleutnant zur See, I'm not sure it is a good idea to give it a completely British or American translation as that may be confusing. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should quote the original German rank without translating it. "Senior Lieutenant at Sea" sounds far too exalted - it's equivalent to the lowest commissioned officer in the RN - one below a Lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oberleutnant" states that the term is "[t]ranslated as 'Senior Lieutenant' ..."; I am just following that convention. I've added a link to the English Wikipedia article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided commenting earlier because my German is not all that great, but I think there is some crucial wordplay here. In particular I think Fähnlein, which is a somewhat archaic word meaning "little troop", is here being used to mean the Hitler Youth. The reference to the flag and death relates, I believe, to a Nazi song that has a lyric saying that the flag is more important than death. So the basic meaning, I think, is something like, "from the Hitler Youth to the armed forces to death", but with some extra connotations for native German speakers. As I said, I'm not very certain of any of this. Note though one more thing: in German, nouns must always be capitalized, so you don't need to preserve the capital letters when translating into English. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Looie496 – I wondered if Vom Fähnlein zur Fahne might be an idiomatic phrase, and I couldn't find any evidence that it was, but it stands to reason that Fähnlein and Fahne might themselves have WW2-related connotations, so that helps. As for capital letters: actually we do need to preserve them here, because English book titles are always capitalised in full, except for prepositions and a few other short words. For example we have The Sorrows of Young Werther, not *The sorrows of young Werther. Lfh (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Looie496 – hopefully a knowledgeable German speaker will come along and confirm your suggestions. Yes, I am aware that nouns are capitalized in German but not in English – as Lfh notes, I was following the US practice of capitalizing all important words in the English book title. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de:Fähnlein seems to agree with Looies interpretation. The Fähnlein was part of the organizational Structure of the deutsches Jungvolk, the "younger section" of the HJ. "From the pennant to the flag and unto death." Is the closest I can think of that preserves that distinction. The connotations with the HJ and the Army can hardly be preserved anyways, so I would think about staying closer to the original text. In fact as a native speaker I had to look up whether Fähnlein had been used in the Third Reich at all, I only recalled its usage in Friderician times. --91.97.19.186 (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you think it is better to use the literal translation of Fähnlein rather than the figurative translation: pennant or small banner rather than troop? Thanks. It sounds like the book is about Schuhmacher's career from the HJ to the Army, and then to his death during WWII. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. For those knowledgeable it will be an obvious metaphor and it carries the implication of growth, of growing up and then dieing. Where people died those days is very easy to make out. --11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.96.179 (talk)

(I have the book, my father wrote it): The translation from Looie496 is good. The book is a biography of Leopold Schuhmacher, starting from Hitler Youth over armed forces and then his death on a submarine. M colorfu (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Data" and plurals

I occasionally see awkward sounding phrases either including the word "datas" or something like "I could literally spend the rest of my research career working on these data - we're just starting to mine them." where although data has no "s" is added, the phrasing clearly implies it is a plural (he is talking about the data collected from many stars). In that particular example, I would have thought "...working on the data - we're just starting to mine it" would work just as well with no loss of understanding. So, how does "data" work in the plural? Is there even a plural for "data" or is it always singular?

Data is plural, although often used as a singular noun. Strictly speaking, the singular is datum. See data.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So with "data" one should always use plural phrasing like "these data"? Astronaut (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Data" predates computing: it means "the things which are given" in Latin. It was used to mean the axiomatic information given in a question itself. For example, here's a line from C.S.Lewis's Perelandra, published in 1943: "It became harder to recall her mind to the data-- a command from Maleldil, a complete uncertainty about the results of breaking it, and a present happiness so great that hardly any change could be far the better." (The italics are in the original, indicating that Lewis saw it as a borrowing from Latin rather than as a naturalised English word.) Since data is a plural count noun in Latin, writers on grammar in more recent years have often said that "these data" is the correct form. But in fact in the mouths of computer people "data" has become a mass noun like "water", so questions of singular and plural don't arise. Outside computing (such as, perhaps, in astronomy), the older rules may still apply. Marnanel (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED records a few meanings which are pertinent here:

1.c. pl. The quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by computers and other automatic equipment, and which may be stored or transmitted in the form of electrical signals, records on magnetic tape or punched cards, etc. In this sense the OED records both plural and singular usage (the latter from as early as 1964) for "data".

2. In pl. Facts, esp. numerical facts, collected together for reference or information. In this sense the OED does not record any singular usage.

But separately: 3. Used in pl. form with sing. construction., which shows data being used in singular sense in both of the senses described above as well as the other senses - the earliest quote is from 1807 but most are from the 20th century and in a scientific (but not exclusively computing) context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the claim that "'data' is plural" in modern English. Certainly it was in Latin, and certainly it is for some English speakers today. But a significant minority of uses are with a singular verb: see the table of corpus counts below.

Phrase	BNC	COCA
"data are"	491	2081
"data is"	465	1307

For many users "data" is a mass noun, and therefore always singular. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not the same as saying "questions of singular and plural don't arise" (Marnanel, 2011). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on whether you're using "data" as a synonym for "facts" or "collection of facts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the question, do you say "dah-tuh" or "day-tuh"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say "dah-tuh" but OED is quite adamant that it's "day-tuh" (and datum "day-tum"). What do you say? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what vowel are you trying to represent here? I hear it pronounced /ˈdeɪtə/ in the UK, and pronounced /ˈdætə/ from Americans on TV, but I've never heard /ˈdɑːtə/, which is what dah-tuh seems to be suggesting. 86.163.4.148 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈdɑːtə/ ("dah-tuh") would be the norm in Australia. I'm surprised to hear /ˈdeɪtə/ ("day-tuh") from the UK, because that and /ˈdætə/ ("datt-uh") both sound very American to my ears. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "dah-tuh", I just couldn't think of a good way to emphasize the short-a. I hear both long-a and short-a in America. The Star Trek character was pronounced "day-tuh", and I'm not sure if that counts as an American or a British production. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to clarify - I pronounce it the Australian way as described by JackofOz. I tend to think the American "dat-ta" and the Australia "dah-ta" are of the same type, but just affected by typical treatment of the long "ah" in the respective accents, whereas the British "day-ta" is more different. Before this discussion I had always assumed "day-ta" was American and "dat-ta/dah-ta" was British/Commonwealth! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how it's predictable from the typical treatment of the long "ah" in the respective accents; American English does not shun long "ah"s in principle ("father" or "calm"). Perhaps you were thinking of the difference in the pronunciation of the words of the "bath" type (resulting from the trap–bath split), but "data" is not one of them. I guess one could argue that the Australian and American pronunciations are similar in that they are both aimed at some type of historical-ish Latin pronunciation, whereas the UK sticks to the traditional English pronunciation of Latin. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, finding the phrase "data is" in a database is not definitive proof that the author uses it as a singular. The phrase could occur as part of a larger phrase like "Our interpretation of the data is...", even in cases where the author normally treats data as a plural. The opposite is true too: an author who normally treats data as a singular could still write "Several analyses of the data are...". —Angr (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imply vs infer?

I know this probably sounds like a high school question, but what's the difference (outside of dictionary definition)? Any good mnemonic for keeping them straight? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't give you a mnemonic, but infer is what you do when something is implied by something else. Does that help? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was once taught: I sighed and implied; you heard and inferred to help keep them straight. Ka renjc 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, implying is something that a speaker can do but a listener can't; inferring is something that a listener can do but a speaker can't. Implying is a form of saying, inferring is a form of understanding. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking off of Looie's explanation: When you imply something you convey a message without explicitly saying it. When you infer something you understand a message that hasn't actually been said. If someone ask me "How was your date last night" and I say "the food was good", then I imply that the conversation was not good; for her to understand that the conversation was not good, she has to infer it from what I said. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has covered it nicely, but the OP may be interested in this exchange from 'The Simpsons' [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that The Simpsons can be educational? Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an inference of yours. Lexicografía (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which nicely demonstrates that they don't always go hand-in-hand. I could infer something without that meaning ever being intended by the speaker; and I could subtly imply something but my audience may be too insensitive to pick up on it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What one person implies is not necessarily what another person infers; what is inferred is not necessarily what was implied. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, usually when one intends to imply something, s/he hopes the listener will infer appropriately, but this is often a source of mis-communication. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your teacher may not have explicitly taught you that "one" does not take a pronoun but has to be repeated at every mention; he/she may have implied this by use of examples and left it for you to infer the rule, but that doesn't seem to have happened. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for off-topic de-rail, but are you implying there is something ungrammatical about my previous sentence? `"One" does not take a pronoun' sounds like rank prescriptivism. Why shouldn't "one" be able to play antecedent like any other noun? Would you find the sentence acceptable if "one" were replaced by "someone" or "somebody"? (feel free to post on my talk page if you don't want to further clog this thread.) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does fall under "rank prescriptivism", but then, prescriptive grammar exists for a reason. The way I was taught, if one does not want to have to write monstrosities like "If one wishes to keep one's friends, one must do all in one's power to not alienate them", one must resort to something that does not use "one". Because once you use "one", you're stuck with it for the rest of the sentence. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I've never heard of that rule, it does have the advantage of reducing the use of singular 'they'. Thanks for explaining. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that "one" functions not as a noun or even as an indefinite pronoun like "someone" (strictly speaking, it's normally a numeral), but as a personal pronoun like "he", "she" and "they" (similarly to French "on", German "man" etc.). Once you have used a certain personal pronoun, it's customary to stick to it and not change your mind to "he/she": "one should talk to one's father", not *"one should talk to his or her father". BTW, singular "they" is very nice, IMO.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And well-meaning English teachers all over the world have inferred symbolism into books that wasn't originally implied.... Lexicografía (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this will help you, but it may: "infer" comes from a Latin word meaning "bring in" (the word "in" means the same in both languages). Inferring something is bringing a meaning from context into your mind. [I'm sure someone else will jump in if I don't mention that "imply" also originally contained in, because it means "fold into". But you can at least remember that the one which actually contains the English word "in" means to bring something "into" your head.] Marnanel (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may offer a suggestion of a mnemonic: you implY when you saY; you infeR when you heaR. No such user (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote repeated in our article on W. Somerset Maugham:

In 1934 the American journalist and radio personality Alexander Woollcott offered to Maugham this bit of language advice: "The female implies, and from that the male infers." Maugham responded: "I am not yet too old to learn."(Hoyt, Edwin P. (1968). Alexander Woollcott: The Man Who Came to Dinner. New York: Abelard-Schuman. p. 258.)

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to lose that orphaned <ref> tag, which is causing a cheery red warning message at the foot of the page. 81.131.61.161 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Immersion' in a submarine simulation

From our Silent Hunter III article: "A stated goal of the developer was to fully immerse the player." Now, I'm sure that immersion is a good idea in video games in general, but this looks like an unfortunate choice of words in a submarine simulation! Any suggestions for an alternative wording - I can't think of one with the intended meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "... immerse the player in the game environment." or more wordily: "... immerse the player in the virtual environment of a German U-boat." Funny case of ambiguity due to context :) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Involve the player"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Engage"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think the original sentence is fantastic. Just add a citation and put a fork in it. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, what exactly did the developer say? Perhaps the verb immerse was intentionally used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the article is rather lacking in references, so we may never know what the developer said. Relying purely on WP:OR, I can state that the sim is definitely immersive in the 'involving' sense, and that the obvious pun has been made many times on the relevant forums. On reflection, I'm inclined to leave this as is. Thanks for the suggestions though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"of" vs. "'s"

Are both forms correct: "Law of attraction" vs. "Attraction's law." As a non-native speaker of English, I tend to think that the first is correct, but I don't know why or if I'm right. Quest09 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only correct form is "law of attraction". The English possessive is more limited in scope than the genitive case of some other languages. It generally works to use the possessive only when you really want to indicate possession, or belonging to. This "law" does not belong to "attraction". It is instead a law relating to attraction, a relationship that cannot be expressed by the possessive. You could speak of "England's law" or "King George's law" but not "attraction's law" or "gravity's law". Marco polo (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We say Boyle's law: because Boyle was the one who formulated it. "The Law of Boyle" is comprehensible, but unheard of, so don't use that.

We say The Law of Attraction: because it's about the concept of attraction (cf. the Law of Large Numbers). It's not like there was a human being named Attraction, and he came up with this law, so never say "Attraction's Law". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This somehow makes me think of the Emily Dickinson poem:

 Ruin is formal — Devil's work
 Consecutive and slow —
 Fail in an instant, no man did
 Slipping — is Crash's law.

Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English has the luxury of having both the "of" and the possessive "apostrophe s". Latin-based languages such as Spanish only have the "of" (specifically de or something similar). So I wonder how "Boyle's Law" would be expressed in Spanish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder no more: es:Ley de Boyle-Mariotte. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias! As I suspected, they're stuck with "of". But they're used to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Latin itself has no word for "of", because it has the genitive case to take care of that. Same is true for Russian and some other languages. (OR) English may be the only language that has borrowed 2 distinct possessive forms, being the mongrel that it is. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the Romance languages have "of", and if it didn't come from classical Latin in must have been in vulgate Latin somehow... unless it was borrowed from somewhere else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin dictionary says the possessive form is contained in the genitive case, as you indicated, while de and ex are used with the ablative case to indicate origin. So its use as a possessive must have come later in the evolution of the Romance languages. Interestingly enough, there are possessive pronouns in Spanish, as with Latin. This sounds like a can of worms ready to be opened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My can opener is currently under repair. I expect it back in about 2017. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, the most literal meaning of the preposition de is "down from", while a common extended/analogical meaning is "about, concerning". It does not mean "of" in classical Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which would square with all those terms that have the prefix "de-" as well, yes? Such as descend, decline, etc. Where does "ex" figure into it? Does it imply "out from" as opposed to "down from"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Learnable" ... ?!

I'm writing a presentation in connection with one of my hobbies (railway ticket collecting). Without thinking about it, I found myself writing the horrible-looking word "learnable", thus: a simple graphical interface for the booking clerk (the system was intended to be learnable in half a day)... I'm surprised it's even a word! Surely there has to be a better way of expressing the concept—but my mind has gone blank (I have written 15,000 words so far...). Any suggestions welcomed, even if the consensus is that "learnable" is perfectly legitimate! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, count me as part of that consensus. I have even gone so far as to use the word "learnability". Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It sounds as if your practical self knows that the word is fine and you used it without a second thought. That is, until your theoretical self piped up and said it's somehow not quite OK. Just thank it for its concern, and carry on. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a quick google books search revealed that Dickens, John Ruskin, and Thomas Carlyle used the word in their writings. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "mastered" or "assimilated in half a day"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Maybe my brain is fatigued by too much writing, and I'm doing "learnable" a disservice! It just looked so strange on the page... I like "mastered" in the context, though, so have gone for that (thanks Clarityfiend!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree, though. "Learnable" scans a bit ... ummm ... clunkily. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my vote: "a simple graphical interface for the booking clerk (the system was designed so that it could be learned in half a day)" - or you can be more emphatic: so that it could be mastered in half a day. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]