Language desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 6 >

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.

July 5

Shipdham

I associate the dh- letter-pair with Indian-based words: dharma, dhoti, etc. How did Shipdham in England get its name? And what's that p doing next to a d? An altogether extraordinary name for an English village. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means "homestead with a flock of sheep", from the Old English scipde + ham. Recorded in Domesday Book as Scipdham. Source: The Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names by A. D. Mills, 1996, page 294. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Duncan. I wonder why the spelling wasn't "modernised" to remove that very un-English-looking jumble of consonants. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the h in ham endings is usually silent, and if I imagine it being said with a Norfolk accent it sounds fine. We don't really do spelling modernisation in English, especially in place-names! DuncanHill (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like the city of Wooster, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And of course Acne ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sciptun did get modernised to Skipton, I suppose, but quite a long time ago. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, but out of context it looks weird to me, but in context as an English place name it looks fine. Perhaps out of context I can't parse it at all, but in context it falls into place as "Shipd-ham". Up the road from me are "unmodernised" place names like "Ulleskelf", "Wetwang" and "Fangfoss", so maybe I'm just used to odd-looking place names (be they Old English or Viking)! Tonywalton ^Talk 00:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing

Hello Can someone tell me the definition (meaning) of the word "Nothing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.14.215.113 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Nothing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the referred article, they say "Nothing is no thing" so the word is,is telling me that it is something.But what is thatSomething? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.14.45.62 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book Nothing: A Very Short Introduction by Frank Close? ISBN 9780199225866. Gabbe (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Wikipedia's are often of little help for someone seeking a general definition. Try an online dictionary. It may help not to be too literal. A person could argue that "nothing" is a label for the absence of something. "What's in the bottle?" "Nothing." In ordinary conversation, that wouldn't mean there's an absolute vacuum; it means there's no more water (or whatever). "What result do you expect from the merger?" "Nothing." That doesn't mean the two companies are going to vanish; it most likely means the speaker doesn't anticipate any change from the previous routine--though it could be the speaker's way of saying "no good thing will come out of this." Otherwise, you're forced like so many philosophers to prefer a ham sandwich to true happiness, because nothing is better than true happiness, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing" is a colloquialism for "the empty set". Does that help? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reality consists of entities or substances, their properties and attributes, and the various relations that exist between them. While the concept nothing is manipulated verbally as if it referred to an entity or substance, in reality it specifies no real entity, but a relative lack. Nothing is a concept of relation, not of substance. If one answers the question, "what did you have for breakfast?" with "nothing", one is simply denying that one had breakfast, or asserting that there is no entity which satisfies the argument of the verb. It is a mistake to be confused by the nominal form of the concept--that we treat it like a noun--into thinking that the word implies some real actual substance or tangible property bearing entity in the world. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it from standpoint of set theory makes any apparent ambiguity go away. Provided the OP understands set theory! "Nothing is better than true happiness" = "The set of elements that are better than true happiness, is the empty set." And "A ham sandwich is better than nothing" = "The set of elements that are better to eat than the empty set, includes [but is not necessarily limited to] a ham sandwich." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Set theory is fine and dandy but it is at a greater remove from reality than is necessary for all but certain mathematicians. Sets are often rather arbitrary constructions as well. One does encounter real entities (Saddam Hussein, Hurricane Katrina, Cindy Crawford's Mole) and real substances (the air in a room) with real attributes (dead, cute, humid) and real relations (between, father of) in the world and must deal with them. These entities, attributes and relations exist regardless of our notions of them. But sets are purely mental constructs which may {the current members of the House of Lords} or may not {Godzilla, the greenness of my shirt, and the number pi} have any real unifying connection. Just as they should know the parts of speach, all educated people should know the difference between entities and substances, attributes and properties, and logical and other relations. The questioner's obvious mistake is to think that the concept nothing must refer to an entity or substance because the word nothing is a noun. It's a category mistake. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, it's like trying explain the concept of zero. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who will be turning four shortly. I'll have to see what I can elicit from him about the concept zero. You have to be able to subtract before you can form the concept properly. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young kids understand subtraction. That's why it's actually quite difficult to take candy from a baby. They know the consequences and resist quite strongly. Try it some time. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the result of OR then you should be ashamed HiLo48. (Unless you gave the candy back. In that case you are perceived as a benefactor.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. If HiLo48 cares about the children's health, then taking candy away from them makes him a benefactor, and returning the candy to them makes him a malefactor. Or do you think children enjoy diabetes and tooth decay? Angr (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not because they have any concept of "subtraction". Babies have no concept of "me" versus "other things" - the whole world including the bits of themselves they can see or perceive is all one continuum. Which is why we cannot remember anything at all prior to a certain age. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A baby is the centre of the universe. By taking it's candy you are causing a severe disruption in the space-time continuum - thus the eruption. Roger (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of "we are what we eat" you correctly wrote that the baby is candy. Indeed Truth comes out of the mouths of babes and sucklings although that may be what neither Roger nor the writer of Psalm 8 intended. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological connection between Hebrew "kollel" and English "college"

It may be a bit of a stretch but I'm struck by the similarity between these words which basically have the same meaning: "a gathering of learned people". I'm aware that "college" comes from Latin but that's where my knowlege runs out. My knowlege of Hebrew is non-existent. Roger (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the meaning given in kollel, it looks like it derives from the Semitic roots for "all", "everyone" (which also gives "kull" in Arabic). "College" is actually from a compound of "con-", "together/with", and the verb "legare", "choose", thus meaning something like "people chosen together". The same verb is also part of words ending in -lect (select, elect, collect, etc), and it's not the same as "legere", "read", even though that would make sense here. So, no, they're not related - the "koll-" part of the Hebrew is one root by itself, while the "coll-" part of college is from two distinct parts of the word. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[written slowly in a meeting during which the previous response was posted] There is no etymological connection. The Hebrew word is actually transliterated kolel even though it's conventional English form is kollel. The Hebrew word, meaning "community" or "collective" is derived from the triconsonantal Semitic root כלל (kll), meaning something like "include" (so that the word originally meant something like "those who are part of the group"). By contrast, the Latin word behind college is collegium, composed of the roots con- (meaning "together") and leg- (meaning "select"), which originally meant "a group selected together". Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that someone here can give a more detailed answer than me - but the word kollel has gone through many semantic shifts before it could even be mistaken for a cognate of "college".Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Token etymonline response:) Etymonline doesn't indicate any connection. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I'd be quite lost without this particular gathering of learned people! Roger (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the fauna equivalent of 'anthology'?

Hi all - if 'anthology' means 'collection of flowers', http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anthology&searchmode=none what would be the animal equivalent of this vegetable metaphor - a collection of meat-flowers, as it were?

thanks for your patience with this typically strange question.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bestiary, perhaps? Angr (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologically, theriology. Tevildo (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A zoo or menagerie is a collection of animals. As to the animal equivalent of flowers, would that be secondary sexual characteristics such as feathers, or sexual organs? The archaic word plumassary means a bunch of feathers, but I'm not sure about a garland of penises. I think the questioner needs to refine his/her question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plumassary is a lovely word, (as is theriology, sorry forgot to mention) and thanks all for the answers. Yes. How to refine the question? Well, what if we were to imagine a garland of genitals? - and use that as a metaphor for a collection of stories in the same way that anthology uses the flower metaphor? How about that? Am I making it easier or more difficult? Thanks again Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about phallology? Marco polo (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's inevitably going to be something like that, isn't it - phallology, pudendalogy - animal 'flowers' arouse quite different feelings to their vegetable counterparts. Thanks, Marco and all, but I think I hadn't thought through what I wanted before asking. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm moved by your knowledge, Colapeninsula, I like that you know the archaic word :). Tell me about yourself, please, on your own user page. 188.29.111.138 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the changing nature of Fanny

"Fanny" is British English slang for the vulva, and American English for the buttocks, thus leading to numerous hilarious misunderstandings. Ha ha. But the word also used to be a common female nickname, short for Frances. When did the slang meanings rise to prominence, and did this precede or follow the decline in the usage of the nickname? (I know that "Frances" is still a relatively common name choice.) The Tower of London website says: "In the 1800 guide to the Tower of London, the animals included were a fine lioness called Fanny, a very fierce one called Miss Fanny, and two more called Miss Fanny Howe and Miss Howe (as they were born on 1 June 1794, the day of Admiral Howe’s great victory over the French)." Can anyone shed light on this? If this Fanny-naming were the leonine version of calling dogs "Fido", surely we would have come across it before. And how does the bawdy novel Fanny Hill (1748) fit into this? I'd always assumed that phrase was an unveiled reference to the mons veneris or pubic mound. Was the novel still notorious by the end of the C18? Its official title is Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, so perhaps the name "Fanny" was not so closely tied to it in the public imagination. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of the New Oxford American Dictionary claims that the origin of the lewd sense is "late 19th cent". Gabbe (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1879. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED dates the American sense to 1928, in the play The Front Page. I suspect unrecorded uses on both sides of the Atlantic would be a bit earlier. Fanny Craddock was on British TV in the 1950s, so the name has been used long after the slang term came into existence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was hilarity when Johnny Cradock (the correct spelling), who was Fanny's husband and on-screen cooking sidekick, commented - possibly innocently: 'And if you follow the recipe, all your doughnuts will look like Fanny's!'. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Incidentally, "dick" meaning penis dates back to 1891 and "willy" to 1905, yet the proper names persist (the OED's earliest sightings for both being used as obscenities are from dictionaries of slang, so the vulgar use is assuredly older than that, but the proper names are older still.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the entry for "fanny" in An Encyclopedia of Swearing, which tentatively dates it as early as 1750. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And yes, the 1750 date is the Fanny Hill novel.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and Fanny is still used as a fairly common name in some parts of the UK, though I don't know any young people called Fanny. Dbfirs 08:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]