Language desk
< March 5	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 7 >

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.

March 6

Common term for a modus ponens thing

- If Lisa is playing hockey today, she'll wear contact lenses.
- Lisa is playing hockey today.
- Therefore, Lisa will wear contact lenses.

(1) is a typical example of modus ponens. I'm just wondering what I can call this "series of statements" thing in prose. Here is the context I'm trying to fit it into:

“

For example, the _____ shown in (1) implies that Lisa will wear contact lenses:

- If Lisa is playing hockey today, she'll wear contact lenses.
- Lisa is playing hockey today.

”

Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"syllogism" ?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the example sentence given, using a more common word such as "argument" would seem to be much better: For example, the argument shown in (1) implies that Lisa will wear contact lenses:
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines...something like "the conversation in (1)" or "the dialogue shown in (1)", except of course in this case it's not a conversation or a dialogue, but that's the flavor I'm looking for. I feel like there must be a word for it (something just expressing "an ordered series of logically-connected premises") but I'm drawing a blank. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Syllogism" is the correct word. Unfortunately lots of people won't understand it, but it is the correct word for what you are talking about. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure it is quite the right word. Certainly it's not specific to modus ponens. The syllogism article lists quite a few different types of syllogism, none of which are precisely of the form given in the "Lisa" example (they all seem to be more about quantified logic, involving the quantifiers all, some, and none). --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not looking so much for a word that describes the logical rationale of the argument, as syllogism does, but just one that describes the structure/form of this. That is to say, a more formal way of saying "the lump of sentences shown in (1)..." rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably a syllogism in the broad sense of the word, rather than the sense specific to Aristotle. I certainly can't think of one that's closer. Another related word is sorites, in the sense of the sort of puzzle favored by the Rev. Dodgson. --Trovatore (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually an Aristotelian syllogism, of the Barbara form. (Trovatore's note about all/some/none is a red herring: "Lisa" is a distributed term, since we're talking about only one Lisa and she's fully accounted for.) It might be clearer if I said: all hockey-playing-Lisas are contact-lens-wearers; Lisa is a hockey-playing-Lisa; therefore, Lisa is a contact-lens-wearer. Marnanel (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, could be; I'm no expert on traditional logic. But I'm not entirely convinced that the transition from "If Lisa has P then Lisa has Q" to "all P-having Lisas have Q" is a no-op in that context. I mean, if you just want to look at things up to logical equivalence, then MP is all you need, so there's no sense in dividing up the syllogisms into types at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French oe ligature

What's the numeric key sequence to type for the oe ligature? I tried all the combinations from Alt+0224 (à) to Alt+0255 (ÿ), but none of them work. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To find out how to input the character ethel, see Œ#Inputting Œ and œ.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's well worth putting a "character map" shortcut (dragged from the "system tools" folder in XP) on your desktop precisely for this sort of purpose.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew you could do that, thank you for the tip. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength -- "œthel" was a name specific to Old English (where it indicated the rune as much as the Latin-alphabet ligature), so I fail to see what relevance it would have to French etc... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Œ#Historique (permanent link here), it can be called "ethel" in French.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not included in the ISO-8859/1 range (characters 160-255) because in the 1980s the French national standards body suddenly changed its mind and told the Latin 1 working group to yank it from the standard -- so that at the last minute, Œ was replaced by multiplication sign and œ was replaced by division sign, in a somewhat crude and clumsy way (the only two non-alphabetic symbols in the 192-255 range)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the French do this? It seems an odd thing to do. --rossb (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they were internally torn and convulsed over whether Œ is a real separate letter or a mere optional typographic ligature...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on this story in the section 3.2 of this document (in French). — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer is Alt+0156. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word for family relationship to oneself

Terms like uncle, child, great-grandparent, and sibling all describe the relationship of the person being talked about to an implied other. Is there a similar term for that other? This would be useful in technical contexts, where family relationship words are used to describe things which are not in fact people. For instance, when programming tree structures, I find I need a word like this, to use as a variable name. Yesterday I wrote some code and used "me" for this purpose (alongside "parent", "grandparent" and "uncle"), although "current_node" was a second choice, but I don't really like either. 81.131.68.5 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In studies of kinship terminology the word to refer to the point of origin in relation to which kinship relations are described is called "ego". A word with a less personal connotation could be "point of origen" or "origo" in the termionlogy of Bühler. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) These are good technical words to know about. I tried to delete this question just now, because as often happens, writing it out made me think of a satisfactory answer: "self" will do nicely. Thanks, though. 81.131.68.5 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, self is the word usually substituted for ego in less technical studies. It still seems best suited for humans though.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to just omit the relationship word entirely. For example, you might have PARENT_RECORD, RECORD, and CHILD_RECORD. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation needed, please

Hello, if anyone could help me out with a japanese translation, it would be much appreciated. I bought some Rohto Zi pro eyedrops from Japan, and I can't read Japanese, so I would like some information. I've taken photos of the entire box as I wasn't sure where the important information was. Basically, I just want to know about usage instructions and active ingredients. In particular, does it suggest limiting usage? (Some other eyedrops suggest not using them every day, or more than a few times a day, or more than a few days in a row.) Also, how long does it suggest keeping the eyedrops before discarding them? Most eyedrops say 30 days, but I wondered if this one was different. Thanks for any information! Snorgle (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Zi eyedrops[reply]

Active ingredients are Tetrahydrozoline 0.06%, Neostigmine methylsulfate 0.005%, Allantoin 0.2%, Chlorpheniramine 0.03%, Vitamine B6 0.1%, and Potassium L‐aspartate 1%. I used this as the text. As for the other information, see the official page. Click the Eye drops on the left and find similar Zi products. Sorry the direct link is not available. The content is basically the same as your Zi pro. According to this pdf, you do not use the product when you are wearing soft contact lenses and if you are diagnosed as a glaucoma patient. Oda Mari (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you had better luck googling than me!Snorgle (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use google search. All I saw was ja:ロート製薬 and jumped to the official site. This is the en article, Rohto Pharmaceutical Co. and you can jump to their en site from the page too. Oda Mari (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possesive form of "sons of Ishmael."

Consider the following sentence from a 19th-century manuscript: "The wild sons of Ishmael's disposition to be contantly engaged in tribal warefare demands...." Is the proper possessive form shown here, or should it be "sons' of Ishmael"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LShecut2nd (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is correct. The 's goes at the end of the entire noun phrase it modifies, in this case _NP[the wild sons of Ishmael], not just at the end of the head noun of the phrase. —Angr (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were it from your own writings rather than some set-in-stone quote, I'd suggest it be written: "The disposition of the wild sons of Ishmael to be constantly engaged in tribal welfare demands ...", because as it is, the brain is tempted to make something out of "Ishmael's disposition", until it has even more trouble with the sons of a disposition. Not great writing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least "The disposition of Ishmael's wild sons..." to avoid too many of-phrases in a row. —Angr (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's possible to read it in such a way that the sons are sons of an abstraction, namely Ishmael's disposition. That would be a fine metaphor in some contexts, and the reader shouldn't really be asked to figure out that this is not what's meant. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(In fact, especially in a Biblical context — compare the Mormon sons of perdition.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have the freedom to edit the sentence, but to retain the style of the writer, I will leave it with his word/phrase order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LShecut2nd (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transposition of consonants in the Lucknow area

I asked this question on the Humanities desk, about Kipling's use of Nucklao for Lucknow in Kim. From the answers given, it appears that this transposition was a known feature of local usage. Does this process have a name and also is there some kind of underlying reason for it? DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name for the transposition of sounds is metathesis. It can have a wide variety of causes, or none. —Angr (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean no known cause, Angr? Nothing has no cause. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<squeeeze> "Nothing has no cause" should be declared one of the axioms of existentialist cosmology. Next to "incremental contributions" vs "excremental contributions" another pinnacle of JoOzzies linguistic dadaism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I meant more "no identifiable cause". Saying "no known cause" suggests that the cause may be known later, and sometimes metathesis really just happens spontaneously. What's the most scientific-sounding way of saying "just for the hell of it"? —Angr (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nucklao" for "Lucknow" is more Spoonerism than any ordinary type of linguistic sound change... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears to be a recognised feature of the local dialects, so I don't think Spoonerism is quite the word. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Interchange of onset consonants between successive words or syllables is the most basic meaning of spoonerism. AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Spoonerism is an individual speech impediment or occasional slip, this is a known feature of the way language is used in a particular geographical area. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. If a linguist wanted to refer to a phonological process of interchange of onset consonants between successive words or syllables, then the obvious specific word to use would be "spoonerism". AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, metathesis (per Angr, above) would be the obvious specific word. I take it you have nothing to say about this dialect feature? Have you read the answers on the Humanities board? DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- the term "metathesis" is much more commonly used to refer to reversals of adjacent sounds, and a change of Lucknow -> Nucklao simply is NOT any type of ordinary phonological change which is commonly-found in linguistic researches, but is much more of a somewhat strange and aberrant rarely-occurring situation. Too bad that you officiously took it upon yourself to patronizingly and condescendingly lecture on a subject that you seem to know rather little about... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know anything about it. Couldn't you just have said "Haven't got a clue", or even better not posted anything? DuncanHill (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to knowledge which I don't possess -- and it would have been better for you to have followed my example after I posted my terminological clarification, instead of conspicuously overextending yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until your post I had never heard Spoonerism used to mean the swapping of consonants within a word, only for the swapping of initial consonants of adjacent words. Neither had I ever heard it used for anything other than a speech-impediment, slip, or intentionally humorous word-play. So, your claim of Spoonerism made (and makes) no sense whatsoever to me. DuncanHill (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were baffled and expressed your bafflement, that wouldn't have been a problem -- unfortunately, you instead chose to dogmatize and pontificate and lay down the law on linguistic terminology, without having the necessary background knowledge to back up your categorical and sweeping declarations. AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did express my reservations about your choice of word. Now, I have a choice between believing you (some random guy with no apparent knowledge of the thing I asked about) or the dictionaries which fall to hand (written by professionals) which happen to agree with my extensive experience of reading and listening to and speaking English. Guess what I go with? You chose to dogmatise and pontificate with no apparent knowledge of wither the subject or English in general. DuncanHill (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're certainly consistent, I'll give you that much -- you're determined to go down pontificating and dogmatizing about things you know very little about down to the bitter end... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have anything useful to say about the transposition of consonants noted in dialectical usage around Lahore? Or are you just trying to make yourself look like an arrogant, unhelpful, and ignorant so-and-so? I know some people do get their kicks from being as unhelpful as possible. It'd save time if you just said so. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dialect region that Lucknow falls under is Awadhi. AFAIK, there's no systematic metasthesis in Awadhi itself, Nakhlau is probably just a unique case. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the answers already given on the Humanities desk, it isn't just in the name of Lucknow, but other local place-names too. DuncanHill (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, all the other examples are transpositions of whole sections of the name (probably morphemes) and may very well be explicable in terms of the freedom of word order of the language (I don't know whether this is so, but it looks likely). This is entirely different from the case of Lucknow/Nucklau, where the transposition almost certainly changes the morphemes. This looks like language play (and I would certainly call it a Spoonerism) but the other cases do not. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular orbital theory

why anti-bonding molecular orbitals are of higher energy?

Sounds like a question for the science reference desk rather than here, the language reference desk. —Angr (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adverb placement

I found disagreement on Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style#wrong_word_in_article on something I thought was grammatically incorrect. Is this really one of those sentences where a slight placement can affect the meaning: "avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording"? I believe it's best to avoid usage that can lead to common errors. It was suggested that maybe "Avoid jargon, vagueness, and complexity where it is not necessary", but I find this just as confusing. Blackwidowhex (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the grammar in that sentence. You yourself use the phrase "grammatically incorrect", which has the same form; compare then the sentence "avoid jargon, and vague or grammatically incorrect sentences". Adverbs are generally placed before adjectives that they modify. The sentence "avoid jargon, and unnecessarily vague or complex wording" is also grammatically possible, but in that case the adverb would usually be read as modifying both "vague" and "complex". If you still would like another wording, you could try "Avoid jargon, vagueness, and unnecessary complexity." Lesgles (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwidowhex (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]