Language desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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 2

"based on" or "based upon"

When a movie is created from a book, sometimes the film credits are writren "based on the book..." and sometimes it's "based upon the book...". Is one more correct than the other? Is it different for US or UK English? RudolfRed (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either is cromulent. I, an American, prefer on the book and upon the story. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the phrases are about as semantically (and grammatically) identical as they come. It's a slight dialectal variation, at most -- and clearly most English speakers employ both. To my ear, "based on" sounds slightly more perfunctory and "based upon" seems ever so slightly more appropriate to formal contexts, but that could easily be just a personal affectation. Snow (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both are acceptable and more or less identical in meaning. In the version of US English that I and most people around me speak, upon is almost never used. To my ears, it sounds slightly archaic, formal, and/or British. There are certain phrases where it is obligatory, such as put upon, but that phrase almost never occurs in my dialect, nor can I think of any other upon phrase that does, except for the fossilized once upon a time. Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search of Google Books (with many old publications) gives a ratio of just over 6:1 for "based on":"based upon". In the nineteenth century, the usages seem to be roughly equal, but rising to 11:1 in this century. A search of the Corpus of Contemporary American English yields a ratio of almost 18:1 (making "based upon" relatively rare in modern American English), whereas the British National Corpus yields a ratio of 10:1 (confirming that "based upon" is more common in modern British English than in American) I expected the ratio numbers to be closer for British English, but perhaps this is because my style tends to be old-fashioned. Dbfirs 14:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a slight difference: In my London-English dialect I would, in some cases, interpret 'upon' as involving movement towards the object, and 'on' to mean a fixed location. To illustrate this, I would see a difference in the sentences 'I set the clock on the table' and 'I set the clock upon the table' - I interpret the first as meaning that the clock, in a fixed location on the table, has been adjusted to the correct time. The second means that the clock has been placed on the table. I think this only works where the verb could be interpreted in two ways - I can't distinguish between 'I put the clock on the table' and 'I put the clock upon the table', for instance. This reminds me somewhat of the way German uses the accusative, but it's probably not quite the same. Locative case and Allative case seem similar as well, but someone more knowledgeable than I will have to explain. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good catch Mike. Almost all prepositions have a few of these idiomatic meanings when paired with certain verbs. Notice that most of these are cases of ellipses or other reductions in null forms (those whose meaning are inheritable from the context): in your example, for instance, the first sentence ('I set the clock on the table') could be realized more explicitly as 'I set the clock (that is) on the table' or, 'I set the clock (down) on the table.' These differences are characterized by different assumptions as to the dependencies of the various words in the clause; for example, whether "on" is an independent prepositional phrase or whether it part of an adverbial phrase with a constituent prepositional phrase, as well as which verb phrase that both phrases direct constituent of ('set' or 'is')* However, we have a contextual inclination to treat the "upon" example as semantically favoring the meaning that reads "I set it down on the table"; notice that if you explicitly said 'I set the clock which is upon the table', that it too will make sense and another English speaker is almost certain to understand you, but it does sound slightly stilted. Again, this is an idiomatic form, so unlike the other examples that are to some extent innate and do not need to specifically detailed in order for a person to assume and use the correct form, this phrase has to be learned.

*I feel like I should be explaining this with sentence diagrams, but nobody likes those!

Snow (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Snow (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

last name etymology

I realize that (according to Wikipedia) "Koszeg" is Old Hungarian, meaning "stone_," but I heard from a relative that is now deceased that "Koszegi" means "nail stone." I would like to verify this if possible, and I've been all over the internet. I'm hoping you might be able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.189.48 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck in the Language Ref. desk Rojomoke (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied by me from the miscellaneous desk. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionary, kő means stone and szeg means nail. -- Ehrenkater (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what "stone nail" means. A nail made out of stone would be useless, and a metal nail for joining stones together is a questionable choice, too, since it would tend to crack the stone (mortar is the most common option for joining stone). I suppose you can drill a hole in two stones and put a metal rod between them, but I'd call this a "bolt" or "dowel", not a nail. Perhaps Hungarian doesn't distinguish between these terms ? StuRat (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other names that on a superficial examination might appear to match incongruous words include the other version of your own name, Stewart. How does one stew art? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from steward (and, you can, of course, stew rats). :-) StuRat (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Come on, Jack, it's not hard. Buy a Picasso at your local corner store, boil some water on the cooker, and throw the painting in the pot. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sincerely for reminding me not to overthink things. I am forever in your debt, Nyttend. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

StuRat, it is possible that you have it backwards. The OP said that a source said "nail stone", and if Hungarian is an HM language this would make sense. I don't know what "nail stone" means, but I can think of a number of more plausible possibilities than for "stone nail". --11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A stone used to pound nails, in lieu of a hammer ? StuRat (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like more information, why not contact the mayor of the town of Kőszeg, who should be able to give you authoritative information about the origin of the name? -- Ehrenkater (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy often carries older meanings. I don't know whether the family Kőszegi or the place-name "Kőszeg" came first, but "szeg" (both as a suffix "-szeg" and prefix "Szeg-") might also mean "corner". See for example the article on Szeged and the info on "szeg" in the article on Göcsej. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, since Köszeg lies in Vas County just north of Zala County which includes Göcsej, "country of szegs", "Kőszeg" could possibly be translated as something like "stone-settlement", "stone village", "Stoneville", ... ? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential risks"

The article Prostate Cancer Screening includes this sentence: "The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA screening in healthy men finding that the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits."

Is there a difference in meaning between "potential risks" and "risks"? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since each patient is different, they have different risks and benefits. So, only some of those risks and benefits may apply to any given patient, making them "potential" risks and benefits for all patients. For example, a patient on immunosuppressants may be more likely to get an infection at the site where the blood is drawn, but this is only a potential risk, in general, since it's a negligible concern for most patients. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the term 'potential risks' is chosen to indicate that insufficient research is available to reliably determine what exactly the risks are or how great they are, in constrast to a 'risk', which is a known chance to experience some adverse effect. - Lindert (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A potential risk of HPV infection is cervical cancer, but not for everybody. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

metrification

Is "metrification" really a real word? I always thought it was a kind of jokey or facetious variant of the correct "metrication". 86.160.221.207 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in the OED, which says it means the same as metrication. Its etymology: < metre n.2 + -ification suffix, after metric adj. Metrication's etymology is given as < metric adj.2 + -ation suffix. The suffix -ification is defined as a standard English suffix, "as in glori-(a)-fication, molli-fication, fruct-i-fication, [...] oss-i-fication." Other examples listed under -fication include purification, beautification, and Frenchification. Pfly (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also -ification's entry at Wiktionary. The suffix is derived from the Latin verb facio/facere, "to do, to make", and it signifies the process of being made into something or of "becoming". Oddly, wiktionary defines metrification as something different from metrication (which is where "metrification" redirects on WP): "Composition in metrical form; versification". The entry makes no mention of SI units and physical measurement. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED actually has two entries for metrification. The first one is "Metrical composition; an instance of this. Also, metrical structure", with the note "now rare". There's only one entry for metrication. There's also two entries for metrify, the first having to do with "putting into verse" or "making metrical", the second being related to SI units/metric system. While we're at it, there's also entries for metricalization and metricize. Pfly (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metrification implies the verb "to metrify", which I can't say I've ever heard of, but if one needed an active verb to describe how a government, say, was transforming the country's systems from non-metric to metric, I suppose it would be OK to say the government was "metrifying" the country. I'd rather say that than the govt was "metrificating" the country. Metrication implies the verb "to metricate", which sounds even less likely than "to metrify" or "to metrificate". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metrification sounds fine to me, and a lot less awkward than metrication. If fact, I'd never heard the latter before now. The Economist[1] and others use the former. Falling between two stools, the Jamaican Ministry of Industry Investment & Commerce uses "Metrification" as a title (twice) of an article, then calls it "metrication" in the body.[2] (Moral: don't invest in Jamaica.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose people who deal with these questions all day could end up "slack-jawed with metrifaction". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proper word is neither to metrify nor to metricate, but to Carterize.[3] μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Metrification" is to measurements what "petrification" is to trees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that to petrify is to turn into peter, not to make petric. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the folks who run the Petrified Forest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if you are converting to metrics the word should be metricize or metricify, not metrify, which implies only that you are turning things into meters. Of course, Carterize still remaining the prefered term here in the states. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying that but your link above doesn't provide evidence of any such word. There are 461 hits for "carterize"; many of them are typos for "cauterize", and none of the others seem to have anything to do with the metric system. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed this. And just exactly where were you in 1978? μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't miss it. It's the exact link I referred to. You're claiming it demonstrates the existence of the word "carterize", but it does no such thing. The only link in this thread that demonstrates the existence of the word "carterize" is the link I provided, and it does not support it being the preferred term for metrication in the US, as you have now twice claimed. A joke uttered with a straight face is one thing, but to keep on saying false things as if they were true is not what we do here on the Reference Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you very obviously did miss it. Talk about talking about motes. Click the link I repeated for you again piped to the word this and as a numerical note in the first comment. It most certainly does not link to "461 hits for 'carterize'" or any other such number. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must have suddenly lost all understanding of the English language. Let's see if we can agree on what's happened here. You've twice provided a link. It's a search for: "jimmy carter" "metric sytem". It produces about 278,000 results. It did not, repeat not, search for "carterize", but I suppose it's possible some of those 278,000 hits do contain that word. Can you please identify the ones that do in fact contain the word "carterize"? Because there's no way I am going to look through 278,000 individual hits to find such a word. Instead, I did a direct google search for the word "carterize" and I found all of 461 instances. I provided that link to show you the results of my search. I never claimed that any link you provided had anything to do with those 461 hits. Are we on the same page yet? If not, please tell what I'm missing. But if so, please believe me when I tell you that I have still seen zero evidence that the word "carterize" is the preferred term for metrication in the United States or anywhere else. What I have seen is very good evidence that the word hardly exists at all outside of typos for "cauterize", but when it has been used intentionally, it has not been used to mean what you have at least twice claimed it means. So, the obvious question is: By exactly whom is this alleged word the preferred term? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before this shouting match gets out of hand: (1) Google results are notorious for being different in different countries, so it's entirely possible that the results Jack sees are not the ones Medeis intends. (2) As for where Jack was in 1978, he was presumably in Australia and therefore immune from Jimmy Carter's abortive attempt to switch the U.S. to the metric system. Angr (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's search was for the key word "Carterize" like the piped link on Carterize I provided above. Click his link to see what Bing uses as the search word. But refer back to my first mention of Carterize and you will see there are two links. It is obvious the numbered ref link was overlooked and Jack didn't realize the difference, even when I repeated it since he was still talking about hits on Carterize. Hence the need for me to bring it to his attention a third time. Given he still insists he knew this all along I will not press the matter further.

It's the very opposite of s shouting match, Angr. The conversation is being conducted very civilly, and it's in small type (shouting is done in ALL CAPS) so that those who don't want to read it can immediately identify it and avoid it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I assumed Medeis was joking when saying "Carterize still remaining the prefered term here in the states." It's not. Maybe if one is referring specifically to Carter's push for metric. Even then it's not a term I would use, nor can I recall ever hearing it used. It certainly would not be used to describe Thomas Jefferson's attempt to establish a decimal system—which, predating the metric system itself, is usually described as an attempt to "decimalize" weights and measures. Pfly (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made what was a very obvious joke to Americans of the right age. The piped link on the word Carterize was the joke line. Anyone following would see the term was not given the definition I provided. In case foreigners without an American's sense of irony and personal memory of the rabbit attack incident might insist that my joke was False (a category mistake) I added an explanatory ref link showing the general ridicule Carter was subjected to for pushing the silly sounding, French, and, for everyday use on the human scale, quite inconvenient metric system. Innocently restating the joke (running gag) when the context seemed to allow it, I got another foreigner insisting that I was wrong. I explained the joke with the ref link when I made it, and never in my wildest dreams thought I would be accused by literalistic foreigners of trying to trick anyone with obviously contradictory google search results. You'll forgive me if I think this myopic rubber chicken has been sufficiently beaten to death.

This has now been satisfactorily resolved at User talk:Medeis#Carterize. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

There's a cure for getting Carterized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metrify is in American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [4]. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is denying metrify is in the dictionary. (Our article uses "metricate", BTW.) My penultimate point was that if -ify means "to make" then "metrify" means "to make meter", not to make metric, which would be 'to metricify. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Make basic: basify, make acidic: acidify, make touristic: touristify, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acidify can be taken to mean to make acid, and basify to make base, while touristify (what a barbarism) would come from touristy, no? μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily: "acidify", for example, can also merely mean "lower the pH", but the result needn't be an acid the way acids are normally defined. Example: Ocean acidification, where the ocean gets more acidic but remains a base (pH > 7). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, to make more acid. The point is that you don't really need to create -ify verbs by dropping the -ic ending of adjectives when you can work logically from the simple base. To return to petrify, the term means to turn into a rock, not to make 'petric'. I could argue that people would benefit highly from a year of Latin, but I am sure I would be told that that language's being dead is a good thing, and we should all adopt chav or ebonic. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]