Language desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 28

To lay out

In 12 Angry Men, one juror warns another "You oughta have more respect, mister. If you say stuff like that to him again... I'm gonna lay you out.". To lay out appears to express to knock down, to floor sb., but this meaning is not included in Wiktionary. One mentioned there is to prepare a body for burial, which seems a bit harsh, even metaphorically speaking. So, does to lay out also mean to knock down? And a second question in this context: In my native language German, the verb flachlegen ("to lay flat") both means to floor sb. and to lay sb. (sexually). Is there an expression in English with the same double meaning? --KnightMove (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the first question, yes: to lay [someone] out means to knock someone down and/or out. To the second question, can't think of such a word right now, but maybe one exists. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To lay or to get laid, yes. But to lay out just means to arrange horizontally, such as laying out a buffet, or a red carpet, or a corpse, or whatever. It's also slang for knocking someone down flat. Floored kind of means the same thing, except it's usually a metaphor: "That guy's statement floored me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sense added to Wiktionary. Dbfirs 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's stretching it a little, but tumble can be used as a transitive verb to mean both "cause to fall" and "have sexual intercourse with".- Ka renjc 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These don't necessarily require a knockdown or horizontal position, but words like "nail", "hammer", "drill" and "pound" are used about equally in combat sports and porn. The North-south position, while not an idiom, is in a somewhat similar grey area between love and hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bang" is an example that comes to mind. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me, I forgot "slam". Not a strike, but it lays someone out on their back. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insanitary or unsanitary?

An editor has just amended an article that I started - SS Navemar - and changed "insanitary conditions" to "unsanitary conditions". Any thoughts? Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under insanitary, Wiktionary has "Common misspelling of unsanitary". Does that help? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, "unsanitary" is the proper term. I've heard of "insane", but never "insanitary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "insanitary" either, only "unsanitary". FWIW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(UK English speaker here) I'm surprised that "insanitary" is considered "incorrect": it seems perfectly normal to me. Google hits are two-to-one in favour or "un-", but the OED has four citations for "in-" (going back to 1874) and two for "un-" (1872 - a line from Middlemarch). Maybe it's a UK-US difference, but here is an official-looking US document that uses "in-". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Insanitary" is not incorrect. It's uncorrect. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an insanitarium. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which just goes to show that local (rather than "US") officials are not necessarily English scholars. And I note that EO has no entry for "insanitary".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd say that's a fair assessment, and that insanitary is more of an alternative spelling than an incorrect one, albeit a less common one. Google Ngrams shows that, across the whole English corpus, insanitary was more usual before 1900, then unsanitary takes over until about 1925. From there, they're both about equally popular until the 70s, at which time unsanitary seems to become the established favourite. However, in American English, unsanitary has always been favoured, whereas in British English insanitary is the winner. So, yes, it is probably a question of dialect. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. As the article is about emigrants to the US, I suppose that the American English version is the right one. In my defence, see Exhibit "A": The District of Columbia - Board for the Condemnation of Insanitary Buildings (BCIB). Perhaps someone could amend Wiktionary in line with your collective findings? Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A side comment: in- and un- are not 'alternative' spellings. They are a cognate doublet (triplet with Greek a-, an-) meaning "not" and originating in the Proto-Indo-European language. The change from the fully Latinate insanitary to the mixed Germanic/Latinate unsanitary shows the nativization of the concept. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However interesting the history of its development, I am gobsmacked to see anyone referring to insanitary as "wrong" or a "misspelling". As Cucumber Mike kindly demonstrated, it has a long history in both the UK and the US, and is currently widely used in the UK, far more so than unsanitary, in fact. This is not the first time that this kind of query has attracted responses that boil down to: "That's wrong. I've never heard of it", when a minute's research would show otherwise. Without going through the whole Reference Desk thing again, it's worth noting that our personal language preferences do not trump established and accepted variants in other varieties of the shared language that divides us, and that we should provide references when we make authoritative-sounding pronouncements on anything. WP:ENGVAR definitely supports the use of unsanitary in this context, but we could have established that without giving incorrect and unreferenced kneejerk replies to the original question. - Ka renjc 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My minute's research was to go to Etymology Online, which didn't have a listing for "insanitary". Silly me, for believing a source. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It tells us nothing one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Ka renjc 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, but I must point out, in everyone else's defence, that my first answer was where we got the idea that it's a misspelling. I agree with the rest of what you say, though - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, "insanitary" does not show a significantly lower usage than "unsanitary", at least according to Google Ngrams: [2]. There have even been some time periods when "insanitary" was the predominant form of the word; though since 1965 "unsanitary" has taken the clear lead, and the "insanitary" usage has been steadily dropping. --Jayron32 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the Wiktionary entry was not corrected long ago. I've now removed the claim of mis-spelling and added a usage note for American users. Dbfirs 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are jokes about an "insanitary spectre" (~=sanitary inspector). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the sewer wisp from The Wizard of Id. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion reminds me of the dispute during the writing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: Thomas Jefferson originally penned "inalienable rights"; John Adams insisted it should be "unalienable rights". → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ej", "icke", "inte"

What exactly is the difference between the words "ej", "icke" and "inte" in Swedish? I assume they all mean "not". The only one I learned at school was "inte". JIP | Talk 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This explains it reasonably well, I think:

"Swedish has three negations, inte, icke, ej, all meaning ‘not’. Inte is the most commonly used negation in Swedish. Both icke and ej are restricted to formal written language, icke is also found in compounds, where neither inte nor ej may be used: icke-våld ‘non-violence. Other words with negative meanings are ingalunda ‘by no means’, knappt, knappast ‘hardly’, omöjligen ‘not possibly’."

Basically, if in doubt, use inte. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Cucumber Mike with regards to Swedish as presently spoken in Sweden. In Finland Swedish (which I presume is the variety JIP is more accustomed to), it is quite possible that words that are considered somewhat stilted and archaic in Sweden (like icke and ej) are more commonplace, but I can't find anything on this online. Gabbe (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand you completely, but yes, you are right, I am far more accustomed to Finland Swedish than real Swedish. I have only ever learnt real Swedish when I have actually gone to Sweden, which I have done about ten to twenty times in my life. In Finland Swedish, "inte" is the only word for "not" I have ever encountered. In real Swedish, I have also encountered "ej" and "icke", which I have understood also mean "not", but I am still unaware of the exact distinction in usage. JIP | Talk 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is the words' formality. Inte is acceptable in all situations, but ej and icke are used in more formal language. So, whilst you might say to a colleague "Blockera inte utrymingsvägen", the signs on the Stockholm Metro say "Utrymingsväg få ej blockeras". Ej and icke are also apparently more common in prayers and bible verses. Finally, as above, icke can be used in the same way as English 'non-', such as icke-rökare (non-smokers) or icke-svenskar (non-Swedes). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is icke (Danish ikke) related to the German kein? μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the origin of the words, but the modern senses are subtly different, in that kein means 'no', 'nobody', or 'not', whereas icke means 'not' or 'non-'. The Swedish equivalent to kein is inga, whereas the German equivalent to icke is nicht. Of course, it's entirely possible that all these words (kein, nicht, inte, icke, inga) could be derived from the same root (Old Norse? Proto-Germanic?) and have diversified into their modern senses. I'm afraid I haven't been able to find a useful reference. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always assumed that kein < nicht ein in the same way that -heit > keit after -ich n (e.g., möglichkeit). Of course I have no source or confirmation for that, which is why I am asking. μηδείς (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Medeis, kein comes not from "nicht ein" but from "nich ein", with "nich" meaning "and not" in Middle German. Your supposition about -keit is correct. In both cases syllable final /x/ was interpreted as syllable initial, where /x/ was possible only in certain dialects, whereas the standard form was /k/. As for ikke, it is not cognate with kein, but it is analogous. Ikke is a modern form of the old Norse ekki, which consisted of a compound combining the neuter form for "one" followed by a negative clitic -gi or -ki. [3] Engi/Inga incidentally are merely derived from the masculine form of the same compound in Old Norse. [4] For more on the -gi/ki clitic see p. 375 of this source. Likewise, German kein combines an adverbial negator with a form of the word meaning "one". Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting--so ikke is actually related to ouk! μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us?

In some places in the north of England, speakers use a word that sounds like əz or ʌz where standard English would have "our" or "my". What is that word? Is it actually "us"? 86.160.209.9 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It is "us", though pronounced with a 'z': See Yorkshire dialect#Vocabulary and grammar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. 86.160.209.9 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English us and our are cognate to the German uns and unser which retain the earlier Proto-Germanic language form. English had a rule that deleted the -n- before -s or -f at the end of a syllable (compare five and fünf). There would have been a form user at some point, then splitting into the standard and Northern form. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it pronounced ʌz, only ʊz or əz. Another usage is "wer" for "our", but I don't know the geographical distribution of the usages. They are not distributed throughout Yorkshire, but us is used, I think, only around the Lancashire–Yorkshire boundary. Perhaps an expert can confirm the extent of the usage? Dbfirs 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) ʌz may just be my not-very-accurate attempt at transcribing what I hear. 86.128.1.148 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round here in the English Midlands, the use of "us" in that way is quite common and pronounced with a final -z. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting — I thought the usage was confined to parts of northern England. Presumably the pronunciation is ʌz in the Midlands? Dbfirs 06:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Brummie pronunciation of "bus" is more like "boozz" with the oo being the short vowel rather than the long vowel. (Not the exasperating version pronounced to rhyme with "fuck" either. Whoever thinks that "oo" is prounced "uh"? <rant over>) Sorry not good at IPA. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In London, "us" is sometimes used for "me", for example; "give us it here" means "give it to me". Famously in Devon, "Yur us be" means "here we are". Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]