Language desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

Movies for Movie Lovers, Music for Music Lovers

Hello. I'm pretty certain there is a word for a piece of art (movie, music, novel, etc) that only appeals to people that already are very familiar with the genre and know how to appreciate it. For instance, casual movie goers probably won't like a film that is all style over plot, but kids who know about camera angles and directing, etc will find it interesting. Is there a word for this in general or a word for one of the specific genres? Thanks! 74.69.117.101 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is such a concept. Various types of jazz and classical music are described as music for musicians. This is mention in Ken Burns's Jazz series. The word esoteric applies in a broad sense. Hopefully someone can come up with a term specifically art-related. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See cinephilia and audiophile. uhhlive (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In music there are things like chromaticism and modernism (music) where composers, conscious of music theory, purposefully break the rules of harmonic and melodic composition; for instance, insisting on using all twelve notes in the scale just once before repeating any of them. This will be interesting in an abstract sense to other musicians, while appearing ugly, or as noise to non-musicians. Maybe User:JackofOz can help here? μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people to whom this would appeal might be termed cognoscenti (which redirects to expert, which is not really the same thing). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How and when did "regular" come to mean "frequent"?

Someone just wrote on another Talk page "Interplanetary probes from the major space agencies are becoming more regular." I'm pretty sure they meant "more frequent". After all, "more regular" could mean "precisely every 20 years". And that's obviously not the case.

How and when did "regular" come to mean "frequent"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By US law, February 17th, 1973. [1]. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's only in the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has for meaning 3g of "regular": "Recurring or taking place frequently (although not at fixed times or uniform intervals); characterized by recurrence of this sort", with citations from 1824. The meaning is not marked as specifically US, but most of the citations are American. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find EO's take on it interesting.[2] It ties to a pattern, as in "at regular intervals". Presumably those regular intervals are implicitly at a normal human scale. The procession of the equinoxes occurs about every 23,000 years, which is certainly both "regular" and "frequent" on the geological scale, but not so much on the human scale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search at google for "define regular" gives frequent as the second sense. It doesn't give a date, or its own source beyond Google's own oracular powers. The semantic development itself is obvious. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regular is a particularly egregious example of a word that's acquired various other senses that have become almost but not quite "correct", and need to be avoided in careful writing. "Frequent" is one; "ordinary" or "unremarkable" is another.

By etymology, something is "regular" if it corresponds to a rule; thus, a regular expression is a rule defining a class of strings, not an expression that fails to be noteworthy. A regular verb is not the same thing as a weak verb. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means egregious or not "correct", in the sense that a large number of speakers would recognize the word in the sense that it is being used by the speaker; in the sense that if a speaker used the word "regular" to mean "at a repeated interval", an extremely large number of speakers would fully recognize that as a comfortable and perfectly acceptable use of the word. No other meaning of "correct" is necessary here. --Jayron32 02:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't sufficient; there are different rules for speech and careful writing, and indeed there should be. Now, the meaning you speak of above is perfectly acceptable even in the most formal writing, but the meaning "ordinary or unremarkable" is less so. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't sufficient, then why is it you don't demand that anyone who isn't speaking Old English is egregious in their incorrectness? If language is not supposed to change at all, if words cannot acquire new meanings, then why are you speaking differently than people did thousands of years ago? --Jayron32 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it can't acquire new meanings! Someday the "unremarkable" meaning may be fine. Right now, it's autological in casual speech, but not quite desirable in precise writing. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're good responses folks. Thanks. But the problem I see is that a repeated event can be quite regular, i.e. quite frequent, yet not at all regular, as in the sense of at a steady rate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a joke from (I think) Carry On Nurse - "Are you regular?" "Yes, twice a week, regular as clockwork." Tevildo (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regular is a relative term. If something happens once a week, it happens regularly weekly, if not always Mondays at noon. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "regular" differs in meaning from the word "frequent", and the word "normal" differs in meaning from the word "common". Someone who uses a word incorrectly might be corrected by someone who knows the difference and who might at first misunderstand a statement with a misused word. Also, people who associate frequently with misinformed people are apt to acquire misinformation.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The level of the wise man's discourse rises to the occasion. Only fools dress up to brush their teeth. I am a pedant, but only during pedanting hours. Tolkien was man of great lore and subtle humour. There is a reason why this is funny.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 November 2013

In English and many other languages, regular verbs tend to be infrequent verbs and irregular verbs tend to be frequent verbs.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC) and 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]