Language desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

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.

September 16

Need some help from a wordsmith

Issue overblown, IMO, but one way or another, this needs to end. Let this thread die, okay? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm trying to preserve the meaning of this sentence: Gender stereotypes influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break gender roles. while removing the word "stereotype" with something more neutral (due to the negative connotations of stereotype). I'm wondering if this, Belief in certain gender roles influence... / Belief in rigid gender roles influence... are acceptable. Any other proposals too? 2.102.187.12 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word that immediately occurred to me is roles. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norms?Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with those is that a stereotype may or may not be accurate. So gender roles and gender norms are linked but still distinct from gender stereotypes.

So in practice it would be Accurate or inaccurate views on what constitute gender norms influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break gender roles. Perhaps that works? Though I'm sure it can be improved. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microaggression toward women who break gender roles is more a factor (or more pronounced) in traditional feminine occupations than in occupations without a long history (or in newly emergent occupations). Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, though it seems to be slightly different in meaning. Your proposal has made me see a contradiction in the original sentence. It should mean Accurate or inaccurate views on what constitute gender norms influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who don't practise those views. The bolded part replaced the contradiction, though it definitely needs work! 2.102.187.12 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has multiple problems. The word "influence" is basically meaningless -- you should use a word that conveys what you are trying to say. And "microaggression" is a crappy word. My guess is that you're trying to say something like, Gender stereotypes drive women into traditional female occupations, by legitimizing aggression toward women who break gender roles. Looie496 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "influence" is meaningless, but the sentence does need some general improvement. I would start with "Preconceptions about gender/ preconceived ideas about gender roles/ assumptions about gender roles ..." or something like that. As for the end of the sentence, you should be wary of this kind of "box-ticking" exercise, ie. trying to find an expression that meets every specific criterion you think of, without actually meaning anything. I would keep it simple, and just say "resulting in (micro)aggression towards women who do not conform to those expectations." Once you've found a simple wording, if it still isn't clear, give an example. Eg. Preconception: women are naturally more sensitive, stupid, passive, socially-oriented than men (or whatever you think the stereotype is). Occupations: women should be mothers, midwives, teachers, nurses or hairdressers. Breaking gender roles: be specific about whether you mean just those who don't conform to occupational expectations, or those who generally flout convention. What about a stern, cold, aggressive female teacher? Right occupation, wrong attitude. What about a soft, gentle female CEO? Right attitude, wrong occupation. So be specific. IBE (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Gender expectations may be overlooked in previously nonexistent jobs, but in jobs with a history of female presence there may be backlash against those women who fail to fulfill expected female roles. Bus stop (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I find the original sentence hopelessly confused and incapable of recasting. To take it in two halves. "Gender stereotypes influence traditional feminine occupations." Do they? How do you know? When? How does an occupation become constructed as an occupation? How does an occupation become feminised? Take the now obsolete occupation of shorthand-typist. It can only emerge as an occupation after the inventions of the typewriter and of shorthand. At first it was a male occupation, then it became a female one. Did that feminisation happen as a result of gender stereotyping, or did it have an economic cause? And isn't there an influence in the other direction, that the existence of an army of women office workers helped to construct a stereotypical woman (pencil skirt, glasses)? Second half. "microaggression to women who break gender roles". Does it exist? How do you know? Microagression, macroagression or both? Aggression on the part of women/men inside/outside the workplace? And does A cause B? You probably need to go back to your sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP just wants advice on how to rephrase the sentence, not on whether the sentence is factually correct. For all we know, the OP might be fiercely opposed to the opinion expressed in the sentence. --Bowlhover (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way for the OP to recast the sentence is to think again about what they might be trying to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's take the sentence as given and try to make it specific. Let's say traditional feminine occupation = secretarial work, microaggression = rudeness, break gender roles = wear pants. Then we get Gender stereotypes influence secretarial work, resulting in rudeness toward women who wear pants. Is that really what the OP intended to say? If not, the sentence needs recasting. Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is certainly troublesome and it's current state doesn't make sense. Does this work? Widely-held views on what constitute gender norms influence occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break those gender roles. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this does not work. Thankyou for getting back to us, and following up, because then we can help you properly. The problem is that you have clarified the English, but not the thought. What is the link between occupations and roles? You have gone from "(views on) gender norms influence occupations" to "aggression towards women who break those roles". If you introduce "occupations" you should link to that, as in "aggression towards women who work in non-traditional occupations, such as engineering". Again, you'd do better with an example, as Looie suggests above, and I suggested earlier. There is a slight risk of the example being taken as canonical; this is less of a worry than the sentence being lost altogether in the reader's mind. IBE (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not out of the wood yet, unfortunately, OP. "Norms" and "widely-held views" are overlapping concepts, so that 'widely-held views on what constitute gender norms" (should be "constitutes") is unnecessary hedging. You may be reaching for the idea of sex segregation at work. "Gender norms create sex segregation in occupations" - clear and arguably correct although a reference would help if this is part of an essay. To continue the sentence: "Gender norms create sex segregation in occupations, which results in microaggression towards women who break those norms." An example or examples would be very helpful here. Are you, as IBE asks, thinking about the low-level hostility (more commonly misunderstanding and neglect) that women can experience in male-dominated workplaces? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this explanation of ‪"microaggression‬" on YouTube. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help. Note the heading of the section is "Traditional roles". So I'm changing this:

Gender stereotypes can influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break traditional gender roles. These stereotypes include that women have a caring nature, have skill at household-related work, have greater manual dexterity than men, are more honest than men, and have a more attractive physical appearance. Occupational roles associated with these stereotypes include: midwife, teacher, accountant, data entry clerk, cashier, salesperson, receptionist, housekeeper, cook, maid, social worker, and nurse. Occupational segregation maintains gender inequality and gender pay gap.

To...

Commonly associated characteristics of women include a caring nature, skill at household-related work, greater manual dexterity than men, more honesty than men, and a more attractive physical appearance. Occupational roles associated with this include: midwife, teacher, accountant, data entry clerk, cashier, salesperson, receptionist, housekeeper, cook, maid, social worker, and nurse. This can create sex segregation in occupations, thus maintaining gender inequality and a gender pay gap. Microaggression towards women who break these gender roles can also occur.

I hope this fixes the problems pointed out and taken your suggestions. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at my post, it seems to imply an end to this discussion, which it isn't. Let me know if there's anything wrong with the above, thanks. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would recast the last sentence along the lines of Women who break these gender roles are often met with [acts of] microaggression/hostility. This personalizes the hostility slightly more (while still being impersonal) – in your version, it seems to arise out of the blue. No such user (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the paragraph we are addressing. It's fine the way it is, in my opinion. What problem is seen in it? Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the discussion Itsmejudith, Looie496 and IBE pointed out some problems with that paragraph as well as what I was proposing to change it to. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph can be written in any number of ways. There isn't one right way. It is a matter of opinion. I just wanted to point out, that in my opinion, the paragraph is not so bad, as it is in the article right now. I think the reader gets the point. And that is the most important thing. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What do you think of the paragraph I've proposed just above (with No such user's suggestion replacing the last sentence)? 2.102.185.234 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion ~~inappropriate canvassing in order~~ an attempt to get around the consensus-building at Femininity. There's currently an RfC here --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm annoyed now. I might have responded to the RFC but this is underhand. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For canvassing to even be possible I would have to have linked to the discussion. Also, as this is the language reference desk, linking to the RfC on language wouldn't be canvassing at all. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say it was for Wikipedia. My advice now is to find good sources and stick to them. The article should help the reader to distinguish between roles, norms and stereotypes. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think this is a valid use for the Language reference desk. This would also be a valid use for the Humanities reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've been careful to stick to the sources used. Unless I'm mistaken, the proposal above means the same thing as the disjointed paragraph it would replace. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you're able to read policies/discussions when you believe they serve you. You might want to take a look at WP:WIKILAWYER, and of course WP:BATTLE which was already brought to your attention.

Granted, you're not trying to get editors to join the discussion at the RfC. Rather, you're trying to get editors to accept your point-of-view and help you develop proposed changes to the article without notifying them why you want the help. You've then proposed the wording here for the RfC. All you've done is ignore the relevant policies and guidelines relevant to improving the article, and instead went and searched for editors to back you without informing them why. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm doing at all. I asked this desk for help because I wanted to fix the paragraph but ran into problems. I thought it would be pointless and would needlessly complicate things to link to the discussion and no doubt result in accusations of canvassing. What policies and guidelines have I ignored? This is the language desk and I simply asked if they would be able to reword something while preserving the meaning. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to recognize/identify what you're doing doesn't change anything.

What policies and guidelines have you ignored? That would be all those brought up so far I think - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:RFC, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me recognise then, as I don't think I'm banned from using the reference desks during RfC's. That's a lot of rules to break and I just don't see it. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have spent considerable time with you trying to help you understand. You've been blocked twice in the process, and you still ignore all you've been told about how we simply don't remove reliably sourced information from articles because of personal preferences. You came here to find a new angle on removing the material for which you had been blocked, and which you're no longer allowed to edit. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what reliable sourced information I've removed due to personal preferences. You may have missed the memo, as North was blocked as well due to edit warring so don't paint this as a one-man IP disrupting the article. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problem either. Would any of the editors who participated in this discussion before they were aware of the RfC have said anything different than they did, had they known? If the OP were engaged in some debate external to WP, we wouldn't be requiring him to reveal the reason for his question, and basically we couldn't care less why he was asking. Why is it suddenly hugely different because the debate just happens to be inside WP? Does the Ref Desk cut its cloth to suit the perceived underlying purpose of the question, or does it act with integrity? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the RfC and the (dynamic) ip's pov. The RfC is about the use of the word "stereotype" which the ip finds to be offensive and inappropriate.

Here are a couple diffs to demonstrate that the ip has been pushing this for a long time now: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong in the diffs, and we are allowed to use IP accounts. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor in question has repeatedly been told that a multitude of reliable sources use the term "gender stereotypes" and that the use of that phrase is in no way noncompliant with NPOV. There is no reason to remove the phrase, which is commonplace, well-understood and impeccably sourced. You wrote a paragraph in good faith, but the premises on which it was written (avoidance of "stereotype") are entirely faulty and without support on the article in question. That is the fault of the IP editor, not you and the other Reference Desk folks. It's purely and simply an attempt to end-run consensus on an article talk page by conducting a one-sided "discussion" elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A load of nonsense, especially the "commonplace, well-understood and impeccably sourced" statement. As I have shows with reliable sources, the word stereotype has negative connotations among readers and because we are allowed to use a different term with the same meaning, we should change it to conform to NPOV. Also, the sources we are using in this paragraph are not focused on stereotypes, rather microagression and segregation of occupations and we don't even have any evidence that those sources say stereotype. The last line of yours is especially nonsensical. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The questions here straddle the Language desk and the Humanities desk. Improper use of language to convey misleading ideas is obviously problematic. Talk pages are necessary for resolving issues. This can and should be tackled primarily at the article Femininity. Focussed questions can in my opinion be properly brought to Reference desks. But when those questions involve both the Language desk and the Humanities desk and multiple questions arise at once, it is probably better to take the issue back to the Talk page of the article from which it originates. Bus stop (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jack's point, I wouldn't have said anything different, regardless of context. I request only that anything I say not be used to reflect consensus elsewhere, since it is only in the context of my being a wannabe wordsmith. I am not saying my comments have been used in such a way, since I don't have time to read the other diffs. In response to the OP's long-winded alteration, I would use fewer examples. Better too many than none at all, but two or three are usually enough. IBE (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely have answered differently because in Wikipedia sourcing is everything, and how to summarise a source should be worked out on the talk page. If there's consensus on a talk page to come here for wording then I'm sure we will all be pleased to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in Wikipedia sourcing is everything" Exactly. The ip came here to get help rewriting sourced information without indicating it was sourced or that the very wording was the topic of an open RfC. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know that material in Wikipedia should be supported by sources. The use of a term by a source would not support the misuse of that term by us. At the Language reference desk we can address questions of language usage. I think it is well within the operating area of this reference desk to rewrite a sentence containing terms such as "gender stereotypes", "microaggression", "gender roles", and other terms as might be suggested by editors here at this desk. I do not hear much argument about what is supported by sources, other than the argument that sources use these terms. But simple usage of a term does not necessarily tell us how to properly use a term. We summarize sources and we often combine assertions found at different sources. If there is an argument over what is or is not supported by sources—that should be addressed on the article's Talk page. But in my opinion, strictly language-type questions can be addressed at either the article's Talk page or at this reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, this request is not strictly about language, but instead an effort to continue pushing a pov for which there's an open RfC and for which the editor has been blocked for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny way to push a POV - asking for help in re-wording a paragraph whilst preserving the meaning. The rest of your statement is even better. The RfC has had no outside participants and so what if there's an RfC in the first place? Am I banned from trying to come up with proposals to present at the RfC if reference desks are used? In regards to edit warring, North was blocked and you were very lucky to avoid one too after your many reverts before consensus. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bottom line is this is an attempted end-run around an article's talk page. The whole discussion should probably be hatted. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

crossing, testcrossing, backcrossing, mating, breeding, and possibly marrying?

Why are crossing, testcrossing, backcrossing, mating, and breeding used for other animals while those terms are not used for humans? Meanwhile, why do humans get the terms like marrying, consummating, copulating, engaging in sexual intercourse, engaging in coitus, and having sex? Is the difference due to an intrinsic etymological distinction between the two types of terms, or is the distinction due to habitual/conventional usage? 164.107.102.199 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are social animals who create reality and assign words in a way that seems fine to us? Anyway, what's the purpose of saying animals marry? They cannot go into a real social contract. And since this is the lang desk: you are not completely right that those terms are just applied to humans or animal exclusively, there is some crossing of terminology, even if it's just meant ironically. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

164.107.102.199 -- the word "copulation" and some others are used of both humans and animals. However, marriage is a stable socially-recognized relationship. It might sort of make sense to speak of "marriage" in the case of some species (mainly birds) where parents partner together to raise children, while frequently interacting with other members of their own species. However, for the great majority of species it would not make any sense to use the word "marriage". By the way, in many languages it would be considered inappropriate or even offensive to apply the words "male" and and "female" (as used to refer to non-human species) to humans... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which languages are those? I mean, in English, there are certainly some uses of "male" and "female" that sound "off" when applied to humans, but there are others that don't.

“

The female remaining single
Just in the legal sense
Shows a neurotic tendency — see note
Note? Note!
Chronic organic syndrome
Toxic or hypertense
Affecting the eye, the ear, the nose, and throat!

”

— Guys and Dolls

(I'll leave it to the individual reader's sensibility to decide which case the above is an example of.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danish is one case that I've heard of. You can see some of the complaints from speakers of such languages at http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21 (the allowed values of Property:P21 had to be expanded to distinguish human vs. animal sex/gender)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The terms crossing, test-crossing, back-crossing, mating, and breeding relate to human-controlled reproduction in non-humans. There is rarely human-controlled reproduction in humans. Some, though not all, of the terms marrying, consummating, copulating, engaging in sexual intercourse, engaging in coitus, and having sex are used in reference to non-humans. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animals reproduce in the usual way, and some species mate for life as a rule, while other species have what we might call "harems", while still others only mate at certain times and are otherwise loners. They do what they do, not really by choice, but by the instinctive behavior encoded in their DNA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what determines "choice" then in humans? 164.107.103.68 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about things, making decisions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we are as bound by our primitive instincts to reproduce as any other animal, and only our ability to think about it makes us assume we are not. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the animals do choose. Their choices are predictable at a statistical level, but I see no reason to rule out the possibility that an individual choice is free. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animals probably do choose to some degree. But I take issue with the notions that humans are slaves to their "primitive instincts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, we don't say that two people mate (verb), but we do call a spouse a mate (noun) sometimes. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planed or planned

Is this the correct usage: " We are going to Mexico and had planned on getting some pesos."--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be, but it would require the right context. To say "had planned" suggests we're no longer planning on doing so. Readers don't know what has happened to change our plans, our what our alternative plans, if any, are. But that may be coming in the next sentence. If that was not what you were wanting to get across, then you probably meant to say "We are going to Mexico and plan on getting some pesos".

Either way, "planed" is never the past tense of the verb "plan". It's the past tense of the verb "plane". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You answered my question. ("planed" is never the past tense of the verb "plan"). Muchas gracias! --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen non-native-English speakers say "planing" instead of "planning" in memos. When they talk about "planing" a project, I get a mental picture of the project slowly shrinking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, a particularly warped project idea may require a good deal of planing to straighten it out. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Should be: "We are going to Mexico and have planned on getting some pesos." Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with Jack — present-tense plan is better. Have planned isn't wrong, but it invites the listener to try to figure out why you're using a more-complicated-than-necessary verb tense. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The original sentence is fine with the appropriate context. Imagine people stranded on a road somewhere. "We are going to Mexico and had planned on getting some pesos. But then we got stuck here before we could get to a bank." rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Christie the puppy lover: Here's how you know that the past of plan has to be planned and not planed: The word plan has what we call a "short a" sound (IPA sound /æ/), and the past tense and past participle have the same sound. For this sound /æ/ you need more than one written consonant after the a. If you only use a single consonant after the a, as in the word planed, you would have pronounce the vowel as /ei/.

There are five sounds in English that cannot be written (maybe with exceptions: there are always exceptions in English!) before a single consonant: /æ/ as in plan, /ɛ/ as in pet, /ɪ/ as in pit, /ɒ/ as in slot, and /ʌ/ as in gut. So in order to preserve the sound of these, you have to write their past tenses as planned, petted, pitted, slotted, gutted. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean before a single consonant followed by a vowel. But as you say, there are exceptions (lots of them I think). As far as past tenses themselves go, an exception is when the consonant is "x", like in "faxed" and "boxed". W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that -- I forgot to say when the consonant(s) after the short vowel are followed by another vowel. Thanks for catching that!

It would be interesting to know what tendencies there are in the exceptions. As you say, "faxed" and others with "x" are one of them. We have "panel" but "channel". Wiktionary says the plural of "fez" is "fezzes" or "fezes". The standard plural of "bus" is "buses", which always struck me as odd because it looks like it rhymes with "fuses", even though it does not. But maybe it is "buses" only to distinguish it from the 3rd person singular of "buss", which is "busses". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bead

The word bead derives from the Old English for prayer. What was the Old English word for bead? Card Zero (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the etymology section, Wiktionary says bead is derived from the Old English word gebed, which is defined as "prayer".~~ misread question -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

After a quick glance through two of my Anglo-Saxon ---> Modern English glossaries, I was unable to find an entry for "bead". One source did suggest "munuces", the genitive singular for the noun meaning "monk" (of a/the monk) but did not cite a text in which it was used. Perhaps somebody with a more comprehensive dictionary will find something different.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In German they seem to be called artificial pearls. Künstliche Perle. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... which could mean that Old High German also lacked a generic word for bead, meaning that the same was true of Old Saxon, leading to Anglo-Saxon *glæsperle (like de:Glasperle) for glass beads, and *stanperle for stone ones. Good thinking, Batman. Or just perle for both things, like Danish: da:perle. Google translates: "A pearl is the name for a piece of material with a hole. The meaning of the word is a gem, a rare and precious natural product created by an oyster, but today the word pearl is also used for man-made objects. English distinguishes between pearls and beads, where pearl is the name of genuine pearls, while bead represents beads made of other materials. Danish uses the word pearl in both senses." Card Zero (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The beads on a rosary are called Perlen in German. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of resources here. I couldn't find a translation for "bead", nor anything like perle or variant spellings that meant anything close. The Modern English "pearl" seems generally translated as meregrot (spelled variously, eg, mere-grēot, mere-grota, etc). The mere part seems to mean "sea" (though how that got into Old English I'm not sure), and the grot part something like "grain" or "grit". Sandgrot is "grain of sand", says one dictionary. There are plenty of words that could mean something like "bead"—variations on gem, jewel, ornament, stone, precious stone, agate, jet, amber, etc. Pfly (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't come across meregrot before, but I immediately assumed that it was a borrowing from margarit-, the word for a pearl in several languages, and any etymologies in OE would be folk etymologies. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meregrot is bound to be a folk-etymology. As for how mere "got into Old English", it's a perfectly cromulent Germanic word cognate with German Meer, coming from Proto-Germanic *mari and Proto-Indo-European *móri. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I get confused when old German and Romance words/roots are so similar. Pfly (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, margarita (various spellings) seems to be a word with a varied history. It started out meaning "pearl"? I never heard that.

I think I first knew about the girl's name and the cocktail, not sure in what order. Then I find out it's a kind of pizza, but that that's based on the Italian word for "daisy". And now you tell me it originally means "pearl". I gather that these are all etymologically related, though the logical connections are obscure (though I can kind of see the path from "daisy" to "girl's name" to "cocktail"). --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed at least these 2 earlier ref desk questions: here and here. In your defence, you were not involved in either of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see anything about daisies, pizzas, or cocktails in either of those, and not much about pearls. Is "margarine" also supposed to be connected to these words? --Trovatore (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have posted my thing after your first sentence, since it was in response to "I never heard that". -- Jack of Oz ^{[+pleasantries]} 00:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, all of this is kind of meta. Any information at the object-language level? E.g. are these five senses really etymologically connected, and how did the meanings evolve? --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]