Language desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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 15

Maracanaço

The term Maracanazo/Maracanaço is derived from the Estádio do Maracanã - but from what is the ending -azo derived? Is it the same respective term in Spanish and Portuguese? And a second question: If used figuratively, does the term in Brazil mean roughly the same as a Waterloo in many other languages? --KnightMove (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has four definitions at wikt:-azo.—Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And oddly, it can actually fit each and every one of those four definitions (depending on perspective, I guess). Though definition #3 looks most promising (see also mazazo). I'm neither South American nor a native speaker of Portuguese (or Spanish for that matter), but I don't think Maracanaço or Maracanazo has become a commonly and generally used metaphor the way Waterloo has, and I think it is limited to the context of football in international competitions. In any event I wasn't able to find any definition or even usage transcending football. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

What is the tense of the sentence: "The letter is received by the manager daily."?

I admit this is a very basic question, but I am asking this after spending quite some time looking for answers online. Please accept my apologies. Thanks in advance. Such a gentleman 16:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense (and passive voice). See Present tense#English: "It is used to express an action in present time, habitual or usual actions or daily event or universal fact." Deor (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to tense, there is also consideration of Grammatical_aspect. As Deor alludes, simple present is used in English to convey Continuous and progressive aspects. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English has only two tenses: present and past. "is" is obviously present. Any specification includes aspect and mood. Compounds like will-future are not tenses. At the beginning, children in foreign countries learn progressive and perfect as individual tenses because it's too difficult to explain aspect to them. Later, teachers introduce a new concept and reduce everything to present and past. --2.245.241.122 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We only morphologically mark present and past in the verb. But saying English has e.g. no future or no subjunctive is a bit misleading. See e.g. Uses_of_English_verb_forms, which discusses how we form things those, as well as things like present perfect progressive, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true for future, but subjunctive is definitely a mood, not a tense. In Romance languages where the subjunctive is more prevalent, you have subjunctive present, imperfect, perfect, past perfect and in Spanish even future alongside the normal indicative tenses. --2.245.241.122 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SemanticMantis -- Modal verb constructions (e.g. "would", "could", "might") are not usually termed subjunctive, so the only morphologically-distinct historically-subjunctive forms in modern English are the "If I were"/If he were" construction, the "I insist that he leave" construction (more in American than British), and isolated remnants and relics such as "so be it". These would not be analyzed as "subjunctive" at all if historical information were not available... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I personally would have said that "I might go to work today" has a subjunctive verb phrase, but then again I learned most of my higher level "English grammar" in a Latin class :) So it's good to know I might be considering mood/mode more broadly than is standard in English grammar. I guess my main point was to distinguish morphological inflection from the semantics of the grammatical concepts at play (such as mode/aspect etc.). That is, just because English doesn't have a distinct subjunctive verb form, doesn't mean I can't form subjunctive statements such as "Let us eat cake." Perhaps this is obvious to many, and I know I'm describing it clumsily, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that English lacks the ability to talk about the future, or potentiality, or all the other things that e.g. Latin would do through inflection. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Let us eat cake" imperative rather than subjunctive? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on one's terminology, Jack. I've seen such verbs classified both as first-person imperatives and as hortatory subjunctives. It (like much else) comes from trying to shoehorn English grammar into Latin categories. Deor (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. When will grammarians stop endlessly restructuring our language and rendering each new generation's school-day learnings null and void? Young people don't seem to know what a noun or a verb are, and I'm not so sure I know anymore either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz:, @Deor: I don't think anyone's shoehorning by calling "let us eat cake" a subjunctive. From the links above "Hortative modalities encourage or urge." This is not like using Latin verb forms to prescribe that English writers cannot split infinitives. This is just a description of the very real hortative modality that exists in many (all?) languages. This is the stuff of real life conversation in English that everyone uses, even if they don't know the fancy linguistic terms for it. Back to the original question, I think it's important to note that "present passive" describes the verb just fine, but adding "continual aspect" is even more informative. (although now I've just learned that mood is reserved for modalities that are morphologically marked in the verb, which kind of undermines my responses above.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Present passive. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has "whore" become neutral?

I was just reading this story, and was startled to see the word "whore" being used in a non-pejorative way, apparently by Prof Peter Baume, who is a well known friend of the sex industry and the gay community in Australia.

Our article Prostitution says "Use of the word whore is widely considered pejorative, especially in its modern slang form of 'ho'". Is this changing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be one of those "reclaiming" things? --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a case where "insiders" are allowed, but it's still considered offensive when "outsiders" use it. Like when women call each other "girls" but don't like it when men call them "girls". Or how African Americans use the n word amongst themselves but get offended if others use it. Perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My girlfriend, who is Chinese, doesn't like being called a 'girl', but she doesn't mind the word 'girlfriend', which is rather contradictory. I actually think the word 'woman' is offensive. 'Girl' is a term of endearment. She has made up the word 'manfriend', because she doesn't want to call me a 'boy'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woman is offensive now? Good grief, what next: person? human being? citizen? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia, to attract someone's attention, they say "man" and "woman". "Comrade" began to sound funny (in a "who are we kidding" kind of way) starting in the 70's or so (I think), and Sir/Madam was too awkward/deferential/whatever as it's same root as Господь (Lord). So, biology stepped in where higher forms of social organization atrophied and the West is going in the same direction. I personally like "citizen", but then again, who are we kidding (actually, there won't be a collapse. The Man is just too strong. But conditions will gradually become such that there better were). Asmrulz (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Definitely a reclaiming thing, if at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite sure, Alex. Is there a cite? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've got to hand; this is based on conversations with people who are much more familiar with the field than I am. There has been some activism about changing terminology in this area, but most of what I could find with a quick Google was about using 'sex worker' instead of 'prostitute'. Which is an important point: 'sex worker' is widely accepted as a more or less neutral term; most other terminology comes with a weight of cultural bias. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Mary Magdalene the Sex Worker. Sounds like a yuppie modern name for the "world's oldest profession". 140.254.136.176 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least for a few years. Then "sex worker" will become pejorative, and we'll need to invent a new, more convoluted term which will remain neutral for a few years, and then IT will assume the pejorative sense, and so on. This is called the euphemism treadmill. When you see this happening, it reminds one that you cannot really change people's perception of a thing merely by changing the name you assign to it. People's perceptions exist outside of the words, and negative perceptions get transferred to new words. --Jayron32 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they were called "handmaidens", nobody would think they suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mouthmaidens" sounds too vulgar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the jury's still out on whether "assmaidens" are technically maidens. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with euphemisms is that they are invented to mean one thing, but as words they don't quite work. Gynecologists and urologists certainly qualify as "sex workers", but I doubt they would like that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article directly relates sex worker to the sex industry. Is your experience of gynaecologists and urologists that they work in the sex industry? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing about the 'euphemism treadmill'. Perhaps the expression is overused, and needs to be replaced? Because it's certainly become the repository for my negative associations of 'nonsense that people will believe in to have an excuse for resisting social change'. We change the terminology in order to change perceptions; when I see people pushing back against the terminology, I see them pushing back against the underlying cause. And it almost always comes up in discussions like this, where an undisputed slur is in play - a clear instance of where a change in language would help. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Veeck was a long-time and well-known figure in the front office of various baseball teams. He had lost part of a leg during World War II, and wore a prosthetic, a wooden leg. When he wrote his autobiography around 1960, he observed that the euphemism "handicapped" was coming into favor. He had a chapter titled, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled". Were he around today, he would be pointing out the silliness of the former euphemism "handicapped" now being attacked and replaced by other euphemisms, "disabled" or "physically challenged" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Alex, that there are no short cuts. You do NOT cause social change by changing an arbitrary signifier for another arbitrary signifier. Not to get too deep into semiotics here, but Perceptions of an object are attached to the signified and not the signifier. There is some semantic weight given to words that carry pejorative meaning, and for a short time, inventing a new term will release the new term from the pejorative meaning of the old, but unless you change the perceptions about the object being signified, people are more likely to transfer the pejorative sense from the signified to the signifier, and not transfer the neutral sense the other way around. That we don't WANT people to do that doesn't mean shit. It isn't fair that 20 years from now, people will attach the same pejorative weight to "sex worker" they did to "prostitute", but every shred of evidence indicates that people will do that unless we change people's perception about the signified itself. Not wanting it to happen is not enough to make it stop happening, and all of the evidence is quite clear that it happens all the time, and does not stop. The euphemism treadmill is a real, demonstrated, and repeatable linguistic principle that doesn't go away merely because we think it unfair. The way to change people's perceptions about sex workers (prostitutes, whores, whatever word you want to use) is to change their perception about sex workers. You can't change their perceptions by changing the words. You can temporarily confuse them which is why the pejorative sense gets lost for a little while, but unless you change their underlying prejudices directly, the old pejorative sense will transfer to the new terms eventually. Time spent inventing new terms is time wasted, that could have been better spent making people more compassionate. --Jayron32 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what good does resisting changes to the language do for the people affected? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not resisting anything. I'll use whatever word you want. What I won't don is pretend that using a new word has any practical effect on helping the situation. You help people by helping people. You have compassion by having compassion. You treat people respectfully by treating the respectfully. You allow people their dignity by treating them as though they have it. You don't, however, do any of that by merely changing a few arbitrary vocal utterances to a different arbitrary set of vocal utterances, and the pretending that is in any fraction sufficient to correcting any part of the problem --Jayron32 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC becomes a form of nannyism, and does nobody any good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The frequent changing of the euphemisms has a tendency to backfire - to actually increase scorn and ridicule of the subject. An obvious example: We went from "colored" (which was probably the least offensive of the various disparaging terms) to "Negro" as the accepted formal term (frequently used by Dr. M.L. King), to black, to Afro-American, back to black, then African-American, also to Person of Color and so on. Typical white reaction: "They can't decide what we should call them." So much for euphemisms a.k.a. political correctness. What to call "them"? Call them by their names. Call them friend. "Call them to supper." That works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the world needs is a G-rated Hollywood reboot (rather than another "gritty" one) called I Guess Whores are Coming to Supper. Now I have a dream, too. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears those people have already beat me to it. Sort of. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is their evidence that the evolution in terminology you've described from "colored" to "African American" has worked to "increase scorn and ridicule of the subject"? I didn't realize that. I would have thought that it evoked resentment of the changes (not the people) precisely because speakers do not feel free to resist the changes. In the '60s many U.S. Southerners defended calling blacks nigrahs as a non-pejorative, traditional term that, they said, merely happens to sound similar to niggers. Other U.S. Americans, black and white, pointed out that most Americans of Sub-Saharan descent neither employed nor approved of that usage. Mainstream journalists bought that POV and changed their output accordingly. Apparently many whites (not just Southerners) dissented -- but didn't feel free to continue saying nigrah in public, thus their resentment gave birth to the charge of "political correctness". Courtesy has always enjoined that I refer to other people in ways I consider respectful. "Political correctness" enjoins that I refer to others in ways they (the "others") consider respectful. Good or bad (that's another discussion), any demur amounted to a defense of calling American blacks nigrah despite the objections of those so called. Some language perceived as racist was thereby quelled (which some blacks may have appreciated even when it didn't reflect a personal change of heart). But that relief came at the expense of offending libertarians (unfortunate) and racists (less so). Once it "worked" for nigrahs that pattern began to be repeated with respect to queers, cripples, wetbacks, Hebes, Chincs, retards, etc. FactStraight (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's "The Realities of a Young Black Girl". The author's no academic expert, but she's a young black girl. So she's something like an expert, at least on her realities. Has some relevant points. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]