Language desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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.

June 4

pentasyllabic

how many syllables does the word pentasyllabic has 4 or 5 ? explain ( how can 'SLY' in pentasyllabic be one of the syllables) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.202.103 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "pentasyllabic" has five syllables: /pɛn/, /tə/, /sɨ/, /læb/ and /ɪk/, so "pentasyllabic" can be said to describe itself! (By contrast, "haplology" has been said to be the most hypocritical of all words.) Bennett Chronister (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or ironic, at least. Then there's the famous "world wide web", with three syllables, whose abbreviation has nine syllables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W3 has four. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is no "sly" in this word. There is a "syl". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the famous one is 'phonetic' which is not spelled the way it sounds, unless someone has brought a hammer down onto your front teeth. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. How do you normally pronounce 'ph' at the start of a word? Or are we taking 'phonetically' to mean that every letter has only one possible value? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I spent the first 12 years of my life with no front teeth, and found it hard to pronounce 'f', or, in this example, written as 'ph', which, incidentally was not pronounced as 'f', hence the different spelling. It was an aspirated 'p'. I could do that - because my lips were still intact, despite the accident which caused me to have no front teeth. 'Th' was also difficult, as it didn't exist in my dialect (Scouse), and also because, once again, I had no front teeth. I do now, of course. And to now answer your question, no, every letter does not have one possible value. 'Photi' can be pronounced 'fish' or however you like, including 'Hitler has only got one ball', depending on how you want to pronounce the letters. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also object to the spelling ‹th› for a fricative? —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection whatsoever to our spelling. It's just unfortunate that we lost þ and ð. When I was learning to read English as a child, quite simply, when faced with 'th', I read it as an aspirated dental, specifically in the word 'with'. I read that, and had no idea what the word meant, until it was re-pronounced to me in 'proper English'. I didn't know the sound existed. Bear in mind, I was five years old. And in retrospect, teachers forcing small children (who do not have front teeth) to use dental consonants (and berating them if they can't) is pretty silly. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessentially pentasylly, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When you think about it, when kids are learning to speak, and all their teeth are falling out, there is no point in forcing them to pronounce dental consonants. This is why 'th' ends up changing to 'f', through ɸ. 'Least, ʔat's da way I fink abaaʔ iʔ KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using beratement as an educational tool in any field is not only silly, it's counterproductive. Angr (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a teacher for 16 years I totally agree. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word for legal ambiguity

What is the technical term for an ambiguity that results from an ambiguously written law? Bennett Chronister (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loophole?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a technical term for this. Ambiguity would adequately describe it. A loophole is not quite the same thing, as it doesn't have to arise from an ambiguity. The drafter of the law could simply have omitted to provide for the situation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not thinking of the word lacuna, are you? A lacuna in the law simply means a situation where there is no applicable law, and doesn't have to arise from any ambiguity. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed - Contra_proferentem. (Against the one bringing forth) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And In_pari_materia#In_pari_materia (In the same matter) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Noscitur_a_sociis. (it is known by friends). 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if any of those cover this, but one legal concept is that any legal ambiguity is held against the drafter of a contract. So, if a contract said "I will provide Bob with 20 widgets and he will pay me $1000 for them in a reasonable time frame after delivery", since "reasonable time frame" is ambiguous, Bob would be given a lot of latitude there to pay whenever convenient, if it went to court for collection. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the Contra proferentem article that 196.214.78.114 linked is about? Deor (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] You are thinking of the contra proferentem rule. However, neither this nor noscitur a sociis are descriptions of ambiguity. Rather, they are legal rules that may be applied to deal with the consequences of ambiguity in documents. In pari materia is not a canon of construction and is not relevant in this context. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary is probably the word you are looking for, see Law, Objective and Non-Objective. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Arbitrariness implies the lack of logic or reason, which is not the same as ambiguity. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary has various senses, and when you get into "the secretary shall determine" sort of 'law', that is arbitrary. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A word for "(being) as politically incorrect as possible"?

For example, the word "overweight" is seen as quite PC way of describing excessive weight; it's about as neutral as it gets. But OTOH, if you called a senior citizen "overage", all Hell would break loose. In a certain sense, it's the opposite of euphemism. Is there a word for using that device on purpose?

If it happens on the internet, I'd say it's "trolling", but that's the grander scheme and not the device itself. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "rude"? Also, being overweight is a correctable condition. Being "overage" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is not. Calling somebody with a term like that is equivalent to saying "Why aren't you dead yet?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be one, quite extreme, implication. I thought of a "too old for a job" or "for driving" sense. Which one is more applicable will depend on context. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual opposite of euphemism is dysphemism. --Amble (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opposite of euphemism is frank honesty. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane: You know, the opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference! Sam: You know what? I don't care --Trovatore (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Oops, I missed the link in the euphemism article somehow. Bummer.

A case can be made for both: dysphemism is the "other extreme" opposite, the way "opposite" is usually and colloquially used; honesty would be more of a "boolean" opposite (to both eu- and dysphemism), in the sense that "not white" doesn't imply "black." - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It always amuses me when someone thinks that there's exactly one true opposite for a given abstract concept, and that they know exactly what it is. When the original poster talk's about an opposite of euphemism, he gives enough information to make it clear that he's not looking for frank honesty. Dysphemism does match his description. --Amble (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's you, not me, who's proposed the one true opposite. You should apply for tax free status. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could read a little more carefully before commenting in this manner, Medeis. Try "usual opposite" vs. "no, the opposite ..." Food for thought. IBE (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear that dysphemism is what could be called the etymological opposite (or antonym) of euphemism.[1] However, that's not a very common term. Not to me anyway, as I had never heard of it before. But it's kind of like what Dennis Miller used to do on his HBO show, seemingly throwing obscenities around when it wasn't necessary, just for shock value or because it was pay TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in a term for the device without obscenities, hte kind which is sometimes used in politics to invalidate the opposition on a certain level without actually invalidating them (i.e. without any real argument). "overage" would fit that, as an analogy to "overweight", where the "over-" prefix implies it (age/weight) is too high, but only in a "look, there's even a word for it, so it's obviously too high" way. In law: prima facie. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Insulting." StuRat (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Insulting" is another grander scheme, but I'd say its scope is somewhere between "dysphemism" and "trolling".

I found "Boo! version" in Loaded language and dog-whistle politics – and it reminds me of the abortion topic, where the two sides are usually called "pro-choice" and "pro-life". "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are their "boo!" words they throw at each other. Another ubiquitous case is "grammar nazi", which is a twofer: not only an extreme "boo!" word but also often used in reply to bad spelling, not bad grammar. Can we say "palma facie"?

I found hate speech too, but that has a legal meaning, and using it to describe the kind of dysphemism in question when the law doesn't apply can be an example of it. Wow, recursion. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt and artless may be other options. The problems seems to be that all (or most) of these various terms imply a preexisting motivation which defines why a speaker uses a very specific term. There are, however, numerous reasons why one would want to call a spade a spade.

You would need to analyze for what purpose the dysphemism was deployed. It may be anything, (therapeutic) honesty, lack of education / manners, emphasis, aggression, professional jargon (see obese / adipose) and a stack more. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt, or brutally blunt, works for me. Someone I know rather well (she gave birth to me, if that's any sort of clue), told me last year that where I live is "a backwater". There were hundreds of other ways she could have expressed the same basic idea, but she prefers to cut to the chase and say it like it is (in her opinion, that is). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mother? Click the link and read the "Redirected" line for another twofer. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 05:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]