Language desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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 15

Characters from idioms or sayings?

I'm trying to come up with characters who are well-known due to being in sayings. For example, the one-eyed king from the saying "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." What other characters can you come up with? 98.27.255.223 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keeping with the playing cards theme: "Jack" is a generic name used in many sayings, like a "Jack of all trades" or "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy". Then there's "Queen for a day" and "King of the hill" or "Who died and made you king/queen ?". StuRat (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here know Jack Schitt? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aesop's fables also give us many characters, in the form of animals, like the hare and the tortoise, although neither is mentioned explicitly in the saying "Slow and steady wins the race". StuRat (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Winter and Jack Frost have become "human" quite a few times. Not sure if the idiom predates the character. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Grapes was the Purple Pieman's partner in crime, according to the list of Strawberry Shortcake characters. And her niece was Raisin Cane. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Father Time, Mother Nature, Brother Sun, Sister Moon, and Uncle Tom Cobley and aaaaalll, and Uncle Tom ...... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Face wasn't the most trustworthy guy, even before he got all blatant about it. John Nada was nobody, really. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bennett (in the UK anyway) and of course Jesus H. Christ.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, Dick and Harry... --Jayron32 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And perhaps their cousins, Manny, Moe and Jack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the phrase "All my eye and Betty Martin" counts here - possibly a corruption of the Latin Ora pro mihi beate Martin, a prayer to St Martin. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Macoy?Hotclaws (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterated English words in Japanese

Why there are so many English transliterated words in the titles of Japanese video games, manga, etc and no Japanese words themselves? As in Emī Rōzu za Hejjihoggu, Doragon Bōru, etc, even though Japanese has its own names for a hedgehog and dragon ball?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Engrish article, it's because English appears "smart, sophisticated and modern." There are even Japanese religious groups that prefer to say Goddo instead of "kami-sama". Shii (tock) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To hope itself" and "piontwxq"

Two issues from James Tiptree, Jr.'s "Time-Sharing Angel". First, in the sentence "With all the clarity of her nineteen years Jolyone was saying good-bye to something deep and vital, to hope itself maybe" what does "to hope itself" actually mean? The way I understand it is to give that deep and vital thing a hope, but "itself" doesn't make sense. And there's also "piontwxq" word, maybe a typo, but I'm unsure. Any hint? Brandmeister^talk 20:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's meant by the sentence is that she was perhaps "saying goodbye to hope itself" -- abandoning all hope. Shii (tock) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itself is used there as an intensive pronoun (as in "... we have nothing to fear but fear itself"). "Piontwxq?" is supposed to be an utterance in an alien language, transmitted by the "angel" of the title and heard by Jolyone through her teeth, though that bit seems to have escaped her understanding (or the being's "translation"). A few sentences later you can read "it wasn't speaking English, although Jolyone never knew that". Deor (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandmeister. Hope is a noun in that sentence, not a verb as you seem to be assuming. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goobilizer

What is "goobilizer"? The specific part is "letting the hyper-mixed touch the goobilizer" and it appears only there. Somehow related to "goob"? And what is "hyper-mixed" there? Brandmeister^talk 15:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a doodad, gubbins or oojamaflip - in other words, a placeholder name. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't answer the question, but we have an article on the author James Tiptree, Jr. - X201 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without having read the story, I agree with Gandalf61. It's just a made-up word; science fiction writers do that a lot. ~~I'd also venture to guess that "piontwxq" is deliberate, a distance cousin of Grok and other alien utterings. After all, what could it be a typo of? Pionwaq?~~ Already answered by Deor. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

money / monies

Where do you draw a distinction? The usage of plural in this case is not so clear to me. Why does the plural even exist? Semantically I could never feel the need for usage of monies. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous life, I was at one time a "Collector of Public Moneys" (CPM). The title later became "Collector of Public Monies". This was well before the advent of electronic payments. Most if not all Australian federal government departments had such a person, whose role was to receive and account for cheque payments received by mail and cheque/cash payments received in person, and to disburse relatively small amounts such as petty cash, meal allowances etc., and also to act as paymaster (because salaries were paid in cash in those days). The CPMs would bank their receipts daily at the Reserve Bank of Australia, and provide weekly returns to a Receiver of Public Moneys/Monies (RPM) at the Treasury Department. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, down under you write "moneys" especially when it comes to the public money, correct? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in general. Generally, we don't pluralise the word at all, but if we ever do, it would be done in the standard way, ey --> ies. I remember when I first went into the job of Collector of Public Moneys at the tender age of 18, I assumed it was spelt "Monies", but I was advised that it was an official title and must be correctly spelt "Moneys", even though the official instructions and regulations talked about the CPM being responsible for accounting for all "monies" that came his way. So we had the weird situation where monies were collected by a collector of moneys. As I said, later the titles were changed to Collector of Public Monies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, plurals in -ey regularly take an s, -eys. Or at least in Britain they do. DuncanHill (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The donkies were enjoying the selection of honies given to them by the limies, and the monkies could not believe their eies. DuncanHill (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the difference between "money" and "monies" is the difference between "people" and "persons"; one is a "marked" form which tends to show up in certain purely idiomatic contexts, while the other tends to be used in common speech among average people. I've never heard or seen people in casual conversation use the word "monies", but it does turn up in cases as noted above. --Jayron32 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's something to that; "moneys" or "monies" (both spellings are used) is a rather formal term. Dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster here, give definitions like "sums of money" for the plural. So the implication is that multiple payments are involved. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edn., says "The natural plural of money when the sense is 'sums of money' is moneys. But in legal and accountancy parlance from at least the mid-19c. the irregular form monies has taken hold and now seems uncancellable". I have to say that to my eye, monies looks like the plural of mony, whatever a mony may be. DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of "Mony" is surely this.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the 1983 Chambers 20th Century Dictionary gives moneys as the normal plural, and describes monies as archaic & legal. DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare used the spelling moneyes in Merchant of Venice but he was probably emphasising the use of the plural by Jewish money lenders at the time. The plural moneys is much older, going back at least to 1384 (Wycliffe's Bible), with monies being used from 1739, and later used by Scott in Ivanhoe. Both plurals seem to be widely associated with Jewish practices. Dbfirs 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dbfirs: Shakespeare could not have known any English-speaking Jews; what do you mean by the use of the plural by Jewish money lenders at the time? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just curious: why not? From our article "British Jews": "The first recorded Jewish community in Britain was brought to England in 1070 by King William the Conqueror ..." — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Smuconlaw: See Edict of Expulsion and Shylock#Historical background. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or, for that matter, read British Jews#History more carefully... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Edict of Expulsion#Intermediate period": "Between the expulsion of Jews in 1290 and their formal return in 1655, there is no official trace of Jews as such on English soil except in connection with the Domus Conversorum, which kept a number of them within its precincts up to 1551 and even later. ... Notwithstanding, a certain number of Jews appeared to have returned; for complaints were made to the king in 1376 that some of those trading as Lombards were actually Jews ("Rot. Parl." ii. 332a). Occasionally permits were given to individuals to visit England, as in the case of Dr. Elyas Sabot in 1410, but it was not until the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and Portugal in 1497 that any considerable number of Sephardic Jews found refuge in England. ... In 1542 many were arrested on the suspicion of being Jews, and throughout the sixteenth century a number of persons named Lopez, possibly all of the same family, took refuge in England, the best known of them being Rodrigo López, physician to Queen Elizabeth I, and who is said to have been the origin of Shylock." (Emphasis added.) So it seems theoretically possible that Shakespeare might have encountered some Jews in England despite their expulsion. Even if he did not, it is conceivable that examples of their terminology existed in published works. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion above has made things rather unclear. I would say the answer to the original question is "In everyday use, money is an uncountable noun, and has no plural. In contracts and laws, and other official use, the plural _moneys_ or _monies_ is often used, perhaps to cover the possibility of one or more payments being required or made". --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EO refers to "monies" as an "irregular plural" of "money" which dates back a couple of centuries.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's of the same ilk as "those who do business in great waters". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you think ilk means "kind" (as many people do, I concede). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"ilk... type, kind..." Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983, p.625. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't this exactly like "fish" where fish is the normal plural and fishes replies to plural collectivities? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]