Language desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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 10

burgle

Is burgle a fully accepted word, in formal discourse, in British English?

I always thought it was a little bit of a joke. What does a burglar do? Well, he burgles, ha ha ha. That certainly struck me as the intent in "When the felon's not engaged in his employment", a number from The Pirates of Penzance. (Pirates is from 1879, whereas Wiktionary claims that burgle dates to 1872, so it could still have been a relatively novel word at the time.)

But it's used unironically in Alan Turing, and I'm not sure what could be substituted for it, given that BrE speakers apparently hear burglarize as an Americanism. (Of course, the sentence could be reworded, I suppose.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did indeed originate as a bit of a joke, as a back-formation from burglar. Now ... I'd say it has a mildly comic ring still, but it's used by e.g. the CPS [1] and police [2]. Henry ^Flower 05:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words now regarded as standard started their lives as humorous creations. "To burgle" has been standard in the UK for more than a hundred years and has no "comic ring" to most people in England (G & S fans excepted). The variant "burglarize" would have a comic effect when used in the UK, especially amongst those unfamiliar with the verb invented in America around the same time as the British variant. Both variants are perfectly respectable derivations from the English Law Latin verb burgulāre going back to 1354. Dbfirs 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your dedication in surveying the majority of England's population. :) Perhaps Scots just have a more finely honed sense of humour, though googling "burgle funny word" suggests you may be less representative than you think. Henry ^Flower 20:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely countering your claim that the word has a mildly comic ring. Perhaps you are a G & S fan? Google produces lots of funny results for many words. Of course, once Scots becomes your national language you can speak for that language. :) Dbfirs 06:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd say" prefaces an opinion, not a claim. Henry ^Flower 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I should have cited the OED to support my claim. You are correct, of course, that Scottish English tends to be more conservative and to resist new words coined in the south. Northern English has the same tendency, but I think the verb "to burgle" is generally accepted up as far as the Scottish border. Dbfirs 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sample of one person in England agrees with Dbfirs: "burgle" feels standard, "burglarise" sounds absurd (no offence intended to people who use the word). 86.129.18.104 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, and there are examples from the BBC, Guardian, The Times, and even Parliament. In England it is the normal word. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this applicable to The Hamburglar, or does he play by his own grammatical rules? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sughauli treaty

[Question moved to WP:RD/H Tevildo (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Baby corn

Does anyone know what the Korean translation for baby corn is? Our baby corn article has only 1 link and the Korean article ko:옥수수 doesn't (I think help). Wikitionary has a few languages but not Korean. Google translate gives 아기 옥수수 which I'm pretty sure is a literal translation so may not be correct. I didn't find anything useful with searches either. Also, while this is the wrong desk there's a chance whoever answering may know. Am I correct baby corn is not particularly common in Korean cuisine? I've heard that it's hard to find which would suggest yes and the searches make me think it's possible. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across baby corn in Korean food. It does seem to be sometimes sold under the name 아기 옥수수 (agi oksusu, lit. "baby corn"), but that might just be because the importer has run it through Google translate. The most common name I can find online is 영콘 (yeongkon, a phonetic rendering of English "young corn"). This shows up in at least some recipes and on labels. --Amble (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

소형 옥수수? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean "miniature corn". Also a possibility. I have only found one use of it online with the meaning "baby corn", though. Have you heard or found it in use? --Amble (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negative comparatives

In English, we have two ways of forming a comparative - we can say that something is "more X" or that it is "X-er". However, we can also say that something is "less X", yet there's no negative equivalent to the "-er" suffix. As far as I know, the same is true in other languages with similar systems (e.g., a German says "frischer", but "weniger frisch", or perhaps "unfrischer"). Are there any languages that do form negative comparatives - that is, where you can inflect an adjective to mean "less [adjective]"? Smurrayinchester 14:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspeak has "doubleplusungood". Among natural languages, according to page 4 of http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/w11/comparatives/docs/bobaljik.pdf "No language has a synthetic comparative of inferiority." -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THanks, AnonMoos, that's a great pdf. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleplusungood is not a comparative, just a very strong form of ungood.

One thing I noticed in the book is that Newspeak, in theory, is supposed to have three grades of each adjective; so for "bad", for example, there would be ungood, plusungood, and doubleplusungood. However, as far as I noticed, the "plus" grade was never used at all in the book; it was always "doubleplus". I think there's supposedly a general linguistic phenomenon whereby middle gradations of constructions are more likely to disappear than the extremes, don't know what it's called. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true in general, but in the context of the book it also makes sense because the government wanted their propaganda to be, ah, doubleplusforceful. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right -- I was assuming that "plus-" was comparative and "doubleplus-" superlative, but perusing the appendix to 1984 again, it seems that the forms would be "ungooder" and "ungoodest"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some special cases, such as: many/some - more - most vs. many/some - fewer - fewest (except where the context demands many/some - less - least). "Fewer" would seem to meet your criterion on its face, but it's also the comparative of "few", so it's actually "more few" rather than "less few". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for once again picking up on something marginal, but "unfrischer" actually wouldn't work well in German, in any event it sounds really awkward, perhaps because "unfrisch" in itself is not really used frequently and only in particular contexts, and it's more specific than "nicht frisch". Even if we pick a standard coupling of X/"un"-X, let's say "glaubwürdig" and "unglaubwürdig, "Diese Aussage ist unglaubwürdiger" emphasizes the comparison on a negative scale as opposed to "diese Aussage ist weniger glaubwürdig". (I think, no reference) Afterthought: Sort of like the difference between "more unbelievable" and "less believable", even if German uses only one word for "more unbelievable". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people ta

Warning: Skinny jeans may be hazardous to your health.

Wearing skinny jeans and other restrictive, tight clothing might seem like the more fashion-friendly choice, but it may come with a hefty price tag - for your health. -- 17:34, 10 September 2014 Sagittarian Milky Way

Neckties are also slightly dangerous. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is fashion, with perhaps a dose of Sexual_selection_in_mammals, i.e. competition for mates. Maybe the worst example is Saree_cancer. (ps. please sign your questions with four tildes: ~~~~). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many aspect of fashion that can be dangerous, or at least highly impractical. Four years ago I tried to initiate discussion on the Fashion article Talk page on one particular aspect that concerned me, with a view to having the article address safety aspects. I got one reply, telling me I was being petulant. It seems that I encountered minor resistance and a general lack of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they meant the kid Asmrulz (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the header, and since that's the only place any question appears, I don't understand the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be along the lines of "Why do people ta[ke risks with fashionable clothing?]". Tevildo (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that, Tevildo. (Don't get me started on the insane things people do in the name of fashion; mainly because I have no idea why. "But others are doing it" cannot possibly be a suitable explanation for some of the worst examples.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Shoe Event Horizon. Tevildo (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say "ta ta" to this topic. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I often wonder why people ta. It is a profound and difficult question. 86.129.18.104 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if anyone ever washes their tie ("since ties aren’t washed as frequently as other clothing, they may be laden with disease-causing germs"). Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least they remembered the hyphen. However, I believe a more important question is whether anyone ever washes their ta. I think we should be told. 86.129.18.104 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can clearly tell Road Warrior Hawk isn't comfortable here, with the constricting tights, solid belt and shoulderpads (which must have also had him constantly worried about eyepokes, hence the squint). Died of a sudden heart attack, but if he'd worn sweatpants and a tank top, who'd have remembered what a rush he must have had looking so fashionable. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the "question" is copied from a CBS News article. -- BenRG (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in abbreviations

I don't mean the Internet slang but abbreviated words which are so common that I often hear them in movies or TV series. Expamples are sec (second), jeally (jealous), comfy (comfortable), prob (problem), prep (prepare), evac (evacuation). As a non-native speaker I find these very intersting. I wonder if there's a list of such words. --2.245.127.9 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.sightwordsgame.com/vocabulary-words/word-play/clip-words/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, the list changes with time and with place. _Sec_ is common in British English, _comfy_ is now rather old-fashioned, and _jeally_ I have never heard. _Semi_ in the UK means "semi-detached house" (which the Americans call a "duplex") but I believe in American English it means a kind of vehicle, something like what we in Britain call an _artic_ (articulated lorry). --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UK speaker) Actually, I don't perceive "comfy" as old-fashioned. The data here seems to show a recent increase in use. 86.129.18.104 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Californian. I think "sec" is common in American English too. "Comfy" doesn't sound old-fashioned to me either. "U jelly?" is endemic to the Internet, I think. -- BenRG (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The common shortening for "jealous" seems to be "jell" in the UK, usually heard in the form "well jell". You could also include the opposite formations, such as "amazeballs", or "good-o", or "problem-o" i.e. making a shorter word longer. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search turned up "Lexical abbreviations in American slang" by Maciej Widawski, which lists some more of these: ab(dominal muscle), biz, bod, celeb, con(vict), congrats, decaf, doc(tor), exec(utive), fave, grad, hon(ey, as a term of endearment), hood, info, legit, lit(erature), mike(rophone), nabe(orhood), pro(fessional), psycho(path), sis, spec(tacle)s, sub(marine), tux, (li)brary, copter, (hair)do, (con)fess, gator, Nam, (pa)rents, (ciga)rettes, (ice) scream, (moon)shine, (piz)za. I've heard and would understand most of these, except "nabe", "brary", "rettes", "scream", "shine", "za". There's surprisingly little overlap between your examples, this list, and Wavelength's list. Most of the items on this list are still perceived as slang, while many of Wavelength's "clip words" aren't. -- BenRG (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some clipped words are mentioned in the article "Clipping (morphology)".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that method of word formation isn't a recent phenomenon. I doubt that very many people recognize that words such as mob and bus are clipped forms. Deor (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's as though English was slowly but steadily becoming monosyllabic (unforch) :( .... Asmrulz (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Punt ermine lynx

I'm looking for the term for a specific type of pun. This type involves semantic/linguistic re-parsing multiple words, for example: [Aladdin Sane] → "A lad insane" -&- [Isle of View] → "I love you" -&- (almost, not quite) [Punt ermine lynx] → "Pun term in links" —I know that I found it previously on WP, but my current venture down the wikilink rabbithole has reached a dead end; (I thought the term began with an 'O', but maybe that's where I made a wrong turn). —Thanks in advance, 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article calls it homophonic transformation. Given your parenthetical remark at the end of your post, I have a suspicion that what you're recalling is the related article Holorime. To amuse myself in idle moments, I sometimes make up homophonic transformations of well-known poetry ("Gnome ocean, ashy noun, oaf horse, / Sheen ether—here snores cease! ..."). Deor (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term the OP is thinking of is oronym, apparently invented by Gyles Brandreth in 1980, although I definitely remember reading a newspaper article by Miles Kington which discussed such puns a few years before that. Kington didn't come up with a name, though. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of retargeting your link to a disambiguation page, Tevildo. Deor (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :::Yes, Oronym is the word. Apparently a "phonological juncture". Thanks again! —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it also a particular type of mondegreen? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC, agree with Jack:)I could be missing something, but it seems like the distinction between oronymy and Mondegreen is rather small and subjective. Your examples could seemingly be either/both, depending on intention and reception. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's that lovely romantic standard, What is this thing called, Love?. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I think one distinction is that each phrase can stand alone as a meaningful term or phrase -- which is one (of two) reason(s) why I qualified "Punt ermine lynx". Also, if I understand correctly, a Mondogreen can involve a portion of a phrase, such as the example from the article: "Excuse me while I kiss the sky" → "...kiss this guy" — A distinction without a difference? —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I called it "a particular type" of mondegreen. The sounds don't have to exactly match up, but they can. Also, "Kiss This Guy" as a book or film title would be a perfect mondegreen for "Kiss The Sky". Also a perfect oronym. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

71.20.250.51 -- for a multilingual example which was semi-famous 40 years ago, see Mots d'Heures... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand, some languages are designed so that a given string of phonemes can be broken into valid words in at most one way; I believe Lojban is an example. Such morphologies have been called "self-segmenting". —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't ~~waste their time~~ exercise their minds with such things, some crossword puzzles in UK newspapers make the first two Across answers form an oronym. An example from the Concise Crossword No. 1184 in today's 'i': 1Ac "Look for", 4Ac "Is victorious" = Seek & Wins (= "Sequins"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]