Language desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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.

December 25

That's not a word

Why do people say this in response to words that people either make up or are not contained in a dictionary? From what I understand unlike France and French, English does not need a formal process to introduce new words, and new words can be created any time. So then why do people respond to words like "conversate" as not being words when they obviously understand what is meant by the word? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's fun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more fun to use an obscure or dialect word to someone who is in the habit of doing this, then show them the word in the dictionary and say "yes it is". -- Q Chris (talk)

What qualifies as a word in English is based on consensus, so you would need to get a substantial portion of the population to start using it in order for it to be accepted as a word. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversate? What's wrong with the perfectly good existing word 'converse'? Why make up a new word? Akld guy (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with back-formations here. These lead to such dubious logic as: One who converses in a conversation is no doubt conversating; and comments are made by commentators who obviously commentate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One who converses in a conversation is no doubt conversating".

Really?

Either: One who converses in a conversation is no doubt conversing,

Or: One who conversates in a conversation is no doubt conversating.

I'm sure you'd noticed that, and that's why you added "in a conversation", but I suspect this addition doesn't help so much. HOOTmag (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting (not commentating) on the dubious logic that gives rise to these nasty pieces of work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some English speakers orientate towards such words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there is a perfectly good already existing word, although usually those who dismiss your invention don't know it either. They dismiss the new word mainly because they are not used to it so it sounds weird. Sounding weird is a strong feeling that to most people's ears, overcomes the logics and the good utility they could find in a new word, so the new word, instead of making perfectly good sense, just "sounds odd" and makes them forget the meaning and the subject. Akseli9 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilitously we misunderestimate the ridiculosity of neologisationism? Dbfirs 15:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're overexaggerating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uses a new coinage like 'conversate', the implication is that the intended meaning is something different from the existing word converse. If it's simply an inadvertent duplication of an existing word, that causes needless confusion and irritation, even if only momentarily. It demonstrates, perhaps lack of education, but potentially, and more likely, carelessness and disrespect. If, however, the intent is a new meaning, then the listener has to reverse engineer the intended meaning, forcing an effort on the listener without their consent. Obviously these are small matters, but they are real. Peter Grey (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of "conversate" in EO suggests that it is, in fact, a word.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The writers of EO or any other dictionary have a heavy responsibility. They are aware that, once they make a new entry, potentially millions of people are going to look it up and then utter sentences like "See, I told you, it is a word, it's in the dictionary". Dictionaries typically also include prefixes (micro-, pro-, etc) as separate entries, and they are certainly not words. In most varieties of English, 'conversate' would not be considered a word, no matter what any dictionary says. Neither would 'coronate', a back-formation from 'coronation'; most people know that the verb is 'crown'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your office hours, Jack? I'd like to schedule a disappointment. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Medeis: Please don't hang up; your call is important to us. A Senior Supervisory Customer Service Representational Official will be with you ~~shortly~~ early next year when our office re-opens after whichever holidays didn't offend you. In the meantime while you wait, we'll play some lovely recorded music for you. In the event that you have been or will be considering suicide, this will make the transition as peaceful as possible. Until that time comes, have a nice day. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, @ User:JackofOz: I'll have you know I just re-read Jourdain's Music, the Brain and Ecstasy and bought a copy for my brother-in-law (whose children are quite musical) as his Christmas present. I think he'll enjoy it immensely, but if not, you will be getting a referral request for a disappointment. μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "EO"? Akseli9 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an abbreviation for Etymology Online. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon is one reason why English has been so embiggened in comparison to other, more staid languages. The OP should look at productivity (linguistics) and zero derivation as well as Why English Rules.

The proper response to "That's not a word" is, BTW, "So, you didn't actually understand me?" μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and the retort is "I find it easier to understand exactly what you intend to say when you use words from the dictionary that we understand in common.". Dbfirs 16:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And their counter-retort could be, "How much more time did it take you to understand 'conversate' than it would have if I had said 'converse'?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would spend several seconds trying to decide whether the new word was a synonym of the old one or carried some new meaning that was not familiar to me. Isn't the purpose of words to convey known meaning? Dbfirs 23:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be important not to overthink things. The first time I heard "conversate", I knew immediately what it meant, while also wondering which public school they dropped out of, and also resolving to humor them rather than trying to show them up. All that in the space of a second or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the word "conversate" (and don't want to), but forewarned is forearmed, so I'll follow your suggestion if ever I do hear it. Dbfirs 11:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the conversation takes a turn for the vulgar (people love being corrected), the proper public school response is "present them". Never "presentate". That will only excavate the situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Devil, a "conversation" is "a fair to the display of the minor mental commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of his own wares to observe those of his neighbor". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an imbalanced <small> tag, but it must be here somewhere, so I'm putting in a closer. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The turtle crawls. The person walks (i.e. faster than crawling). The ant runs (i.e. faster than walking). The airplane flies (i.e. faster than running).

What about the spaceship? Is there any word for a motion faster than flying, like that of spaceships? HOTmag (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it cruises. Or it does several things, depending where it is, sometimes it glides, sometimes it just flies, sometimes is accelerates or even bursts. In many science fiction litterature it also uses sailing vocabulary, even when it doesn't use stars and suns and solar winds as its main source of energy. Akseli9 (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zooms? —suzukaze (t・c) 09:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spaceship "rockets". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soars? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a science desk question, but it either accelerates, cruises, orbits, or decelerates. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP were asking for technical rocket-science terminology, then yes, it would have been a Science desk question. But he was asking in a general context, so it's clearly a Language desk question. A 10-year-old boy would probably not use any of the terms you suggest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it ascends or descends or hurtles. Akld guy (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a correct progression you have set up.A person can certainly walk faster than a running ant.Some animals can crawl very quickly indeed.An airplane is quite fast at some points but slow when taxi-ing or landing.Spaceship is an incredibly vague term. A satellite could be stationary over the Earth.A spaceshuttle flies at the speed of the airplane carrying it.A probe eventually could be drifting very slowly in space at the end of it's life.It's hard to know how to answer when the steps leading up to spaceship are so very imprecise.Hotclaws (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out the running ant. Has anyone ever seen an ant run? HOT, what did you mean by this, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? As far as I'm concerned, I've never seen an ant walk ! Has anyone ever seen an ant walk? It always runs (unless it stays at the same place). Look at this! Or at this! HOOTmag (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call that running, I suppose that's up to you. It's true that it conveys a bit of a sense of haphazard urgency, but I wouldn't call it running.

I had wondered if you were trying to say antelope rather than ant, but I guess you meant what you said. --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory, about the antelopes running - whose name begins with "ant", is brilliant. However, you didn't have to "guess" (as you called it) that I meant what I said, because I had already given links of two videos - showing ants - rather than antelopes, hadn't I? HOTmag (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen an elephant fly. Have also seen a barn dance. Akld guy (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm sure you've never seen an ant walk (because it always runs unless it stays at the same place). HOTmag (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ant walking in slow-motion. --Modocc (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aunts skedaddle, and I was not 10 when I first watched Tom Baker. Of course, if the subject is 10 year old boys, I will yield the floor. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It navigates. A spaceship navigates interstellar space, or traverses interstellar space. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP's comment: Thank you all, but I suspect none of you (except for Jack) has deeply read my question: I'm looking for a kind of motion, e.g. motion of spaceships and likewise, which is signified by a word reflecting the fact that the motion is - faster than that of airplanes - i.e. faster than flying. As for acceleration: it doesn't mean - moving faster than flying, but rather means - a motion whose speed (or rather velocity) increases over time. Even a turtle can accelerate (provided its speed increases over time). HOTmag (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to move "quickly" across almost limitless space. The closest word to express speed in realms spanning the heavens is "rockets", as has already been suggested by Baseball Bugs. If I remember correctly even the speed of light takes a sluggish two seconds to traverse the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Bus stop (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the light travelling between the Earth and the Moon: It's about one second (or a little bit more) for each direction.

As for the verb "rocket": I suspect this word only refers to the first moments, when the rocket (or spaceship) accelerates and rises vertically. HOTmag (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If wormholes exist and if we ever find a way of creating stable ones, then tunnel or jump might be appropriate, but that's in the distant future (if ever). Meanwhile, long-distance spaceflight is more like sailing on a calm sea with light winds than anything else, since there's nothing much to do, little indication of motion, and only the very occasional minor adjustment. Dbfirs 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, that when the spaceship "sails" (or whatever), its motion is (usually) faster than that of airplanes. HOTmag (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we are all moving faster than aeroplanes, in our orbit round the sun, and in the sun's orbit round the galaxy. It's speed relative to nearby objects that we notice. Dbfirs 12:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I've only spoken about velocities relative to us, whereas our velocity - relative to us - is... zero. HOTmag (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are speaking about the perception of motion. That is why this is more a language question than a science question. As Dbfirs says "long-distance spaceflight is more like sailing on a calm sea with light winds than anything else, since there's nothing much to do, little indication of motion". The perception of motion can be greater in situations in which actual speed is slower. Therefore the search for a word to capture the ultra high speed of space travel may be frustrated by the absence of perceptually meaningful frames of reference in the void of space. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"little indication of motion " ??? "absence of perceptually meaningful frames of reference in the void of space " ??? The frame of reference is us, so we can get significant indication of motion, by simply measuring it, and it can be measured - just as we can measure the motion of airplanes and likewise - because... Yes ! Because the frame of reference is...us... HOTmag (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are always at rest relative to ourselves, as you wrote above. All motion is relative. There is no aether in space to measure motion absolutely. Do you mean motion relative to Earth? Dbfirs 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Btw, as for your comment "all motion is relative ": Actually, there is an absolute motion, which is the highest one possible in nature. . HOTmag (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "absolute motion"? Dbfirs 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolute motion" is a motion not depending on any frame of reference. HOTmag (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it exist? Dbfirs 21:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to absolution motion, not really. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, according to the theory of Special relativity, whose main point is - that the highest speed in nature really exists - and that this speed is absolute (i.e. does not depend on any frame of reference). Previous theories, like Newton's one, thought that every motion is relative; Had that been true, no "highest speed" could have been possible (i.e. for every speed there would have been a higher one) - as one can quite easily prove by rather simple mathematical means. HOTmag (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. . . shoots, . . . speeds, . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flight is inclusive of spaceflight thus spacecraft fly, such as with planetary flybys. Dictionaries include this usage [2] and simply searching the web for phrases such as "flying to Mars" brings up plenty of examples. --Modocc (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rocket", as already mentioned, is a word that both describes a particular type of motion (rocket propulsion) and implies extreme speed. That would probably best fit with your original examples. Other words for motion that imply extreme speed include zoom, charge, thunder, etc. Cruise and soar would also be appropriate for a spaceship, although don't necessarily imply such extreme speed. Jump or leap might also be appropriate, if your spaceship is using some sort of fictional "jump drive". Iapetus (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppletion to express fractions

What languages use suppletion to express fractions? c.f.: English uses "half" to mean 1 out of 2, and "quarter" to mean 1 oeut of 4. Which other languages do?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't nearly all languages have special words for these fractions? Maybe my Christmas dinner is slowing my brain down, but I can see only a vague connection with "suppletion". Perhaps someone knows of families of languages that use "second part" and "fourth part" without special words? Dbfirs 14:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Quarter" comes from Latin and is connected to the Latin word for "four".[3] "Half" is Old English and originally meant the dividing of something.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The PIE system of numerals is rather complex compared to other most other old families for which numbers can be reconstructed. The -th ending of English ordinals and fractions comes from the PIE root -tos, just as do the Endings of Spanish, and so forth. While "quarter" is borrowed, we still have fourth. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does French –ième come from? —Tamfang (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from Latin -imus ultimately cognate with English "[fore]most". Notice that while French has both deuxième and second, English has abandoned twoth. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except for male Anglicans with a lisp who are entering into marriage vows: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for wicher for poower, in sickness and in health, to love and to chewwish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pwight thee my twoth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconceivable. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ah do nah thin that worm eans what you thinky means. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that the OE word for '2th' was (the ancestor of) other. —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, other and alter are cognates: per EO These are from PIE *an-tero-, variant of *al-tero- "the other of two" (source of Lithuanian antras, Sanskrit antarah "other, foreign," Latin alter), from root *al- (1) "beyond" (see alias (adv.)) + adjectival comparative suffix *-tero-. The Old English, Old Saxon, and Old Frisian forms show "a normal loss of n before fricatives" [Barnhart]. Meaning "different" is mid-13c. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eat me, I'm an azuki:, google mallory adams +pdf, and read the chapter on numerals. The pdf is some 10.9MB, but every user here should buy that text. BTW, love'm red beans and rice. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language Development

[Moved from RD/S] Tevildo (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up Language development. It talks about how children learn language -- that's not what I was looking for. I want information on how languages are "developed" for scientific, official, and education purposes; making it useful by inventing terminology, writing dictionaries... that kinda stuff.

What do you call that?

thanks. 174.19.217.153 (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the discipline is Historical linguistics. Tevildo (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when the desks are locked, you can use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template on the talk page to ask a question. Tevildo (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really historical linguistics; that's too generic for what the OP asked about. More should be at language planning or language policy. Ausbau language might also have a few pointers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or is this asking about something more along the lines of the word formation process in medical terminology? Peter Grey (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the OP is looking for Borrowing (linguistics) and perhaps lexifier. When the Romans didn't have a word for a Greek concept the borrowed (or calqued) the term. The English did the same from Church Latin, Old French, Norman French, Dutch and Norse, until the renaissance, at which time Greek and Latin came back in style. Look, for example, at the etymology of potassium. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For scientific use, there are various official groups that set the names and naming conventions, by discipline. For example, the International Astronomical Union does this for planets, stars, galaxies, etc. There are other groups that do the same for chemistry, etc. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, linguistic convention is a good answer, for which see especially binomial nomenclature. As for the blasted IAU, when dwarf humans stop being human, dwarf planets will stop being planets. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medeis, I trust you are carrying a torch for Ceres as well as for Pluto. Ceres was acclaimed a planet on its discovery (just as Pluto was), and retained that status for over 50 years, before being reclassified as an asteroid, and latterly as a dwarf planet (Pluto went straight from planet to dwarf planet). Pluto has her legions of champions, but does nobody speak for Ceres? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my central kvetch is that the "orbit clearing" qualification was arbitrary, and it also rules out Neptune as a planet. I am all for Ceres; the real question is, who mourns for Vesta? μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU also has dwarf stars, and they are stars. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also wandering stars (planets) and hairy stars (comets) and star-like objects (asteroids). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids are minor planets and not “star-like objects”. See Etymological fallacy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is technically nothing "star-like" about planets and comets either. But they got those names based on what they looked like to non-technical observers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the ancients called the planets "wandering stars", they were using star to mean 'shiny thing in the night sky'. They were not wrong to do so, even if our usage has since shifted to a category that we find more useful. — I imagine that asteroids were so dubbed because, to a low-power telescope (and in many cases even to a much stronger telescope), they appear as points, as stars do. —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The origin and original meaning of "star" is uncertain.[5] In a related mis-usage, the word "galaxy" originally meant the Milky Way, so there are billions of milky ways in the universe, even though there is only one Milky Way.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ARE billions of “Milky Ways” in the multiverse. Even worse, there are quite a few millions of Baseball Bugses in just a single multiverse. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's just one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, Mr. Rico! Millions of ~~them~~ him! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Different bugs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]