Language desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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 22

Looking for a word or phrase

A friend and I are trying to think of a word or phrase, can you help us out? It's for when someone comes along who completely revolutionizes a field and it is no longer the same afterwards. 'Phenom' might be the best we can get but it just doesn't feel quite right to me. Thanks for any help you can provide. Dismas|^(talk) 19:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at paradigm shift. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work. The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. We should keep thinking. Myrvin (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate blather

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given you are directly responding to me, you should indent under me. There was a recent discussion started about this by someone on the talk page. And please speak for yourself about whether or not to continue to think. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't directly responding to you, I was referring to your misunderstanding of the question, and then answering the question.

I could have indented under you with the words "For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work." and then started with a blob and added the words: "The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. etc." But that seemed rather fussy.

You can stop thinking if you like.

Your comment is off-topic, having nothing to do with the question.

I could point out that, since you were directly responding to me, you should have indented with two colons, not three. But that would be petty.

Myrvin (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not at all misunderstand the question. You created the stupid strawman "paradigm shifter" and criticized it. I figured the OP wanted a relevant source, and could figure out something like "he shifted the paradigm" on his own. This seems very relevant:

A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

A double indentation is standard when you are posting above but after another poster, yet another bit of ignorance on which you decide to make a snide remark. Given you didn't answer the question at all, but criticized what I said, I suggest you get over these perceived slights and flaws and concentrate on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game changer? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. It can be hyphenated too. Myrvin (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A game-changer is an event, not a person. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard luck Steven. It seems only to be recognised as an agent noun in sport in the OED. Myrvin (talk)

That's in the OED. However, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary [1] is on your side. Myrvin (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "revolutionized" is a term often applied to what Babe Ruth did for baseball, transforming it from the inside game to the power game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But revolutionary - assuming we need an agent noun, of which there is some debate - seems only to be political. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. But what abut "pioneer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right to be suspicious. There are many other uses of revolutionary. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to prefer Merriam-Webster to OED, but then I'm a Yank, and tend to look to American usage first. Merriam-Webster simply gives, "A newly introduced element or factor that changes an existing situation or activity in a significant way." How do "elements" or "factors" relate to "events" or "persons"?

I would add, BTW, that Oxford's Advanced American Dictionary (click-through from your link above) gives the same definition as the Learner's Dictionary.

Finally, BB, wouldn't you agree that the baseball, as much as the Babe, was the game changer back then? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game changer (literally) was Ruth leading the charge away from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the most prominent agent of that change. Others, such as Rogers Hornsby, quickly followed his lead, and guys like Ty Cobb were reduced to relics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree. But I wonder if even Ruth could have managed that with the (physical) baseball that was used in 1916. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several factors combined to revolutionize the game. Following World War I, the quality of the baseballs improved significantly, and thus they became "livelier" for the 1919 season. For 1920 and 1921, various restrictions were put on pitchers who threw the spitball. Following the death of Ray Chapman in 1920, new baseballs became substituted more often (a departure from the tradition that cricket still follows), thus making them easier for the batters to see. And ballparks with smaller outfields, which were not much of an issue in the dead-ball era, became fertile ground for sluggers. These developments helped lay the groundwork for the shift from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the key element in this equation. He was a free-swinger from the get-go, going back to his days at the workhouse/orphanage in Baltimore, as he followed the style of his mentor, Brother Mathias. Ruth hit 11 home runs in the dead-ball season of 1918, which was good enough to tie for the major league lead, despite being only a part-time player. In 1919, with the ball livened, his total jumped to 29, a new major league season record. And in 1920, having been sold to the Yankees and thus playing in the Polo Grounds, he hit the then-astonishing total of 54. In 1921 he hit 59. So Ruth's batting style was the literal game-changer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a little more about revolutionary. As an adjective, it is used in a wide variety of ways. As an agent noun, though ... It's used in other ways than political, but rarely in a naked statement (if you will). If it is used as an agent noun in a different sense, it is almost always done in a surrounding context. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is a bit of a buzzword these days, in the context of disruptive innovation. "Disrupter" [2] is cromulent word for a person (or thing), as is the alternate spelling "disruptor". This would mean someone who has radically changed a field in the manner you describe. This usage is supported in the press (at least in concept, let's not talk about Musk's importance) when they call Elon Musk a top disrupter here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what extent Dis is looking to solve a tip-of-the-tongue situation in which he and his friend are trying to recall a specific word or rather are simply looking for an ideal word to the context, but (if the former especially), may I suggest "visionary"? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SemanticMantis that "disruptive" is the word that describes this. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfixation elsewhere than in Afro-Asiatic?

The WP article about transfixation states, without a source, that the process of transfixation is (actually: seems to be) restricted to languages from the Afro-Asiatic family. Is there an autoritative source making that statement explicitly? Contact Basemetal here 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem as if someone has engaged in some lite WP:SYNTHESIS (and seems to have been aware of the lack of verification, given the wording). I'm unaware of a source which would settle the matter one way or another, but I do recommend the statement be removed if no one provides as much in the next couple of days. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the whole sentence (thus losing a piece of information which may turn out in the future to be correct), I recommend that the three words "is restricted to" be replaced by a weaker expression (e.g. "characterizes") - which may still preserve the main original idea - yet without any commitment to what occurs in other groups of languages. HOOTmag (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that still qualifies as original research, as it isn't assessment supported by sourcing, but I personally wouldn't bicker over its presence. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to be saying (I can't see much in the particular preview given me) that Old English used transfixation in its strong verbs and claims that the patterns "go back to morphophonemic ablaut alterations in Proto-Indo-European". Unfortunately the preview won't show me the pages where the author makes his argument or gives examples.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternations" not "alterations". I wonder if most linguists specializing in IE would use the term "transfixation" for PIE ablaut, but I don't know. Let's ask Florian. Contact Basemetal here 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered the term "transfixation" in this context, personally, but a quick web search for "transfixation indo-european ablaut" does produce relevant-seeming hits, including this paper, which warns that the regularity of the usually reconstructed system for the Proto-Germanic strong verbs looks rather implausible and criticises the use of the approach for Old English in particular. By and large, I see the problem of analysing a purely reconstructed system in terms of transfixation when the attested systems are nowhere as regular. Indo-European isn't like Semitic in that regard. I don't have a sufficient command of the relevant literature, but I'm sceptical. If it were common, I should have heard of it. Maybe Ivan or Taivo can give a more satisfying answer. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]