Language desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Small talk

I was reading the article on small talk. I am wondering if "small talk" has to be speech. Which of the following is engaging in small talk?

Example 1:

Person A taps on Person B's shoulder.
Person B: Huh?
Person A: May I borrow your pencil?

Example 2:

Person A: Hey, um, Sarah?
Person B: Huh?
Person A: May I borrow your pencil?

Example 3:

Person A: Hey, Sarah.
Person B: Yeah?
Person A: Sorry to interrupt your work, but I didn't bring a pencil today. Do you have a pencil that I may borrow? I'll return it to you in an hour. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the entry for "small talk" in my mental lexicon, none of the above, as normally interpreted, counts as "small talk". -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] In my understanding of the term, none of them are small talk because they all relate to actual needs and material interactions. In my idiolect, "small talk" is conversational exchange unconnected to practical transactions, used purely for social purposes, such as "Weather's been nice today", or "How about them Cubs?" {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? "Thank you for sharing a conversation with me. But I have to go now. We may meet again some other time. Goodbye." 140.254.136.149 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small talk is talk for the sake of talk or for the sake of general social bonding. It is not talk with a specific practical purpose, such as arranging to borrow a pencil. It is also not talk to resolve conflicts, or careful discussion of a serious issue. It always focuses on light, non-urgent, and superficial matters. Here's an example. "Love those shoes. Where did you get them?" "Oh, I saw them online on Zappos." "They are soooo adorable!" "Thanks. Those are cute sandals you're wearing." "Oh, these things? I've had them for years. So, how was your date with Aaron?" "Uggh. Let's not ruin the mood by talking about HIM. What are your plans for the holiday? . . ." That's small talk. Your second example is more like small talk than your first, but it is still too formal, and it departs from the small talk model by expressing uncertainty that you will meet again. Small talk is usually about establishing social ties, not setting limits on them. Marco polo (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? "Hi, how are you?" "Very well, thank you." "Well, I have to go now. I usually sit here. Maybe we'll meet again tomorrow at the same time?" 140.254.136.149 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting closer, but the speech is still too succinct and formal. You don't seem to be a native English speaker - does the concept of idle chatter really not exist in your native language? I find that doubtful. Think of the kind of things people say to each other while they're standing in line or passing time in a waiting room. Marco polo's example above is a good one for small talk between friends. For strangers or acquaintances, how about "Hey." "Hi." "Have we met before?" "Oh yeah, you do seem kind of familiar. Did you work at the library last summer?" "Yes, that's it. I knew it was from somewhere recent. Are you still there?" "Nah, that was just volunteer work while I was hunting for a job. I'm with an ad agency now."

The "small" in small talk refers to the importance of the speech, not the length or tone of it. It in fact has a tendency to meander on for some time. If the people involved strike onto a topic they both really feel strongly about, they may pass into deeper conversation and eventually become friends, but it's much more likely that they are simply passing the time in a pleasant way and will soon forget one another. Again, it's doubtful to me that this is a uniquely Anglophone phenomenon. Matt Deres (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just tend to speak very formally, and I tend to rehearse full sentences in my head to avoid offense, faux pas, or ridicule. The above examples are actually taken from real life. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:small talk#Translations and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1335220.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small talk can be a time-filler, or it can be an "ice breaker". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Less" vs "not as"

Hi I was wondering about the adverbial phrases(I just took a stab at that term, I hope it's the correct one) "less" and "not as" and if there are any rules about what adjectives you can use them with.

With most adjectives, such as "excited", the two phrases are roughly interchangeable:

1) The second time I tried it, I was not as excited. 2) The second time I tried it, I was less excited.

But with the adjective "good" (there may be others) the second sounds very awkward.

1)The second time I baked a cake, it was not as good. 2)The second time I baked a cake, it was less good.

What is the rule or principle here?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think more context is needed in making the sentences less ambiguous.

1) The second time I tried it, I was not as excited as my best friend.
1A) The second time I tried it, I was not as excited as I was last time.
2) The second time I tried it, I was less excited than my best friend.
2A) The second time I tried it, I was less excited as I was last time.
3) The second time I baked a cake, it was not as good as last time's.
3A) The second time I baked a cake, it was not as good as my best friend's.
4) The second time I baked a cake, it was less good than last time's.
4A) The second time I baked a cake, it was less good than my best friend's. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what the question is about. Wasn't meant to be about semantics and ambiguity but rather what sounds acceptable in spoken and written speech.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the actual problem is that 'bad'/'good' have morphological comparatives, whereas 'excited' only has a periphrastic with 'less'. 'less good' (= worse), 'less tall' (shorter), 'less pretty' (uglier) all sound a bit awkward to me compared to things like 'less regular', 'less toadlike', 'less meandering'. See [Blocking_(linguistics)]128.146.172.252 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And

1. You are 1, if and only if you are a boy.
2. You are 2, if and only if you are a girl.
3. You are 1 and 2, if and only if you are a boy and a girl.
4. If you are neither a boy nor a girl, then you are not 1 and not 2.
5. If you are a boy and half a girl, then you are 1 and one-half of 2.

Now, there is a problem. How do you express "and" in a way that it does not mean addition? Also, is neither/nor in the English language equivalent to "and" in the fourth example? The problem that I see with 5 is that it may be interpreted as the addition of 1 and one-half of 2 (which is 1), which is 2. But then, wouldn't that conflict with Number 2? Would Number 5 and Number 2 be true at the same time? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"1 and also half of 2". StuRat (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In logic it depends on what you mean by "not mean addition". If you mean "both or either", then the Boolean operator is "or", known as the Logical disjunction. If you mean one or the other but NOT both, you use "xor" or "exclusive or". Normal English speech does not distinguish between "or" and "exclusive or". If you mean both, but not only one, the word "and" is appropriate, known as the Logical conjunction. --Jayron 32 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proposition 5 has no physical meaning. However, you are right that the 'and' conjunction is ambiguous in English (and I think in other Indo-European languages). This ambiguity has been addressed in two ways, by lawyers and by logicians and computer scientists. Lawyers use the conjunction 'and/or' to be unambiguous, so that you are a boy and/or a girl if you are under some defined age, without regard to your gender, since very few people are a boy and a girl. Logicians (since Boole) and computer scientists use the XOR conjunction to specify one but not both, so that you are a boy xor a girl if you are under some defined age and have a gender. I don't understand the question about proposition 5, because it has no physical meaning. It doesn't even seem to apply to people of non-standard gender. I think that I am agreeing with Jayron32. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the "and" in 5 means adding the two numbers or two terms, would that mean sentence 5 would conflict with sentence 2? But sentence 2 implies a full girl, while sentence 5 implies half a girl. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone be half a girl? If you are applying that to someone is intersex (probably insulting them in the process), how can someone be a boy and half a girl? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not mean to offend anyone. My example just shows that logic does not really have to have real-world implications. Think of the mathematical problem of a chicken and a half that lays an egg and a half in a day and a half. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, maybe. As I said, number 5 has no physical meaning. I could say that the OP is one-and-one-half editors, because his or her IP is changing, but it is in the same Class B block and the same human. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are conjoined twins always identical twins, or could they be fraternal twins? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Conjoined twins. They are always identical. Does that have to do with counting fractional people? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the conjoined part is not really a separate being, just parts of one. But it can't be opposite-sex, so forget that. This does kind of remind me of an old riddle that's something about if a hen and half lay an egg and a half in a day and a half... whatever the question is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above for the riddle. If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many eggs can six hens lay in eight days? A hen and a half has no physical meaning, but you can do the arithmetic. It is true that there are cases of an undeveloped or partially developed parasitic twin. You could count them as half people of the same gender as the primary. As I implied above, there are various ways that you can do the counting when dealing with intersex people, but only in hypotheticals such as this, because for real intersex people, the biography of living persons policy says that we should identify them as they choose to be identified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? The answer is obviously 42. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the original question - "1 and also one half of 2" is a little awkward, but avoids the sense of addition. MChesterMC (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]