Language desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Expressions that don't mean what they say

Is there a formal term for expressions that don't correspond to the literal meaning of what they say, or even mean the opposite of what they say, but have come into common usage? I'm thinking of things like "I could care less" when someone means they couldn't care less, or "two-party check" for "third-party check." These are expressions that are formally wrong, but have become so common that objections are derided as pedantry. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom--Jayron 32 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Idiom is correct, but I'm thinking mostly of expressions used in the opposite sense of their literal meaning. This would include the "couldn't care less" example, or someone "doing an complete 360" when they have reversed their opinion (literally, this would mean they had returned to their previously-held opinion). Sort of a sub-class of idiom. Maybe I need to make up a new term! Unfortunately "idiotism" is already taken. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the question, but I'd like to provide a better example (because it's a widely known idiom whose usage isn't disputed): "head over heels". --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm and irony apply to subsets of such expressions. But others are not either of those. "I could care less" is just dumb; no redeeming qualities whatsoever. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to mondegreens or eggcorns, but not quite. A person who says "I could care less" could be committing a mumpsimus. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C915:F679:15DB:E494 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a delightful word. mumpsimus... mumpsimus... mumpsimus... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americanism Iapetus (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler uses the term "sturdy indefensible" for an expression that is in general use despite being technically "incorrect" (by some criterion). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:contranym and "Auto-antonym".—Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:—Wavelength (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word for the seller and the store

Someone who sells pet animals, birds and aquarium must have a name for his profession. And there must be a name for his large shop. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think there's a fancy word for "pet seller", or for "pet store/shop". Time to coin a new word? Petmonger.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. Petmonger has already been published.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Archer didn't specify what language he/she is interested in, so I'll just add that the Polish term is sklep zoologiczny (literally, "zoological shop"). — Kpalion^(talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In French the store is called an "animalerie" (I remember seeing one that was selling chipmunks, labelled as "Korean squirrels"), but there does not seem to be a one-word term for the person who runs it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked with people in this field, I'd say the common American English terms are pet store owner or pet store employee. They are said to be in the pet business (or sometimes pet retail), though those terms all apply as well to those who sell only products for pets, not live animals. For aquarium specialists, the word pet can be replaced by aquarium, fish, or (for even more specialized businesses) reef. Similarly, pet can be replaced by bird or pet bird for aviculturists. If they sell animals they have raised themselves, they are a breeder (here to breed implies also selling the animals that are bred). But for all its huge vocabulary, English doesn't seem to have a commonly used (at least in American English), simple word for this profession. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pish tosh. Some guys who worked in a pet shop even created a band named after their noble profession - Pet Shop Boys. (You can safely ignore the obviously false made-up backstory given credence by the shamefully mendacious Wikipedia article.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bestiary, aviary, and piscary, yet each... has its own connotations. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want sins, you go to a peccary. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

string

There is another word that is puzzling me in Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac". Does here "strings" more probably mean "threads" or "plant fibers"? The context is as follows. "The robin's insistent caroling awakens the oriole, who now tells the world of orioles that the pendant branch of the elm belongs to him, together with all fiber-bearing milkweed stalks near by, all loose strings in the garden, and all the exclusive right to flash like a burst of fire from one of these to another." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.254 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nest indicates string can be one ingredient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of perfectly ordinary string in a garden - used to tie up plants, etc (though less so today as we tend to use more plastic ties). Plenty of birds will happily use it as nesting material - because as far as they are concerned it is just another bit of fibre. Wymspen (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In England, we call it garden twine. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... but it's double the price when bought by that name, so some of us just use string instead. Dbfirs 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In America, twine is different from string. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a type of string here. Garden twine is made from jute which doesn't take long to decompose, so if you forget to remove it, your plants won't be strangled. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically twine is a type of string. But if you want string here, you'll ask for string. If you want twine, you'll ask for twine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the bowl of twigs, grasses and mud that describes a typical backyard bird's nest, new world orioles weave a nest that hangs like a sack from a high branch, [depicted here]. This requires more select materials and loose garden strings (from tying plants to stakes and other supporting structures) could be favoured, at least in the author/character's imagination. Reidgreg (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between g and voiced k

The article voiceless velar stop mentions several variations on [k], one of which is the "voiced" version [k̬]. What is the difference between this and the "regular" voiced velar stop [g]? --Ginkgo100^talk 21:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a clarification tag, it seems like whoever set up the chart just used every combinations of bases and diacritics available. IsiZulu has an implosive k phone which, intervocalically, sounds quite like a g to an English speaker, so that the infinitive prefix written uku- is pronounced [uɠu]-, and to me very much like an intervocalic g /ɣ/ agua in Spanish. To make the "normal" aspirated /k/ of English, "kh" is written, so, "to speak", ukukhuluma sounds almost exactly like "ugukuluma" to an English speaker. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A voiced voiceless velar stop would indeed be a /g/, the voiced velar stop. The difference isn't in the sound but in the implications of the transcription. I would only ever consider using "[k̬]" in order to indicate the underlying phoneme (/k/) when describing (in narrow transcription) the phonology of a language that lacked a /g/ phoneme (i.e. no minimal pairs differentiating /k/ and /g/) but did have a voiced allophone of its /k/; but even then, I'd probably use [g] with an explanatory note. Going the other way, there is also the symbol [ɡ̊] to indicate a voiced velar stop that has been devoiced, or pronounced as [k]. A quick Google Scholar search for "[k̬]" may show some other contexts in which such symbols have been used.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, there are circumstances where [g] might be an allophone of /k/. But just dropping it in the article as a voiced voiceless sound without explanation is not up to snuff.

By analogy, triangles, 'by definition', have internal angles that sum to 180 degrees. But if you start at the equator, walk to the geographic north pole, turn right 90 degress, walk south to the equator, turn right 90 degrees, and return along the equator to your starting point, you will have traversed a triangle with straight sides whose internal angles sum to 270 degrees, not 180.

Can you add a note to the article, @WilliamThweatt:, explaining the point? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't go for that non-Euclidean phonology round here, stranger. —Tamfang (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]