Language desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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.

February 20

How did “like” change from a noun meaning “body” to the modern verb?

As pointed out here, saying "I like X" in old English would have to be formulated as "X pleases my body" and the word "like" would represent "body" in that sentence. But it's not clear to me how "like" ended up becoming a verb in modern English. Count Iblis (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a simplification of a much more complex process. Etymology online says "The sense development is unclear; perhaps "to be like" (see like (adj.)), thus, "to be suitable." Like (and dislike) originally were impersonal and the liking flowed the other way: "The music likes you not" ["The Two Gentlemen of Verona"]. The modern flow began to appear late 14c." Bear in mind that even today the word has two very different meanings, one closer to the original root. I like cheese is one meaning. I smell like cheese is the other. French took a different route - and ended up with one word meaning both to like and to love. Wymspen (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says of the old noun: "In sense 1 [form, shape, guise] perhaps partly representing the reflex of an ultimately related Old English noun. Currency of this noun in Old English is perhaps implied by compounds, especially mannlīca human form, image of a man, (more specifically) sculpted image, statue (cognate with or formed similarly to Old High German manlīhho , manlīhha , manlīh image of a man, statue, Old Icelandic mannlíkan image of a man, supernatural being in human shape, Gothic manleika image, form); compare also eoforlīc and swīnlīc , both in sense ‘figure or image of a boar’ (with reference to decorated helmets in Beowulf):
OE Beowulf (2008) 1453 Swa hine [sc. the helmet] fyrndagum worhte wæpna smið, wundrum teode, besette swinlicum.
OE Daniel 174 Þære burge weard anne manlican ofer metodes est, gyld of golde, gumum arærde.
lOE Adrian & Ritheus (1982) xlviii. 40 Twege manlican beoð on mannes eagum; gif þu þa ne gesihst þonne swilt se man and bið gewiten ær þrim dagum.
However, if such a nominal derivative had occurred in Old English outside compounds, it would probably have shown ge- y- prefix (compare Gothic galeika person of the same body) and been merged with noun uses of ylike adj.; compare ylike n. 2. Compare discussion at like adj., adv., conj., and prep.
With sense 3 compare Old English efnlīca (a person's) equal, apparently a noun use of efnlic evenly adj. (forms of both noun and adjective showing y- prefix are also attested, i.e. respectively ge-efenlīca , ge-efenlic ).
The early Middle English form læche (see quot. c1275 at sense 1) probably reflects confusion with leches , læches (plural) looks, appearance, demeanour, countenance (a word used several times in the same source; showing the reflex of Old English lēc look, regard < the same base as lōcian look v.)."

... and of the verb: "In Old English the verb typically occurs in constructions with the person experiencing the emotion in the dative, either in impersonal construction (occasionally with non-referential it ) or with nominative of the thing liked (compare sense 1a). In the course of Middle English and early modern English, constructions with the person experiencing as subject increasingly establish themselves as predominant. The details of this development have been much discussed, and the syntactic analysis of some attested constructions is disputed, especially with regard to early Middle English (compare sense 4a).
In some uses (e.g. sense 1c) early impersonal constructions may have been influenced by uses of e.g. classical Latin placēre to be pleasing (see placet int. and compare please v.), libet it pleases, it is pleasing (see quodlibet n.), which can both be used either absolutely or with dative.
Competing verbs.
In Old English (and early Middle English) like v.1 is the usual verb in impersonal constructions, while queem v. is more common in personal constructions (and constructions with the nominative of the thing liked). During the course of the Middle English period like v.1 comes to predominate in personal constructions, while from late Middle English onwards in impersonal constructions (and constructions with nominative of the thing liked) it in turn increasingly loses ground to please v. See discussion in M. Ogura Verbs in Medieval Eng. (1995) 124–6.". I don't know whether this helps. Dbfirs 10:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finger thing

What do you call ‘the thing’ a person uses in their finger to turn pages? 103.67.156.181 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I call them Finger stalls, but we have no article. We have Finger cot, which is not really the same thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions the terms "thimblette", "rubber finger", "rubber thimbles" and "finger cones" for the purpose the OP is asking about. The Textile Research Centre, Leiden's website adds "rubber finger tips", and has some more information in their entry on "Thimblette" (apparently "more and more quilters are using thimblettes" too). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delightful extract from one advert: Thimblettes are known by a number of names including rubber thimbles, finger cones or “those spiky rubber things you put on your fingers”. Wymspen (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Image "rubber finger" and you'll see a whole bunch of them, branded that way or by similar terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you might find some things you didn't expect. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Luckily, I had child protection "on". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We all need as much protection as we can get against those evil monsters called children. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Or as they're officially known in America, "rug rats". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans have the right idea. Their word for child is "Kind". We've borrowed that, in the diminutive form "Kindling", to refer to tiny children that are just perfect for starting fires when there's no wood handy. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Lady: Do you like children? W.C.Fields: I do if they're properly cooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Thimblette" was definitely the term in the City of London before the "paperless office" concept. "Finger stall" also had some usage, but can also mean one of these. If you ask for a "rubber finger" in the UK, you might get one of these :-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]