Language desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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 30

Semantic relation

I have been trying to find a specific definition of "semantic relation" and what interlexemic semantic relations are about. Can you please explain or provide a link? Thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the term on Wikipedia redirects to Ontology components#Relationships. Is this any help? Also; Lexeme. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.103.214 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read that, but can't say it's of help completely. Thanks for your input though. I really appreciate it. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 00:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this short article about WordNet: [1]. It says:

"The semantic relations into which a word enters determine the definition of that word. ... Synonymy is WordNet’s basic relation, because WordNet uses sets of synonyms ( synsets ) to represent word senses. Synonymy ( syn same, onyma name) is a symmetric relation between word forms. Antonymy (opposing-name) is also a symmetric semantic relation between word forms, especially important in organizing the meanings of adjectives and adverbs. Hyponymy (sub-name) and its inverse, [[hypernym]y (super-name), are transitive relations between synsets. Because there is usually only one hypernym, this semantic relation organizes the meanings of nouns into a hierarchical structure. Meronymy (part-name) and its inverse, holonymy (whole-name), are complex semantic relations. WordNet distinguishes component parts, substantive parts, and member parts. Troponymy (manner-name) is for verbs what hyponymy is for nouns, although the resulting hierarchies are much shallower. Entailment relations between verbs are also coded in WordNet."

It also notes: "A much larger variety of semantic relations can be defined between words and between word senses than are incorporated into WordNet. The semantic relations in WordNet were chosen because they apply broadly throughout English and because they are familiar—a user need not have advanced training in linguistics to understand them. "

I can email you the article if that would help. Basically, a semantic relation is a relation that gives semantic information. These get formalized a lot in various computational linguistics/AI stuff, but really they are everywhere, they are how we know what words mean. The word "duck" has a "is a type of" semantic relation with "bird". Differing ources will use different words or symbols to describe that relation, or not talk about it at all.

Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Englanders

When and why did the them "Little Englander" flip meaning from "unpatriotic person who wants to withdraw from Empire" to "jingoistic person who probably pines for the days of Empire"? Iapetus (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If "little" is defined with respect to the British empire in the first case, but with respect to Europe or the EU in the second case, it more or less makes sense. In the United States, a lot of the same social groups or classes were fairly consistently anti-imperialist in 1898, reluctant to enter WW1 in 1915-1917, and isolationist in the 1930s, and went through several cycles of being considered patriotic or unpatriotic as national opinion fluctuated... Someone in the U.S. who was anti-imperialist in 1898 and against the U.S. entering the League of Nations in 1919-1920 would be fairly closely analogous to a "little Englander" in both meanings. AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one. An extensive Google search didn't throw up much that was helpful, except that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was described (amongst other epithets) as "Little Englander Harold" by a journalist in 1964 - see The Cold War in South Asia: Britain, the United States and the Indian Subcontinent, 1945-1965 (p. 272) by Paul M. McGarr. I strongly suspect that this was still being used in the original sense as someone opposed to Imperial commitments, because Wilson espoused the British withdrawal from East of Suez (the UK maintained considerable military garrisons at Singapore, Hong Kong and Aden at that time) and he also applied for UK membership of the Common Market in 1967, but de Gualle said "Non!". Also, Wilson steered clear of the Vietnam War, while Margaret Thatcher (today regarded as the archetypal "Little Englander" [2] [3]) might well have been keen to participate, judging by her leading role in run-up to the Gulf War. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi or Persian

Different names for one language or different languages? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Farsi is the native name for the language, in the same way that Irish speakers call their language Erse. 79.73.131.226 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Irish speakers usually call their language "Gaeilge". If they need to specify Irish Gaelic as opposed to Scottish or Manx, they say "Gaeilge na hÉireann. "Erse" is an outdated English name for Gaelic (especially Scots Gaelic). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both words come from the same root.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so they are the endonym and the (English) exonym. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although the "F" in "Farsi" is actually due to the traditional lack of a [p] sound in the Arabic language! AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi (or Parsee) are what Zoroastrians are called in India, the religion originated from Persia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question has a political dimension. At least in Los Angeles, emigrés from Iran tend to prefer to be called Persian rather than Iranian, and while I'm less sure on this point, I think that carries over to the language name as well. I gather that this is a mark of opposition to the '79 revolution, but I'm not 100% sure that that's all there is to it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its natives had been calling it Iran long, long before 1979. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angeleno Persians call the country "Iran", but themselves "Persian". At least this is my observation in general. They tend to be fiercely opposed to the Islamic Republic. I think the two things are connected, but I admit I'm not sure of that. --Trovatore (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it was the Shah of Iran, in the 1930s, who asked the world to start calling the country Iran instead of Persia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, they do call the country "Iran", so I'm not sure what your point is. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That refusing to use it because of a supposed linkage to the Islamic revolution is ill-informed, since it was the Shah, not Islamists, who pushed for the name's usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not talking about "Iran" v "Persia". We're talking about "Iranian" v "Persian". But in any case I admit I could be wrong. It's speculation on my part. I note that they are generally ill-disposed towards Khomeini and his legacy, and that they avoid the previously "correct" form Iranian; I speculate that the two things may be connected. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but they have never used "Iranian" (in their language Irani or Classical Erani) to desigante their language; as old as since Old Perisan they have been using Parsig (hence Farsi) or for a period during Middle Persian Pahlavi(g) (there has been a confusion between two meanings of this term: "the language of Parthia" (original) or "the language of Persis").--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the language. I was talking about the people. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of work

"Piece of work" currently redirects to Shakespeare's Hamlet. But this does not seem to cover the commonly used pejorative term, usually used for a devious, conniving or mean/ unscrupulous woman. What is the origin of this meaning? Did it also come from the Shakespeare? 109.144.210.114 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My old copy of Partridge has the meaning "A person: from ca. 1920. Always pejorative: nearly always preceded by nasty ('X is a nasty piece of work'); the reference is either to moral character or to physical appearance, esp. looks, the latter often with an ethical implication." Deor (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this - https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/05/a-piece-of-work.html - the OED has the pejorative sense as early as 1713. It looks as if it simply came to mean a person, which could be either good or bad depending on the context. The bad sense has come to dominate, so even without the addition of nasty the sense is still bad. Wymspen (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where this term is associated with women per se. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Google gives 38,700 hits for he's (a nasty piece of work) and only 26,600 for she's (a nasty piece of work). But I guess it rather depends on one's taste in literature? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' and " for non-quotes

I quote text using single quotes (as per general British standard). I am - however - unsure whether I should be using double quotes to show slang, sarcasm etc. I would automatically assume this is the case, as you need to demonstrate a contrast between a quote and something else, but someone said that double quotes are reserved for things which are 'definitely in the text'. -Sb2001 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In standard English you use one type of quotation mark no matter what the reason for using quotation marks is, reserving the other type only for quotations within quotations. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See "scare quotes". StuRat (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thank you, both.-Sb2001 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]