Language desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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 9

Words with the -ine ending that describe things like specific animals

Serpentine ==> snake
Ursine ==> bear
Feline ==> cat
Canine ==> dog
Bovine ==> cow
Equine ==> horse
Swine ==> pig

Why are there terms for these animals but not human? Is there a word that means of or relating to humans? What about a bug (worms, soft-bodied mollusks, hard-shelled arthropods)? What about fish? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is hominine (thouth it refers to all Homininae, not just humans) and also piscine. (And of course swine is more of a coincidence here; the word that fits your pattern is porcine). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The etymology of the suffix is here at etymonline, you can read it yourself. As to "why not", the answer is that language is rarely perfectly consistent, especially as some morphemes are no longer productive. If -ine is not used to create new words in a logical way, it isn't a productive morpheme. This is common with morphemes which are connected to loanwords (like Latin roots noted above). --Jayron 32 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also asinine, and juvenile (the ell in -ile is a dissimilation from juvenine to avoid two enns in a row. Swine is of course very appropriate, and not actually a coincidence, it was just formed earlier than the rest. Sus and sow are cognates, and -ino- is a PIE suffix.[1] Of course there is also Orcine, for "troll". μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pretty full list. [2] is worth reading too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Swine" doesn't belong in the list, as its trailing "-ine" is a coincidence. The right one to use there is "porcine". That one and the others are all generally adjectives about their subjects. Another one is "ovine", which means "pertaining to sheep". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you repeat a falsehood, I gave the EO link above. Swine is the Germanic version of suine, the only difference is that swine comes from su-ino- through Germanic, while suine comes from latine. The only really relevant terms in this list are, again, juvenile and asinine, as well as perhaps Ohine, the Latin word for janitor at Ohio State. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read it. But in any case, "swine" isn't really used the same way as the others nowadays; it's more typically a noun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? I tried looking up "orcine" and "ohine" in my browser and got no such definitions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was two subtle insults against you. Orc being "a big ugly subhumanoid monster" and troll being a different kind of the same, also troll as in internet troll, someone who disrupts internet communities by pretending to be sincere but really isn't. Ohio State janitor, because your IP addresses generally geolocate to the Columbus, Ohio area which is the location of Ohio State University, I assume janitor because she's trying to imply you aren't bright enough to hold a different job. Jokes usually are less interesting when they have to be explained. --Jayron 32 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comment on Jayron32's response. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orc seems reasonable. But, I don't think you're using the word "troll" correctly. I have looked up the word "troll" online and found this definition: "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Nowhere in the definition does it say that the troll is "insincere". In fact, the definition of troll says that the troll has the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. If you want to say that a person is insincere, then just use "insincere person". If you use a term that does not even give a hint of insincerity, then that goes against the point of effective communication. Also, the assumption that someone who works as a janitor isn't bright enough to hold a different job is disputable. In reality, working as a janitor is actually better than working as an agricultural laborer who gets paid intermittently and under-the-table (see the film Living on One Dollar), which is better than living completely outside of society without any survival skills. Though, anyone who lives outside of society probably does not have access to the Internet or knowledge of written language, because both the Internet and written language are part of society. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to references, EO calls swine a noun and bovine an adjective.[3][4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of these words, and some of them are human. They come from the Latin suffix -īnus:

leonine, bovine, lupine, elephantine, canine, alpine, hircine, anatine, passerine, thylacine, albine, aretine, libertine, asinine, orcine, pantherine, pulvine, bubuline, beluine, agrigentine, caelestine, amitine, colline, divine, aquiline, vervecine, feline, laurine, pavonine, anserine, platanine, annotine, feminine, Arretine, perendine, caprine, byzantine, amygdaline, equine, augustine, agnine, argentine, cupressine, andine, acanthine, philippine, vulpine, colubrine, vaccine, agrippine, viverrine, caballine, corvine, olorine, thylacine, vitelline, palatine, sanguine, vulturine, iecorine, jecorine, Erasmine, Clementine, laricine, vicentine, viperine, Constantine, veline, abacine, medicine, rubine, peregrine. —Stephen (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Feminine and Masculine... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and a fart of zebras - X201 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine 68.37.188.49 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised some of those didn't show up in my "pretty full list" linked above. Most did, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, as all too often, is right.

These words almost all have both adjectival and nominal usages; "I saw four different kinds of bovine and three different canines on my Afro-Indian safari." In PIE, there really is no difference between adjectives and nouns, and this is reflected in phrases like Spanish el blanco where blanco means an entity, not an attribute or the quality itself.

English is an outlier, requiring a distinction with "the white one", where the "adj." one indicates nominality--otherwise we say "whiteness".

Finally, *-inos is a PIE suffix, with -inus simply being its Latin reflex. But it occurs across the PIE family, and many of the words listed above are actually Greek, w ith 'ινος' glossed in Latin as -inus. Russian even has a construction with -in- where one can form a possessive Sasha > Sashina with names ending in -a where "Sashina" means Sasha's, even though this is more derivational than a true genitive. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlike a Charles having a "Caroline" period named after him. In Russian, Sasha can refer to a male (Alexander) or a woman (Alexandra), and the adjective Sashin, -ina, -ino is declined exactly like any other adjective of that form. Russian adjectives agree with their referent (Sashin stol, Sasha's table; Sashina kniga, Sasha's book; Sashino pero, Sasha's feather), not with the gender of the Sasha in question. Otoh, adjectives and pronouns that refer to Sasha must agree in gender et al; hence moy Sasha, my Sasha (m.), but moya Sasha, my Sasha (f.). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack. (I did pick Sasha as masculine, after my nephew, and was indeed thinking "Sashina kniga".) I only had one semester of Pomoskowsky, and about a total of 6 years of ponaszomu, with moya baba's tutoring in Pomoskowsky as she had been taught before the schism when she was a grade-schooler. (Ganz verrueckt, nicht?) The only place I came across the -in- affix was in Pomoskowsky in my one semester of Pomoskowsky at University. (I tried auditing it again when I was older, but they didn't even use cursive at that point.) μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also ursine, serpentine 68.37.188.49 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

word for...

is there a word for "able to easily confuse"?68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "liable to be confused about things", or "likely to cause confusion"? AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't write "able to get easily confused", so I assume they meant "likely to cause confusion". The word they are looking for is probably "confusing", often used also for what they meant... HOTmag (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To User:AnonMoos and User:HOTmag: So I would say "i am easily confused" if i am liable to be confused, but "it is confusing" if it usually causes confusion?68.151.25.115 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Loraof (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Confusible' is a perfectly cromulent word. 'Ambiguous' and 'ambivalent' have similar meanings but are usually taken to imply confusion between two things, rather than three or more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous normally refers to a statement that can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambivalent refers to a person who has mixed feelings about something. I wouldn't say they have similar meanings. CodeTalker (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are, as your "normally" implies, the most common applications of those words, but they can be correctly used in more general situations. From the OED:

Ambiguous I. Objectively. 1. Doubtful, questionable; indistinct, obscure, not clearly defined. 2. Of words and other significant indications: Admitting of more than one interpretation, or explanation; of double meaning, or of several possible meanings: equivocal. (The commonest use.) 3. Of doubtful position or classification, as partaking of two characters or being on the boundary line between. II. Subjectively. 4. Of persons, Wavering or uncertain as to course or conduct: hesitating, doubtful. Obs. 5. Of things: Wavering or uncertain in direction or tendancy: of doubtful or uncertain issue. 6. Hence, Insecure in its indications: not to be relied upon. 7. Of persons, oracles, etc: Using words of doubtful or double meaning.

I won't bother to repeat the exercise with Ambivalent. We seem to interpret the word "similar" differently, you more strictly than I. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are susceptible to deliberate confusion, then you are gullible. If you are practiced at deliberately confusing others, you are a con-man. -Arch dude (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Gullible is not in the dictionary--look it up! -Arch dude (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're really good at both, then you're President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
- A con-man doesn't want to create confusion. He wants to create an erroneous certainty. - Nunh-huh 00:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  - Can't women be conpersons?68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What difference, at this point, does it make? μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, just as a point of con-parison... --76.71.6.254 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at "obfuscate" and related words. Wymspen (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]