Language desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Dialog doubt in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

Captain Marvel asks Shang Chi about Ten Rings:

Captain Marvel: How long did your dad have them before he gave them to you?
Shang Chi: About a thousand years.
Bruce Banner: Their thermoluminescence indicates they're older than that. By a lot.

What does "By a lot" mean? Rizosome (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a direct continuation of Banner's previous sentence. Banner is saying "Their thermoluminescence indicates they're a lot older ~~and~~ than that". JIP | Talk 10:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I made a typo. JIP | Talk 12:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the word "by" is used to indicate the difference between two quantities that are compared. For example, "The Maritime Jade Road is older than the Maritime Silk Road by more than two thousand years." (This sentence is copied from the article Philippine jade culture.) So Banner is saying that the thermoluminescence indicates that the Ten Rings are a lot older than a thousand years. --Lambiam 11:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got answer from this line: Banner is saying "Their thermoluminescence indicates they're a lot older ~~and~~ than that". Rizosome (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Bone up

Does anyone know the etymology of the idiomatic English phrase "to bone up on" something, meaning to study about it in depth? Many thanks for any suggestions. I've not heard it since I was in school, so I suspect it has dropped out of fashion now, at least in the UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary offers two theories.^[1] The first is that it comes from Bohn's Classical Library, which was used to cram for an exam. (I do not understand why the theory singles out Bohn's 93-volume Classical Library; there was also a 21-volume Historical Library, an 11-volume Philosophical Library and a 56-volume Scientific Library.) The other is that it alludes to the idiom knuckle down in the sense of focussing on a task to get the work done, in which case the bone is a knucklebone. --Lambiam 12:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. How intriguing. No mention at Henry George Bohn, of course. I wonder if it's just a British English idiom. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is familiar to this American.--Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "1880s student slang" at etymonline.com suggests it was something that emerged from, say, Eton or Harrow, where students had access to such resources? Or perhaps Oxbridge. I've always considered it more of a posh phrase. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says it is originally US, from mid 19th century (1830-1869). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, that's thrown a spanner in my Oxbridge works. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had always assumed that it referred to the final stage of polishing a pair of riding boots, which was to rub them vigorously with a smooth piece of bone - this article says a lamb's rib bone. You can still get deer polishing bones. I have failed to find anyone to support this hypothesis, but note that "brush up" or "polish up" (on something) has a similar meaning. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop press: Bones were once used to polish shoes, and some scholars have attempted to link such bones to the expression to bone up on a subject, to study it hard and thoroughly, especially for an exam. One would then “polish up” his knowledge.

The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins (p. 104)

However, the same source goes on to say that the Bohn theory is more likely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, Wiktionary:rub up "4. To revive one's knowledge of (something); to renew (a skill)." Alansplodge (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OED has bone, verb 4 intransitive. slang (originally U.S.). To apply oneself assiduously or determinedly to a task, esp. studying (frequently with down, away, etc.). Later also (chiefly in to bone up on): to study intensively or read up on a topic, typically in preparation for a test. Earliest quotation 1832 "H. L. Ellsworth Let. 17 Nov. in Washington Irving on Prairie (1937) 74 He was a poor scholar..with no disposition to bone down to study". Earliest for "bone up" 1887, described as a "West Point phrase". The earliest quotation for the boot-polishing is 1898. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bohn's Libraries began in 1846, 14 years after the Ellsworth quotation. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha, looks likes some at etymonline.com hasn't been taking their dietary supplements. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medical students start their courses by learning the Latin name of each of the thousands of bones in the human body. I would have thought it related to that. 2A00:23C5:3187:C200:488C:4E76:EC5B:3B39 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the textbook The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton, there are officially 206 bones in the adult human skeleton.^[2] It is not clear from the text whether paired bones (like the tibia sinistra and dextra) count separately in this total. --Lambiam 22:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text in your source refers to Table 1.1, which makes is clear that left and right versions of paired bones are counted separately in that number. --T*U (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When in tried to view that table yesterday, the Google told me off ("buy the book"), but it has since relented and now I can see it. So the number of bones first-year medical students have to learn the names of is well below one hundred. --Lambiam 10:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Assuming there are 20 'centre-line bones' (skull, mandible, vertebrae, pelvis), then there will be (206-20)/2 = 93 pairs with identical names, plus the 20 = 113 names in total. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 13:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually counted the names in that figure and tallied up a grand total of 60. There are many "fused elements" that did not have individual names. I wrote "below one hundred" out of an abundance of caution, hedging for the eventuality that I miscounted a name or two. --Lambiam 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I went to bone up on wikipedia.... "It is composed of around 270 bones at birth – this total decreases to around 206 bones by adulthood after some bones get fused together." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever come across individual names for the various ribs, just first, second, third, etc. rib, with "left" and "right". Also, I don't know of names for individual vertebrae (aside from the axis and atlas). They are numbered within named regions (cervical, thoracic, lumbar), with atlas and axis being the first and second cervical vertebrae. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To help with your count, there are 24 vertebrae and 12 pairs of ribs. --Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure one's call Rosie Boycott, Baroness Boycott. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if one refuses to buy her publications, is that a Boycott boycott?--Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, please. There's no need to give me a ribbing over that. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any source to support that theory? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there are nowhere near 1000 bones in the human body, I'd say no. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these medical students are just bone idle, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we may have very much underestimated the number of bones, especially ribs. Here is, as an example, RIB 2022. --T*U (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-ese

Is there some historical reason why demonyms ending in -ese don't have noun forms? They are all adjectives, and it's not "proper" to use them as nouns, despite the lack of any single word to do that job. The demonyms ending in -ish are also adjectives, but frequently have noun forms (a Turkish Turk, a Danish Dane, etc.), and I think (but I'm not sure) the French will happily say "un portugaise", etc., without feeling compelled to resort to "une personne portugaise". Recently, on or near this reference desk, I saw a French person declare "I am a French!" (because that in French, he is verily a French). In contrast, the British (a nominalized adjective) have adopted their own informal noun Brit, short for the unfashionable (why?) Briton, apparently not wanting to be "A British", or I suppose in plural, *Britishes. Why was there a need for that, and why haven't noun forms for the -ese demonyms emerged? Card Zero (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ObPersonal from an aged Brit: during the 3rd quarter of the 20th century, when I was growing up, the name "Briton" was rarely used except in the term "Ancient Briton(s)", the Celtic peoples who were invaded successively by the Romans, Anglo-Saxons etc. (aka English) and Danes (aka Vikings), whose descendents amalgamated to form the modern English people. It was widely understood that the least "mixed" descendents of the "ancient Britons" were the Welsh, Cornish and (for the more knowledgeable) a component of the Scots.

Consequently, the term "Briton" seemed inappropriate for the large majority of the inhabitants of Great Britain who were English rather than Welsh or Cornish, and was rarely used. It has (so I perceive) become more common as a term for modern inhabitants of Great Britain in the last couple of decades.

As for why some forms have not emerged, linguistics can usually observe what has happened, but often cannot explain why. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.120.67 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese (A native or inhabitant of Portugal; a person of Portuguese descent), Chinese (A native of China. [The plural Chineses was in regular use during 17th cent.: since it became obsolete Chinese has been singular and plural; in modern times a singular Chinee has arisen in vulgar use in U.S. (So sailors say Maltee, Portuguee.)]), etc are nouns according to the OED. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The relevant section of the article has a note saying that these nouns aren't "proper", and I intuitively agree with that, but if the OED hasn't caught on yet, I guess this is just a bit of usage which is currently in flux, which is why it doesn't seem rational. (The note is liberally decorated with ^{[citation needed]}). Card Zero (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an internal inconsistency: our article List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations states, without qualification, "Note: Demonyms are given in plural forms. Singular forms simply remove the final s or, in the case of -ese endings, are the same as the plural forms." --Lambiam 10:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the newspapers José Mourinho, peripatetic football manager, is never referred to as anything other than "the Portuguese". 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:8CF9:8857:ED42:5830 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was "The Special One". Mikenorton (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portagee (pronounced PORT-a-GEE, with a hard g). :D. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:990E:6194:BD59:277D (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman says it comes from Chinese Pidgin English. Chinaman (term) says:

the usage of such compound terms as Englishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] are sometimes cited as unobjectionable parallels

I don't remember Britishman, though. --Error (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:Britishman, although it says "now nonstandard". Shakespeare uses it in the "Fee-fi-fo-fum" verse in King Lear, Act III Scene IV (usually rendered in two words - "British man"); admittedly it refers to an Ancient Briton, rather than a modern Briton, but the political background was the Union of the Crowns. Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman doesn't come from Chinese Pidgin English; it might or might not have been first used by "Chinamen" themselves (the term for a Chinese person in Chinese does literally translate as "Chinaman", after all), but if it was, it was immediately picked up by Californians as their standard term for Chinese people, without any hint of "Chinglish" type mockery (which there was plenty of for other words, e.g. "ching chong" and like). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:990E:6194:BD59:277D (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]