Language desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 27

"Coming from a good family"

When someone refers to another person as "coming from a good family", does the speaker mean that

the other person comes from a family of high social status?
the other person's parents raised him/her well?
the other person comes a good family (as opposed to a dysfunctional one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.166.230 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it depends on context, like in most English phrases. It can mean any of the three. schyler (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably most often used to mean the first one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the speaker may themselves not be entirely clear which they mean. It is common (at least in the UK) to mistake the first as automatically meaning the second and third. 86.162.69.141 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This mistake is common in the United States, too, but mainly among people who themselves have or aspire to high social status. In the United States, if this statement was made by a person from a lower middle class or blue-collar (UK: working-class) background, it usually would not suggest that the family had a high social status. It would be more likely to have one or both of the second two meanings. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Philippine English, it almost always means the first one, and using the phrase to connote the second or third meanings would virtually be unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there formal rules for Gibraltan language?

I've heard youth speaking the Gibraltan English/Spanish language but don't know if there are specific words that are generally expressed in English compared to Spanish? For example, they used mi amigo in place of my friend. I'm curious if anyone can offer more insight into this language in general. Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Llanito? The article itself has a few examples, such as bobi (policeman or "bobby"). -- the Great Gavini 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see code-switching... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ford and Lincoln

How many automobile brands contain the surname of a President of the United States? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will vary depending on whether you mean US-brand automobiles only or all brands worldwide. (With globalisation, differential market labelling and private imports the distinction may be blurred, depending on your criteria). You might try comparing the names listed in (or in lists linked from) the appropriate section(s) of the article List of car brands with those in the article List of US Presidents. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ford Motor Company was not named after President Ford. Rather, it was named after Henry Ford before the future president had even been born. Henry Ford was not related to the future president. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that President Ford was a King at birth. Rmhermen (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a king to a mere president - what a comedown. How could he live with the shame! :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This brings to mind Gerald Ford's famous statement upon his swearing-in as vice president: "I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Grant Tank - but not really a car and actually named after Ulysses S. Grant. Then there's Bush radios and Hoover erm... hoovers. Alansplodge (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, we don't call vacuum cleaners "hoovers" in America," even though Hoover is an American company. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added the link. You should though - then you get to "do the hoovering" and you could "hoover-up" things. It's a very useful word. Go on, surprise your friends. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How common are the mentioned surnames? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ford and Bush are common English surnames. Lincoln (after the City of Lincoln, Lincolnshire) is English too but less common. Grant is a Scottish clan. There seem to be plenty of Hoovers in the US and it is an Anglicized version of the German name "Huber"[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few presidential surnames have their own articles: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc, although some are more informative than others. LANTZY ^TALK 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double-duty word in headline

A headline on the front page of the New York Times today reads, "$750 Million Fine for Drug Maker of Tainted Goods." This sounds weird to me, because the word "maker" seems to be doing double duty (once in the phrase "drug maker" and once in the phrase "maker of tainted goods"). Is this actually an error? —Bkell (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds bad to me, too. The problem has to do with the deverbal noun "maker" having two objects (both "drug" and "tainted goods") when it should only have one (or have objects connected in a co-ordination structure, as in "maker of [drugs and tainted goods]"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the line, I actually stumbled on the "fine" which is also ambiguous. Perhaps they got fined, perhaps they're fine with receiving $750 million. Matt Deres (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great specimen of Headlinese. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has a very odd headline style that differs from almost every other American newspaper. Most newspapers require a verb in every news headline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the technical term for this is syntactic ambiguity. Googlemeister (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an antique joke about a guy who dumps his trash near a sign that says "Fine for Littering". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous letter

Is there a specific term for a paper, letter, writing, etc, that is made for the purpose of publicly

accusing any person of something wrong,
blaming any person on the same,
denouncing or impeaching any person for the same,
pillorying or citicising any person, or
revealing that any person has done something wrong,

etc, but the maker is not known (because he/she does not want to disclose his/her name in order to aviod being punished, attacked, dealt with, for example).

For instance, when the papers are posted up by someone in public places, saying a public officer has done something dishonestly.

Moreover, could you recommend me any articles on Wikipedia in connection with such "anonymous letter", if any?

182.52.101.74 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A public letter in general is an open letter, but I don't know of any term for an anonymous one specifically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person who writes such letters is known as a whistleblower. You might find Emile Zola and J'Accuse interesting. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of this is the letters of Junius. Our article doesn't call them anything other than "anonymous" though. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you're referring to, 182.52.101.74, but you may find Talking statues of Rome interesting. Deor (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also not quite what you're looking for: Round-robin, in the original sense, provided a means of obscuring the ringleaders behind protest letters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in 1950s-1980s China they were called "big character posters". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about origins of language

A question about myths about the origins of different languages - see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Universal_language (seems sensible to post a link to it here on the language page). Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Speakers

When a person is called an English speaker, which level of ability to speak English would you expect? In order to explain what I mean, I'll use the definitions of different abilities in Wikipedia:Babel. Would you call a person an English speaker when he or she has only basic ability (xx-1)? Or would you think that that would be adequate only if he or she has at least intermediate ability (xx-2)? Or even only if he or she has at least advanced knowledge of English (xx-3)?

How would you call a person who speaks English but whose mother tongue is different? A non-native English speaker? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"English speaker" to me would definitely be only speakers at a native or near-native level. Calling en-3 an "English speaker" would even be a stretch. I list myself as es-3, but I wouldn't call myself a "Spanish speaker" until I'm nearly fluent in the language. And yes, "non-native English speaker" or "EFL speaker" would be my preferred term for, well, non-native speakers. Lexicografía (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An "English speaker" is, to me, different than an ability to understand English. It is an ability to speak English. I work with non-native speakers most of the time. Many of them understand English very well, but cannot speak English. Something as simple as "Hello" can become "Hekelalow" (the way a Nigerian doctor I work with pronounces it). It is hard enough for me, a native English speaker, to understand them. You can imagine the issues that arise when a research meeting includes a Nigerian, an Israeli, and a Chinese doctor, all trying to communicate is poorly pronounced English. -- kainaw ™ 12:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lexicografía and kainaw^™.

@ kainaw^™: Whenever I see an “English spoken” sign at a shop’s door, I expect that there they speak and understand English. Often it’s more important for me that they understand me.

I can imagine how terrible the pronunciation of non-native speakers may be. Once I listened to two speakers, one from India and one from Bangladesh. When I listened to the speaker from Bangadesh, I found it quite easy to understand her, just as easy as listening to BBC. But when the Indian began her speech, I soon got up in order to fetch the written text. I don’t know whether the difference was due to origin or due to education.

When I lived in France for some months, I used to address people in French. When people noticed that I was a foreigner, sometimes they answered in English. Of course they meant well, but usually it was not helpful, as I could understand properly pronounced French much better than poorly pronounced English. Sometimes they insisted on speaking English even when their English vocabulary was a good deal poorer than my French one. I don’t know why some people fail to recognize other peoples’ abilities in language. In the end I got used to denying that I spoke any English at all.

If you sometimes listened to Germans speaking English, I’d like to know your impressions. Did they pronounce English in a way that it was easy to understand them? And if they speak with a considerable accent, how does that sound to you? Charming? Horrible? Or just funny? -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]