Language desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

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.

September 16

At what point does a metaphor become an established additional meaning of a word?

We all know what a skeleton is - the bone system of a human or animal. By metaphorical use, the word 'skeleton' has come to also refer to the internal supporting framework of something that is not an organism or perhaps not even a physical object but an idea, or something operating on 'bare bones' resources, i.e. 'skeleton staff', or the 'skeleton' of a structure. I presume the first definition was the original meaning of this word and the secondary usage evolved through metaphor. So at what point does a metaphor become so established that it can be listed in a dictionary as an additional meaning of a word? I am relying on assumptions here, but I believe that these are probably fair assumptions to make.--Nomenclaturehedonism (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone can identify a specific "point" at which it happens. Eventually a word is used a lot in some sense (such as the second sense you mention for "skeleton") and then it's put in a dictionary. But there's no cut-and-try turning point when that suddenly happens (there's not a specific number or anything, we can't say "It's been used 500 times, now put it in the dictionary" or "It's only been used 473 times, we'll have to wait"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Etymonline's entry for 'skeleton', specifically, gives 1600 as the earliest usage of the word in the sense of 'bare outline', and 'skeleton crew' in 1778. Also, it also tells us that the original meaning was not 'bones', but 'dried up', and by extension 'mummified remains' - the meaning of 'bones' came later. It's just a case of language changing. As Rjanag says, no-one actually decides when a word has a new meaning (whether as a replacement for or as an addition to the old one(s)). It just happens. Sometimes it takes a long time and sometimes it doesn't. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: it depends on the lexicographer's feel that this is a "new meaning" or "only a metaphore". Lexicographers may have each their own methods for this, usually based on frequency of use in a corpus. --Lgriot (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, you're really talking about analogies, not metaphors. Metaphors (as a rule) extend meanings through association, whereas analogies lend meanings between otherwise unrelated objects or concepts. so, when we say that a vulture is a metaphor for death (because vultures eat the dead) all we've done is expand the sense of the word vulture; but when we say a man is like a vulture (analogy) we've loaned some of the attributes of vultures to a man, and in the process begun to create a new meaning for the word vulture as it applies to men (since we probably don't mean that that man is literally like a vulture). --Ludwigs2 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, the bare statement that 'X is like Y' would be a simile, not an analogy, which is a more extended logical comparative argument of the form 'just as X does A, so Y does B', though saying X is Y is indeed a metaphor. Thus "Man is a vulture" = metaphor; "A man is like a vulture" = simile; "Just as a man will eat a windfall apple, so a vulture will eat a dead cow" = (poor) analogy. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the correct analysis, and "vulture" has a long way to go before it "means" "death". I would suggest several hundred years of metaphor (not simile or analogy) would often be necessary before the word acquires its (former) metaphoric meaning, and often not even then. Dbfirs 11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese

Hey, sorry for two questions in one day (I think my roomate asked one too so that's three) but I've been curious about this for a while. My friend (native Chinese speaker) says that she has a lot of difficulty understanding non-native speakers because they don't speak with the right tones. I realise that people are different and some might be gifted with languages, some not so much, but is there a general age threshold range to start learning Chinese after which you can no longer produce the tones natively/speak with a noticeable accent? After enough experience/immersion in Chinese, would it be possible to lose this accent? Thanks. PS: I'm just curious, I'm not really interested in learning the "Latin of the East" as my history book calls it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "general age threshold" is called a critical period, and the issue of whether critical periods exist in second language acquisition is still a controversial one. Intuitively, it may be harder for people to acquire tones if they don't start learning until they're older, but it's certainly not impossible. There are many people who can pronounce Mandarin tones just fine even though they didn't start learning until after age 18 (I can say that because I'm one of them, but there are more famous ones too, such as Leehom Wang and Joseph Needham), although there are probably many many more people who can't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply, rʨanaɢ. If you don't mind me asking, because this is a little personal and you can choose not to if your not comfortable with it. Do native speakers say you speak with a noticeable accent? Do they ask you to repeat things because they didn't understand what you were saying (I mean in relation to your speaking, not what was being spoken)? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're usually shocked to hear someone white speak with tones at all. They tend to say "you have no accent", but then again Chinese people are notorious complimenters so you always have to take it with a grain of salt. I almost never have to repeat myself, though. But anyway, I bet many other learners of Chinese here can attest to similar experiences. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in China for 3 years, and made a reasonable effort to learn Mandarin in that time. My tones, simply put, are pretty awful. Why? I've come to realize that my ears just aren't cut out for the task. If you give me pinyin I can force myself to over-enunciate a tone for you, but when I speak with natives I simply can't pick up on the tones naturally unless they're trying to make a forceful point or something. So, with certain words where I've completely memorized the tone structure (and can mentally picture the pinyin) I can pretty much nail it, but with the majority of my vocabulary which I've picked up through daily life my tones are screwed up if present at all. People will patiently try to correct me and I can't hear any difference between what they say and what I repeat. In the beginning it was very frustrating for me until I realized that I just don't hear tones of any kind very well. (related note - I can't carry a tune to save my life) Lastly, I would speculate that someone who is a very good singer or other sort of musician would be able to pick-up accurate Chinese pronunciation much more easily than someone who has a tin ear. The Masked Booby (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think musical experience makes much difference. Mandarin uses contour tones, as opposed to register tones, which means that what distinguishes a tone isn't its absolute pitch (middle C or whatever) but its "shape", or the way it moves up and down during a word. That means you don't have to be able to pinpoint an exact pitch like a musician has to. Musical experience helps, of course, but it's not necessary; people can pick up tones without musical experience, and people can be good musicians but bad tone learners. There has been a ton of experimental research on connections between tone language experience and musical aptitude, and, while I certainly am not familiar with all of it, the impression I have of that literature is that most of the links that have been found (things like a higher proportion of musicians with absolute pitch who are also speakers of tone languages) are not super-impressive; the connection seems to be a weak one at best. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(For an illustration that this is still a hot research topic, check out p. 113 of this conference program—the conference is coming up in Nov. 2010). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing the earlier point: A lot of people learn Chinese tones (and Vietnamese tones and Thai tones...) well as an adult. The critical period hypothesis is primarily about first language, not second and third languages. I have found that some people really do struggle with the concept, though, so you will find a lot of people who are otherwise competent, but do not use tone consistently. Note that there is a *lot* of tone diversity in Chinese varieties. One is exposed to a lot of interesting varieties of Chinese as one travels around. Many are so distinct as to be unintelligible, but the difference between one city and the city one over will often be an accent difference and some different words. Part of that accent difference is tone, and speakers can adapt to people's different tone systems and understand them, with only a little difficulty. (OR, but it's academic OR) Steewi (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Adjectives

Why are some adjectives that suggest a certain time period capitalized, while others are not? Example: Ancient Philosophy vs ancient Greece. Thanks schyler (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difference between proper and common nouns. A proper noun names a more specific period (e.g., Hellenic period in architecture, Middle Ages, Renaissance), whereas a common noun is just a description and could be more vague (ancient Greece, etc.). One handy rule to help tell the difference is that a common noun is the sum of its parts ("ancient Greece" refers to Greece when it was ancient, for example), whereas a pronoun might not (the "Middle Ages" aren't really ages in the middle, unless you think abstractly; Classical Chinese is not Chinese that's classy).

In reality, of course, this distinction is more blurred than I make it out to be here. But this is a decent rule of thumb. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put more simply (maybe) sometimes the adjective is a true adjective (modifier to a noun) and so remains uncapitalized, but sometimes the adjective is really part of the name itself and thus usually is capitalized. In 'Alexander the Great' and 'Pliny the Elder', 'great' and 'elder' are capitalized because they are part of the standard designation for those persons, and not simply modifiers that point out that the first was excellent and the second was old. --Ludwigs2 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks a lot y'all. schyler (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Latin?

What does the phrase "In Nomine" mean?199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'In [the] name [of]...' --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[For other Latin phrases, you can refer to List of Latin phrases. Besides the basic answer provided by the first answerer, this phrase has been adopted as a musical title, "In Nomine".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Perhaps you want a larger phrase: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that means "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Rimush (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Trinitarian formula... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that this expression is a calque of a Semitic construction (Hebrew be-shem, Arabic bi-'sm), since the Semitic preposition bi means both "in, within" and "by". In Classical Latin in + ablative means only "in, within". The ancient translators of the Bible translated bi with one and the same preposition (in), even when it meant "by", and the frequent use led to this situation, where in the name does not seem so strange ("within the name")...--93.32.36.184 (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German word for the soft inner part of a bread loaf

It was mentioned tonight in a show on SBS, and I resolved to remember it - the best I have is something like kroft, kraft -- something like that. Can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with it (possibly because there's a different word for it in Austria), but the German Wikipedia suggests Krume: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krume_(Backware) . The word for breadcrumbs "up north" is Krümel, which is apparently a diminutive of Krume (I didn't know this until today) - down here in Austria we call them Brösel Rimush (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English we use 'crumb' for this. For example, the third definition here--Frumpo (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to come from a common root. Rimush (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krume! That's it! Well done, and thanks. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rap "izzle" language

Can someone explain to me that rap music izzle language? Does it have a name? Rules? Is it just a substitution language or does it have it's own words? Where does it come from? I never understood a word of it except that I knew it was often used in a sexual innuendo way, like (I might have this wrong) "shizzle my nizzle" or something like that is I guess "suck my dick" but I don't see any substitution in there if that's correct.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. can someone please remove the self-censorship with the two asterisks above? I can't because the edit filter thingamagig wouldn't let me save it in its uncensored form.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:-izzle. "Fo shizzle my nizzle" is "For sure, my [friend]" - the n-word being the n-word.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Thieves'_cant might be useful in general. The -izzle dates to the Harlem_renaissance. In addition to a suffix, iz / izzle can be used as an infix, also described here http://www.experiencefestival.com/-izzle_-_izz_infix_usage SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ham sandwich

This question may be too parochial for the desk, but I'll give it a lash anyway. Are the 'ham' parts of Kilmainham and Rathfarnham related to each other? I tried googling to no avail. Thanks, as always. Is mise Stanstaple (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic word origins are beyond my ken, but whatever the true origin of these two place names, since they are near Dublin in what was the English Pale, it's possible their anglicized versions were influenced by the common -ham suffix (as in Birmingham); see this article for the origin of many English place name endings. But someone with Celtic/Gaelic expertise really needs to answer this one. Textorus (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the two places say that the "ham" in both cases is a modified ending of a person's name, in one case St Maighnenn and in the other case somebody named Fearnán. So the only way the "ham"s could be related is if these two names are related, but I don't know enough about Irish personal names to say whether that is possible. Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd say it's because both places were probably originally founded as very small villages or hamlets. When I googled ham suffix this page was the very first hit.~~ Answered by Textorus, with more nuance than me. Whoops. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if they were English. But "Kil" and "Rath" are typically Irish, and mixed-source place names are unusual (not unknown, but generally need to be explained), so Old English "ham" is unlikely to be involved. And in fact Looie's answer makes it clear that both places must originally have had "-an" or "-en", presumably modified to "-am" and written "-ham" by English speakers. (Note to American readers: most British places ending in "-ham" are pronounced [-əm], with no 'h' and a reduced vowel.). --ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Tex & Colin esp. You actually answered the root of the question, which I hadn't properly formed in my head. I'd been wondering whether it was related to the English 'ham' suffix. Youse do good work :) Stanstaple (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time and (time) again

The expressions (A) "time and again" and (B) "time and time again" are well known and their meaning is clear. We normally process them as a whole idiom rather than as separate words. Try and make logical sense out of the words and you'll get nowhere fast. But they're still made up of separate words, and I'm curious about the function of 'time'.

Do A and B have any differences of nuance, or can they be safely interchanged? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the logical problem with "time and time again"? It seems perfectly sensical to me. Just think of 'time' in the same sense as 'two times' (i.e., two occasions). "Time and again" is less logical, though; I assume it'd just a clipped form of "time and time again". 173.66.149.81 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Interchange them to your heart's content, though the longer one ever so slightly emphasizes the repetitive quality of . . . whatever. But not enough difference to make a real difference, ya know? Textorus (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the logical issue is this. I agree we can think of 'time' as short for 'on two times' or 'on a certain number of times'. But it's never used that way outside of this idiom. I mean, if I wanted to express "I've previously explained this to you more than once", I wouldn't say "I've explained this to you time" (it has to be 'time and again'). Or, if someone wanted to know how often I'd done something or other, and I answered with "Time", they'd think I misheard the question. 'Time' just doesn't have that meaning, except in the idiom in question. It's far from uncommon for words to have a unique meaning within a certain fixed expression, so that's no problem. But to try to explain them using the apparent logical surface literal meaning of the component words would lead a non-native speaker very much down the garden path. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it similar to "over" then? You can explain it over and over again, but can you explain it over? I guess you can explain it over again. Again and again, I see questions asked here also being discussed at WordReference.com's language forum (though not that enlightening, in this case [1])---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of threads on "time and time again" as well as "time and again" in the foreign language fora. French, Italian, and Spanish. I haven't checked them out. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. "How many times have you told me about this?" "One time." "Two times." "Many times." "Lots of times." "Time after time." "Time and time again." It is by no means an isolated or fossilised meaning. The phrase itself is an idiomised (is that a word?) poetic phrase, and I do wonder if there is some original work that people are unwittingly quoting, but it isn't some special meaning of the word 'time'. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Thomas Boys in [2] Notes and Queries (Oxford University Press, 1857):

"Time and again" appears to have signified originally "once" and again," and thence to have acquired the meaning of "again and again." Grammatical or ungrammatical, the phrase has some countenance both in French, Latin, Scotch, and German.

"A time," in some parts of Scotland, is the act of once furrowing between two ploughings. If two furrowings intervene, it is "a double time;" if four, "a double double time"

In German, *once" is einmal (einmahl, "one time").

"A time," in the sense of "once," exactly corresponds to the French "une fois." With "time and again" compare also the French phrase "de fois à autre."

"Fois" is a slight modification of the Latin "vice." Like the Spanish "una vez" and the Porguguese "huma vez," the French "une fois" comes from the (not classical) Latin, "unâ vice." Indeed, our own "once," with its various antecedents in old English, claims the same origin, thus : - uná vice, un(â vi)ce, once.

---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "once" has a rather dull, straightforward Germanic pedigree. It's nothing more than the adverbial genitive of "one". Hence its cognates in Dutch ("eens") and German ("einst"). LANTZY ^TALK 05:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant sleuthing, Sluz. Sure sounds like the definitive answer to me. Textorus (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up question to Sluzzelin's post. It seems that numerous IE languages use a similar construct to express a n-time repetition: a number followed by an, um, word meaning "time(s)" (fois, vez, -mal). In my native Serbo-Croatian, the word is "put" or "puta", (Croatian dictionary, excellent Google translate). The type of that word is a bit indeterminate, but it tends to be undeclinable, and not useful on its own: you must say "one time", or "several times", but you cannot say just "time" (I suppose, in either of the languages above). The linked Croatian dictionary says it's an "adverbial particle", (and a "particle" usually means "none of the known word types").

Finally, the question: how come that the construct and usage are basically the same in all these languages, but the used words differ so wildly? No such user (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]