Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 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.

November 30

U Thant

Given that the MLCTS version of his name is u:san and the IPA of the Burmese pronunciation of his name was Burmese pronunciation: [ʔú θa̰ɴ], why is there a "t" on the end of his name in the Latin alphabet, and thus why do we pronounce his name /ˌuː ˈθɑːnt/? Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In non-scientific transliteration of Burmese, syllable with creaky tone that end in a nasal are often transcribed as ending in nt because creaky-tone syllables are shorter than high- and low-tone syllables and end with slight glottalization. A more narrow phonetic transcription of /θa̰ɴ/ would be [θã̰ˀ]. Adding a t in the transcription encourages English speakers to cut the syllable short and glottalize it a bit, allowing it to come closer to the Burmese pronunciation. It works the other way round, too: English syllables that end in /nt/ in English are usually rendered into Burmese with a creaky tone and final nasal, e.g. the Burmese word for pint is /pa̰ɪɴ/, while pine is /pàɪɴ/ with low tone. Angr (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the "nt" bit in Burmese is very close to the way that syllable would be pronounced in French. English is not the only language which uses the Latin alphabet, and if I were pronouncing the "Thant" name in French, I'd get that last sound almost correct. --Jayron32 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English isn't the only language which uses the Latin alphabet, but it's the Latin-alphabet-using language with which Burmese speakers were in longest and closest contact. And in French, it wouldn't matter whether you transliterated it thant or than; the two transliterations would suggest the exact same pronunciation. In English, on the other hand, you can use than to transliterate /θáɴ/ and /θàɴ/ (both of which are much longer in duration and have no glottalization) and thant to transliterate /θa̰ɴ/ (which is shorter in duration and has glottalization). Angr (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She had a good innings

My friend rang me last weekend to tell me his 94-year old mother had died. He said what a lot of people say about recently departed loved ones who reached a substantial age: "Well, she had a good innings".

I got to thinking about this expression. It's redlinked at wiktionary. I feel certain it's a cricketing analogy, mainly because it's always innings the way I hear it, and not the baseball word inning. Do Americans use this expression, and do they singularise it to inning? If not, what would be an equivalent expression in countries that do not play much cricket? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine an American saying of a woman who died at 94, "She had a good inning" (or "innings", for that matter). I think we would just say "She had a good life". No sports metaphor occurs to me at all. Angr (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it either (I'm not American but we don't play cricket in Canada either). We could say "had a good run" (or a "long run"), but I don't know if that's actually a sports metaphor. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Innings, the literal baseball equivalent is At bat, but I've never heard the phrase "had a good at bat" used to describe someone's life. It stands to reason, given that a "good at bat" is not defined by the length of stay at the plate, whereas staying at the crease for a long time is part of a good innnings.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that for non-cricket followers this expression would go straight through to the keeper? HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a common phrase in England (and Australia^{[citation needed]}) - [1]. Cricket was the first organised and well reported sport in England, much more widely understood, popular and central in English social life 100+ years ago than it is today. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure HiLo48 can verify it's an expression that's known to all Australians. I can only assume it's known wherever cricket is a national sport, but that awaits confirmation. Now we have to track down its first use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's one of dozens of wonderful metaphors our language has taken from cricket. There's a goodly collection here. HiLo48 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest use of this particular sense that the OED records is from 1870: "She's had remarkably good innings, and persons can't be expected to live for ever" (Mary Bridgman, Robert Lynne). Note the plural rather than singular use of innings in this British novel, where the singular "a remarkably good innings" might be expected. The earlier metaphorical uses cited refer to a particular "turn" or opportunity, as in The Pickwick Papers: "It's my innings now, gov'rnor, and as soon as I catches hold o' this here Trotter, I'll have a good 'un." Deor (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the plural in the 1870 source is remarkable. If you look at the etymological explanation in the innings article ("a gathering in"), it appears to be basically a Germanic word for collection(s), which would of course have been "in-ing" at the start, formed from in as if it were a verb. I think it would make sense to say that an innings consists of several collections (or collection phases) distinguished by the different batsmen. Hence innings in the plural, which then gradually became a singular in the UK but remained a plural in some of the colonies. Hans Adler 13:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, this. I'd like to know if it's used in India or Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball an "inning" typically only lasts for a few minutes, so it would not be a very natural metaphor for a full lifetime. A cricket innings, as I understand it, typically last for a lot longer. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The longer the better, just like lifetimes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Hanif Mohammad of Pakistan batted for 970 minutes against the West Indies in Bridgetown in 1957-58. THAT was a good innings.

Of course, in actual cricket it's not so much the length of time you stay in but the number of runs you get while your'e there that matters. A quick scoring batsman can achieve the same results in half the time as a slow scorer. In life, though, someone who achieved great things in a remarkably short life would never be said to have had "a good innings". The expression applies only to people who reach an advanced age, regardless of their achievements or lack thereof. In some cases, just about the only thing that can said of a non-descript non-achiever of great age is that they had a good innings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time you stay at the crease can matter an awful lot, if you're playing for a draw. Perhaps you remember Defiant England cling on for draw? Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. Staying in at all costs, even at the cost of getting no runs at all, is sometimes crucial. But typically, it's runs that count. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case Atherton's Jo'burg knock satisfies both criteria. Ericoides (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers might also be relevant - a long life is around 80-100 years, which would be considered a good score for a cricketer, while a baseball player's score is more likely to be single digits. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in life, 97, 98, and 99 are considered a good innings while in cricket these scores are often a disappointment, such is the importance of a century. Ericoides (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The batsman may indeed be disappointed to be dismissed in the "nervous 90s", and it's possible that the batsman could be criticised for slow scoring or a poor dismissal, but objectively and in the match context, scoring say 90+ will still nearly always be "a good innings". Geoffrey Boycott did once get dropped by England for making a large score too slowly for the needs of the team, but that must have been 30 years ago and it sticks in the mind for being unusual. --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confirm that I've not once heard this phrase in the U.S. Wnt (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Cricket played in Canada?

Did Canadians play similar games to Cricket but fail to codify it? Did they accept codified cricket in limited circumstances, but fail to generalise it? Why isn't Canada a great test cricketing nation? Why is my vision of Canadian cricket equivalent to my vision of United States of American cricket? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, why aren't Malaysia and Singapore real forces in international cricket? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Cricket in Canada, which I actually might as well not even link to, as it's not particularly informative. It used to be more popular, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, at least in Upper Canada/Ontario where there was a larger British population. I happened to be reading the sports sections of early twentieth century Canadian newspapers a few weeks ago, for an entirely different purpose, but I noticed that they did report on cricket games in Canada (and abroad). I wonder if it had anything to do with Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond, who was governor of Canada and a cricketeer in the early nineteenth century. But baseball has been popular in Canada since the 19th century as well - see the slightly more informative Baseball in Canada. There was a Canadian form of baseball that was a mix between American baseball and cricket, but the American form was adopted in Canada fairly early. Apparently it was also in Canada that a modification of rugby became Canadian/American football in the nineteenth century. I guess we just like to make up our own rules! In my experience, the only people who play cricket in Canada today are southeast Asian and Caribbean immigrants. Everyone else plays hockey, baseball, soccer, and (Canadian/American) football. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the website of Cricket Canada; "Formerly named the Canadian Cricket Association (Established 1892)". They seem to be doing they're best: "In 2009, over 20,000 children throughout the country played cricket in both school and community based development programs.". We do have an article on Cricket Canada. It says; "Cricket was once the most popular sport in Canada until the early 20th Century before it was overtaken by hockey. Cricket was so popular it was declared the national sport by John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada. Cricket, today, is a popular minority sport in Canada, although it is growing. Cricket is the fastest growing sport in Canada. Canada has well over 40,000 cricketers across Canada." Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really give you the "why" you're looking for, but international cricket is divided into the first-class nations (England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and possibly Zimbabwe), and the Associate nations (which is basically everyone else). The International Cricket Council is the governing body. I suspect the answer is more to do with the history of cricket rather than anything intrinsic to the nations you mention. However, both Malaysia and Singapore aren't exactly populous countries, and with cricket, the more population a country has, the more likely that country is to be successful. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia has a larger population than Australia, so that argument doesn't really work.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we missing a fairly obvious element here – the weather? Cricket needs sunshine and dry wickets. I would have thought the Canadian climate would be a factor. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sunshine and dry wickets" being a well known feature of England, of course..... ??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to insert a caveat along those lines, actually. But in the end I couldn't be bothered. England has a temperate climate with just about enough sun and absence of rain in the summer months to enable a full season's cricket to be played. I'm no expert on the climate of Canada, but I would have thought there was too much snow and ice there all year round. --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really, and other summer sports like baseball, soccer, and football are popular. It's not climate, as much as geography and culture (being close to and influenced by the US). (Oops, as Marco has already explained below.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Average max temp in July: Toronto 25C, London 22C. Average rainfall in July: Toronto 62mm[2] London 57mm[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to some Singaporeans I've been talking to, cricket in Singapore has always been dominated by the direct British influence; for example, the coaches (and teachers at schools that took charge of cricket) were often British. This gives a facade without cricket really catching on among the populace. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this thread be at WP:RD/E? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly even Humanities or Miscellaneous. Curious how a cricket question ended up here. -- the Great Gavini 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment : Sports, popular culture........ Because User:Fifelfoo started it, probably following the previous thread, and no-one has moved it..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think climate is really an issue in Canada. The regions where most Canadians live do not have snow and ice year round. These regions have mostly mild and pleasant weather from late May through September. Probably a bigger issue is cultural differences from other Commonwealth countries. Since the late 19th century, Canada has had neither a substantial body of English troops and colonial administrators, who were instrumental in spreading cricket in Asia and Africa, nor, relative to the population, a large influx of migrants from England. (More so from Ireland and Scotland, where cricket is less popular, or from continental Europe, where it was almost unknown.) Meanwhile, baseball, a similar sport, was indigenous to Canada, and radio and TV broadcasts from the United States (within range of Canada's largest cities) would have boosted baseball's popularity and done nothing for cricket. As Adam Bishop says, cricket's recent revival in Canada is largely due to recent immigration from Commonwealth countries in Asia and the Caribbean. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't "why is cricket unpopular in Malaysia?" but why is cricket so popular in the Indian subcontinent. Outside there (and the West Indies where cricket is fading in popularity), cricket is largely confined to the British and their descendents. Other more populous British colonies like Nigeria and Tanzania play cricket a bit but prefer other sports and aren't leading forces in the game. Malaysia may seem close to India but it has a very different culture both from India and from the UK. Canada, as already mentioned, is subject to vast influences from its south, which is also why they tend to speak American English rather than British, and have a few other American traits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo -- as a practical matter, cricket and baseball seem to occupy somewhat the same sporting niche, so that countries that enthusiastically embrace baseball don't usually seem to be cricket powerhouses... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is veering even further off-topic, but my impression has been that most of the West Indies are split between great interest and talent in baseball (supplying many recruits every year to U.S. Major League Baseball, especially from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Cuba) and great interest and talent in cricket (I remember the astonishment on The Times [of London]'s sports page twenty-odd years ago when The Ashes (England) actually defeated the West Indies!) Obviously this has much to do with differences between British-colonised islands and those dominated or occupied by the U.S. after the departure of Spain, Denmark, France or other Continental powers. I have no idea if the Virgin Islands' athletic interest is split between the U.S. and U.K. halves, nor what the sporting preferences are in current and recent French or Dutch possessions.

Since such a large proportion of the world over many races, cultures and continents (India, Japan, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Taiwan, Zimbabwe) seems divided between baseball fanatics and cricket fanatics, I've often thought that the two sports should unite to gain representation in future summer Olympics. Men's baseball and women's softball were represented for a few Olympic Games (1992-2008, most won by non-U.S. teams), but they've since been demoted to secondary status and will not be played in the 2012 or 2016 Games. Cricket, now followed by a billion people, was scheduled for the 1896, 1900 and 1904 Games, but only played in 1900, although more as part of the 1900 World's Fair (Exposition Universelle) than of the concurrent Paris Olympics. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ashes" is a biennial competition between England and Australia - not another name for the England cricket team. But you're right, the West Indies cricket team is a side made up of Commonwealth nations in the region, including Guyana which is on the mainland of South America. "The Windies" used to regularly beat England at cricket, much to the delight of the UK's large Carribbean community. They do indeed play cricket in the British Virgin Islands and apparently the US Virgin Islands too - see Leeward Islands cricket team. Alansplodge (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Since such a large proportion of the world over many races, cultures and continents... seems divided between baseball fanatics and cricket fanatics, I've often thought that the two sports should unite..." LOL. The two sports may once have had a common origin, but they are now radically far distant from each other in rules, styles and procedures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that cricket and baseball should become a single sport, just that (since they have very few turf wars) they might unite in asking/lobbying the IOC to admit both sports (or counting softball, all three) as separate, individual events. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly see cricket being played here in Surrey, always by Indian guys mind you. So it's not unheard of. As for why we don't play it much, I think climate probably has something to do with it. We're more into hockey, don'tcha know. Vranak (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you mean Surrey not Surrey ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hush now team my baby's a sleepin'

Maybe got a dream worth a keepin'

Just cut down the steam till you're creepin' at a slow clip clop

In that shiny little Surrey with the fringe on the top

"Surry down to a Stoned Soul Picnic" —— Shakescene (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Playing The Race Card" equivalents?

On Race card, it is stated that "Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either racist or (more frequently) anti-racist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of racism against oneself." What happens if a person is falsely accused of sexism or homophobia? Are there linguistic equivalents to the race card but applies to sex and sexual orientation?

Something that would mean the following: "Blah blah is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either sexist or (more frequently) anti-feminist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of sexism against oneself," OR "Blah blah is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either homophobic or (more frequently) anti-gay attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of homophobia against oneself."

For example, suppose a young male student (who happens to be gay) likes to play video games and ignores doing his homework assignments. His grade drops sufficiently, and he fails the class. He cares less about his grades, because he is so obsessed with video games and those things cause his downfall, not his gayness. But he accuses the teacher of "homophobia". What is the terminology for this kind of situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.190.84 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is this solely an English expression? Are there foreign equivalents that mean roughly the same thing? 164.107.190.84 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "playing the race card" is itself a series of words of questionable significance. But when calling someone "homophobic" I think one is raising the same specter of "false accusation" unless substantiation is included. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the gender card, playing the homophobia card. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In German we don't say "the race card" specifically, we use the more general term "die Opferkarte spielen" (literally "playing the victim card"). This can encompass race/gender/ sexual orientation/any other issues - is "playing the victim card" idiomatic in English? I always assumed it was, but seeing your question I'm not so sure anymore -- Ferkelparade π 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the victim. We do not have the equivalent of "race card" in our languages, but we do have the more generalized equivalent nagpakamartyr. Derived from English and roughly translated as "to act as if you were martyred", used in situations where someone deliberately adopts the position of the downtrodden in the hope of gaining sympathy.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "playing the victim" is quite the same, as it fails to convey that the person is accusing somebody of attacking them for a class to which they belong. I concur with "playing the X card", where X is racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other class which is traditionally discriminated against. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction to be made between playing a role (like an actor, e.g. as a victim) and playing a card (i.e. making a move in a game such as poker). The latter is (perceived as) a deliberate decision.

Also, I think the OP's examples are muddled. I too understand "playing the race card" as "exploitation of either racist or (more frequently) anti-racist attitudes to gain a personal advantage". The parallels you propose, "exploitation of either sexist or (more frequently) anti-feminist attitudes" and "exploitation of either homophobic or (more frequently) anti-gay attitudes" should surely be reversed? The opposite of racist is anti-racist. The opposite of sexist is not anti-feminist but feminist. The opposite of homophobic is .. I'm not sure there is one word in common use, but for the sake of the argument, homopositive. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since these terms are based in discrimination, why not "playing the discrimination card"? 85.151.166.212 (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of word blackleg

What is the origin of blackleg, the alternative word for a scab during a labour strike? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The origin is somewhat obscure, but the derivation is probably Scottish, according to the OED. Originally "black nob" from before 1838 (nob in the sense of knobstick, but possibly associated with "nob" in the much older and still current dialectal sense of a person of some wealth or social distinction, possibly a shortening of "noble"), with the single word "blacknob" first appearing in print in The Scotsman in 1834 (" All the men employed by the iron companies were on strike, with the exception of six ‘blacknobs’."). The word then became "blackneb" and seems to have been corrupted to "blackleg" by 1844, possibly by amalgamation with the older word "blackleg" meaning a swindler. Whether the word has any direct connection with the disease in cattle or plants is anyone's guess. Dbfirs 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even heard the word before, but based on what you say one might speculate that a black nob was one who was on the side of the nobs, but whose skin colour (dark from sun and dirt) showed that he was not one of them. Hans Adler 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Steeleye Span devotee then?[4] Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed black trousers came into it somewhere. Could nob be dialect for a cap?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well "neb" is dialect for the peak of a cap, and "nob" is slang for "head", but exactly how "blackleg" came to mean "scab, strike-breaker" is not clear. Dbfirs 22:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but the "black" might come from the custom of putting soot on your face as a disguise, a tradition still kept by mummers and molly dancers.[5] In the Rebecca Riots of the 1840s; "not all (male) members of the mob would wear women's clothes, those that did, often in white gowns, would also blacken their faces or otherwise wear masks." Or it could have been just an insult, like "blackguard". Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Kai Lung books has a ridiculous yet entertaining explanation purporting to trace the origin of the word to ancient China... AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Seriously, though, could the etymology be idea that the blacknob/blackleg gets dirty at work and is thus recognisable? The lyrics of the folksong The Blackleg Miner seem to support this. In the case of a coal miner both head (nob) and legs get seriously black. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The origin for "blackleg" as a strike-breaker is surely a direct derivation from the old usage of the word to mean a swindler. To union members, someone who worked for an employer whose employees were on strike was seen as swindling them out of their wages. The question is rather why the term "blackleg" was used to mean a swindler. This site claims that it derives from "ancient antipathy to the rook or crow because of its ravenousness and its feeding off cornfields. 'Rook' was initially a term of abuse or disapproval and in the 16th century came to mean a cheat, anyone who took advantage of others or lived on his wits. As the rook is black and has black legs, swindlers/rooks became known as blacklegs; it was then natural to use the same term for strike-breakers, who were believed to be cheating their fellows." The word "rook" itself can mean to cheat (Wikt:rook), and the bird known as the rook has black legs. "Blackleg" could well have been a dialect word for the bird. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might well have been the case for the original word meaning swindler, but the OED thinks it can trace a separate Scottish origin for the strikebreaker sense. I expect the similar meanings quickly became confused. Eric Partridge suggests (quoting Parsons in 1771) that the original swindler sense might have come from the black legs of the game cock because it was originally a gambling term. Dbfirs 20:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names like "Frasier" and "Luthor"

Luther is not uncommon as a given name or surname, and there are prominent historical figures who bore it - Martin Luther and Martin Luther King spring immediately to mind. As far as I know, all examples in the real world spell it -er. The only person who spells it -or is Superman's arch-enemy Lex Luthor, who is obviously fictional. Yet the internet is crawling with references to Martin Luthor and Martin Luthor King, not to mention the Idris Elba-starring TV series Luthor and Bryan Talbot's graphic novel The Adventures of Luthor Arkwright. Similar is the perfectly normal name Fraser, which nobody used to have a problem with, but one successful sitcom later and everyone who bears it has to put up with it being misspelled "Frasier".

Is there a term for this sort of thing, where one prominent use of an unusual word or name overrides many examples of a more usual word or name? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ignorant or accidental substitution of one word with a similar-sounding but wrong alternative is called a malaproprism. That really applies to wholly different words, though, not cultural transmigrations of spelling. I'm not aware whether there's a specific name for the phenomenon you describe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names often change spellings for trendy reasons. Sometimes a mother will intentionally choose a common name and give her kid a strange spelling of it; other times a name with an established spelling will become changed, maybe because the old spelling is hard for people. Consider the name Schuyler, a Dutch name which has become spelled Skylar and Skyler much more commonly now among English speakers. The old English name St John can sometimes be found as the name Sinjin (c.f. Sinjin Smith). I don't know that the phenomenon has a name, nor that it necessarily represents anything. --Jayron32 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many poor little Britneys are out there now, given their names by mothers who have never even heard of Brittany but have sure heard of Britney Something-or-other. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how many "Danual"s will read the Bible or E. L. Doctorow? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]