Language desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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 9

Essentially. When is it correct to use it?

In the War of the Pacific article we are currently trying to reach a compromise. The text in question (bolded) is below:

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, in a meeting with foreign representatives in Lima, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz essentially declared war by announcing Bolivia's state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

The question here is whether essentially is being used correctly, or if it's a pointless weasel word (in which case, if you could take a moment to propose a fix, that would be great). Thanks!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, there's repetition. Try "On March 14, in a meeting with foreign representatives in Lima, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's state of war with Chile" --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal is great. The problem is that another editor believes that the text should feature the wording "Bolivia declared war" in some form or another. He bases his position on what other text material uses. Similarly, I believe in using the wording "announced Bolivia's state of war" is correct.

I guess the "secondary question" here would be: Is this matter something which should be "debated" by texts (sources), or is it simply a matter of preference of language? All opinions are valid at this point (though please note that they may influence the final decision).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reading the paragraph again in full, I see that "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile", so that appears to be the declaration of war concern covered to any reasonable level of satisfaction. This being the case, I'm guessing that Peru knew by the 14th March that a war had been declared on the 1st March, and so the foreign minister would not have needed to announce that to the Peruvians. So now I'd truncate the last two sentences to "On March 14, in a meeting with foreign representatives in Lima, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis" ... assuming that that is what he did on that day. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the improvement. Just to confirm your proposal, you think that the phrase "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile" covers the declaration of war concern? Noting that the phrase "that same day" refers to February 27 (not March 1st), did you mean to state February 27 (when you wrote "I'm guessing that Peru knew by the 14th March that a war had been declared on the 1st March")? Thanks!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the capacity of an informal mediator in this dispute back at the talk page. There is a long history to this dispute (and new eyes are of course welcome at the talk page. Since I am the editor who asserted that "essentially" is a weasel word, could we get opinions on that specific question - without yet another thread on "did Bolivia declare war or didn't she?" Alex Harvey (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the other editor involved in the discussion in talk page and I agree with Alex: could we get opinions on that specific question - without yet another thread on "did Bolivia declare war or didn't she?". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of or opinions about these historical events, but speaking purely to the status of the word "essentially" from my perspective as a former professional textbooks editor, I would say that it is not necessarily weaseloid, and may be (perhaps over-)summarizing meaningful information.

To "make a declaration of war" requires that a person or body authorised to do so explicitly states in some form of words that they are declaring war; to "essentially declare war" implies that someone has said something else which, though not itself an explicit declaration of war, deliberately or inadvertently means that war de facto is being or has been declared (such as someone not themselves authorised to declare war stating that someone else who is already has, even if that statement was inaccurate). This difference, though the outcome is the same, may be of interest and importance and, whether or not by the use of the word "essentially," the exact nature of the statements and progression of events should be made clear. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.202 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on MarshalN20's last comment, yes, that was what I meant, but I got the date wrong. The third sentence is the one that tells us that war was declared. I see nothing wrong with the phrasing of that sentence. That being the case, Serapio Reyes Ortiz almost certainly did not "essentially declare war", since that declaration had alrady been made on February 27. WHat I suppoe he did, from parsing the paragraph, is to ask Peru to join in on his side. And so I suggest truncating the last two sentences to "On March 14, in a meeting with foreign representatives in Lima, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis". --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make my comment both here and on the talk page of the article. As I understand these events, it seems not quite right to say outright that "Bolivia declared war". While the Bolivian legislature had authorized a war declaration, it had not actually voted to declare war. Likewise, the Bolivian authorities do not seem to have made a formal declaration of war. Rather, their announcement that war had broken out was interpreted by others as a declaration of war. So, I think that Bolivia did not declare war directly or intentionally. Rather, its actions were interpreted to amount to a declaration of war. In this context, I don't think "essentially" is the best word. Essentially refers to essence, or the intrinsic and fundamental nature of a thing. The intrinsic or fundamental nature of Bolivia's action was not to declare war; rather, its essence was to inform the diplomatic community of the state of hostilities and to request the assistance of its ally. However, its effect was to create the impression that war had been declared. Therefore, I would replace "essentially" with "in effect". I see no problem with the rest of the text cited above, but I am also not opposed to any suggestions for its improvement. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tagishsimon and Marco polo, and IP 90.197.66.202. I sure do hope your comments help resolve this discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custom bespoke - Redundant?

I haven't encountered the word "bespoke" a lot in life. (for whatever reason) I just saw where a cake shop says that they make "custom bespoke cakes" for their customers. Is this redundant? Or is there some nuance of bespoke that makes this phrase not redundant? Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, curious. I've only ever encountered the word in relation to tailors and items of clothing, but I suppose it could have wider application. "Custom made cakes", or even "cakes made to order", would be a more usual way of advertising cakes made to order. If "bespoke" were preferred, though, it wouldn't be necessary to say "custom" as well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in OALD, CALD and M-W list the term "bespoke" as a synonym of "custom-made" in these contexts, with examples like "bespoke software" and "bespoke furniture". "Custom bespoke" looks like a pleonasm. Gabbe (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Goes to look up 'pleonasm'...* Dismas|^(talk) 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you both! Dismas|^(talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of that language is excessive, but understandable. A special service is being offered. It is not often that a buyer of a cake has the option of designing it too. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just mention that "bespoke" is a Britishism. It is virtually never used in the US. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was unfamiliar with it until I started watching Top Gear. Dismas|^(talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Britishism"? There's more to the world than just US and Britain. Bespoke software is used in Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are these words called?

What are these words called? Do they have a particular name of a certain style in prose?
Group 1) "which", "when", "since", "as", "after"
Group 2) "but", "nor", "not", "for", "therefore", "then", "this", "that"

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could group those words, but not the way you have grouped them. "But", "nor", "when", and "since" can be conjunctions, "not" and "then" can be adverbs, "for", "as", and "after" can be prepositiosn, "therefore" can be an adverb, "this" and "that" can be demonstrative adjectives/pronouns, "which" can be a relative pronoun...and it depends on the sentence, since most of these can be more than one part of speech. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Parts of speech and follow the links for particular parts of speech mentioned in the article. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent clues! Thank you.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought I smelled a quiz in that question. Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a quiz! Just curious for my own general knowledge.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]