Language desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3

What happened to the noun for "despise"?

If you hate something, you can feel hatred towards it. If you love something, you can feel love for it. If you're fond, you'll display fondness. The verbs have a corresponding noun. However if you despise something, there seems to be no corresponding noun, or no currently-used noun, at least; I'd guess the corresponding noun would be "despite" (for instance "I feel despite towards able-bodied people who park in handicapped spaces") but Wiktionary has "archaic" and "obsolete" for such usage and "despite" seems now to be used exclusively in the sense of ignoring something ("He wore no coat, despite the freezing temperature"). Why would this be, or am I wrong and I've just never come across the usage? Tonywalton ^Talk 22:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite" is indeed the word you're looking for, but, as you've discovered, that word has become obsolete as a noun. Among the nouns now most often used are "scorn", "contempt", "disgust" and "loathing". There are others with different shades of meaning. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very uncommon certainly, but not entirely obsolete. The noun (generally capitalised to show its significance) lies at the heart of Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series of novels and is used lavishly throughout. It signifies an active, destructive contempt for everything and everyone, self included, and is the most potent negative force in the books' universe, personified by Lord Foul the Despiser, no less. You can't keep a good word down. - Ka renjc 23:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about just "spite"? --Jayron32 01:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spite may aply, but it is taken to mean intentional (out-of-one's way) injury, while despite as a noun is simpler disdain. He acted out of spite means he was willing to harm at his own expense, while he did it from despite just means from hatred. The confusing part is that the preposition despite means "in spite of". For example, to cut off your nose despite (in spite of) your fact means to want to harm your nose so much you don't care how ugly you look. But to act from despite is to act because you despise the object, not necessarily so much as to want to harm yourself. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a gerund out of any verb, in this case despising. Or you can make up your own new noun by analogy: reprise : reprisal :: despise : X, X = despisal. As long as you keep it out of edited writing, most people probably won't notice it isn't an established word. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary claims that despisal is already established, and the OED cites the earliest usage by the Earl of Monmouth in 1650. It's certainly rare in modern usage. Dbfirs 08:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that "contemn" (vt) is even more obscure than "despite" (n). Tevildo (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good thing. I wouldn't love having to decide, listening to fast speech, whether someone was saying contemn or condemn, especially given that they could be used in pretty much exactly the same contexts. It's already impossible to get rid of solecisms like doesn't jive with that or you've got another thing coming. --Trovatore (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some think like that, or somethink like that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've all confirmed my guess, thanks for that; now what is your thinking as to why "despite" has fallen into desuetude? It seems a very useful word. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Desuetude" is not often heard emanating from the mouths of the great unwashed. Pity, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Languages of China

This could be a long shot, but does anyone have access to The Languages of China by S Robert Ramsey (Princeton University Press, 1987)? According to the article Written Chinese, this book says, on p. 153, that educated Japanese know about 2,000 kanji (probably referring to the Joyo Kanji list, which has 2,136 characters now, but would have contained 1,945 when that book was written). I would be interested to know whether it does specifically say that; i.e. does it specifically say that a typical educated Japanese person knows about 2,000 kanji (and no more), or does it just talk in general terms about the purpose of the Joyo Kanji? 86.179.115.158 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I already tried that. I can't see that page. If you can then perhaps it is a country-specific thing. If you can see it, would you be able to answer the question about what exactly it says? 86.179.115.158 (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I own the book, which I highly recommend to all at all levels. It is in storage, but he gives only the 1,945 figure dated to 1981--this is searchable but only in a small blurb at Amazon. Comrie gives the same in his World's Major Languages. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the 1,945 figure will be mentioned in lots of places, but the important thing is what is claimed about that figure, and, specifically, whether the source claims that a typical educated Japanese person knows those 2000-ish kanji but not more, or not significantly more. My guess is that it probably doesn't, but I have been unsuccessful in finding the relevant text online to check, either at Google or Amazon. 86.179.115.158 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but it would be a copyright violation for those of us who can see the full Ramsey text to give it to you, if that's what you mean. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for the "full text". All I want is verification of whether the source does actually support the statement in the article. Dear me, does it really have to be this hard? 86.179.115.158 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't specifically say anything about how many characters a Japanese person would know. It's just talking about the Joyo Kanji. Rojomoke (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the scan (I hope I don't violate copyright greatly by this).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. Considerably less so than Google Books at any rate. And the answer to the question seems to be no, the source does not say that educated Japanese know only the 1,945 Joyo Kanji characters and no (or not many) more. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, more than 80% of Japanese can read 2500 kanji. It might be helpful to see Q0006 too. It says if you know 2602 kanji, you can read 99.9% of kanji in Yomiuri Shimbun. If you want a reliable answer, ask at NINJAL. The form is here, no en form. Oda Mari (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Thanks everyone. 86.169.184.143 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]