Language desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

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.

February 19

Complete Set Character

I just found Complete Set Character. Is it valid as is? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went bold and put an XfD on it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea what it was. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iesus

Why is Iesus a 4th declension noun in Latin (rather than second)? Any reason or just random choice at some point? --Ornil (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest reason is that it is "Iesous" in Greek, and that diphthong becomes a long "u" whenever a Greek word is borrowed into Latin. (It's also irregular in Greek, with the same declensions as the Latin.) Jesus (name) talks a bit about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written omicron-upsilon was already a monophthongal ū vowel in Koine Greek (u shifting to ü left a gap at u, which the ō vowel written <ου> rose to fill)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. --Ornil (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 'u' was felt to be part of the stem, as it is in fourth declension ('u-' stem) nouns, rather than just part of the nom. sing. ending. --ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...than what ..." in comparative expressions

In Australia, it's common for people to say things like "You're smarter than what I am" or "I worked harder than what he did, I deserve a bigger pay packet", and similar expressions. Is this superfluous "what" found elsewhere?

I tend to associate it with the people who say "I seen it" (saw) or "I done it" (did) or "That check-out chick only give me five dollars change" (gave). In other words, a less than university level of education and/or living in a rural/regional area. Is this true elsewhere? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall ever having heard it. I live in a rural area and have both university-educated and high-school dropouts among my neighbours and acquaintances. Perhaps it isn't a Canadianism. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Irish to me. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, purest Cockney. A couple of seconds Googling found somebody trying to explain rhyming slang (another London export to Australia); "If English is not your mother tongue, or you are not a cockney, like what I am: butcher's = butcher's hook = look".[1] Seen/saw and done/did are both found in London English too.

Our Australian English article quotes Anthony Burgess; ""Australian English may be thought of as a kind of fossilised Cockney of the Dickensian era." Alansplodge (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that this construction does not occur in any variety of American English. Marco polo (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also wracked my brain and failed to come up with a construction common to the U.S. Snow (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrative sentences for the full entry at the top of this page show, in passing, the use of this construction in "rural locutions of Maine and northern New Hampshire". (For any who can't see the Google Books page, the sentences are "Liz is full hun'somer than what Vieny is" and "I'm full better'n what you be, Joe Buck!") And farther down, on page 81, the entry for than what reads "Redundant for 'than'." It's my impression that this occurs in various U.S. dialects, not just in the Northeast. The chart at the bottom of page 2 of this PDF handout shows the use of "as what / than what in comparative clauses" as present in more than 80% of nonstandard varieties of American English (though of the examples given in the box at the top of that page, I'd consider 2a to verge on standard, or at least very widespread, English). Deor (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds pretty old-fashioned to me. There are several examples in Huckleberry Finn ("It was floating a little faster than what I was" for one). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common in South Africa but I would personally consider it poor grammar. People whose home language is Afrikaans tend to do it because it is quite acceptable in Afrikaans. e.g. Hy is slimmer as wat ek is. (He is cleverer than what I am.) I don't think rural/urban or level of education plays a big role here. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a written source from outside Wikipedia is always supposed to be superior to the original research of a Wikipedian. However, in this case, we are talking about an unsourced class handout written by two Germans, on the one hand, and the lifelong experience of a professional editor and native speaker of American English on the other. I strongly question their claim that 80% of "nonstandard varieties" (whatever those are supposed to be) of American English display this "than what" construction in a comparative clause. Just what is their basis for this claim? I've never heard that construction come from an American mouth, and I've lived in five states on both coasts and in between (each for periods of more than one year) and visited 25 of them, many of those repeatedly over the years due to family or business connections. If these "nonstandard varieties" are in fact different specimens of dialog as recorded in American works of fiction from the 19th century, then I could believe the claim. I accept that my experience of American English is not comprehensive, and there may be isolated pockets in Appalachia or the deep South where older speakers still use that construction, but it is not current in any variety of American English with large numbers of speakers. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the source of this "80%" claim. It is this PDF. If you look on page 3, you can see a map of the varieties of English included in this database. The authors' definition of American English includes all varieties spoken in "the Americas". This of course is not the usual definition of American English as English used in the United States (and maybe Canada depending on the source). Now, if you look at the map, you can see that the varieties chosen are not a representative range of regional varieties of United States English. Instead, the varieties include a number of Caribbean patois and a few varieties from the United States, which seem to have been chosen for their degree of divergence from the standard. So what their 80% statement really means is "Among the varieties of English used anywhere in the Americas that are most divergent from standard English, 80%" use this construction. This does not contradict my claim that this construction is rare in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I was, in my youth about 50 years ago, in fairly frequent contact with countrified speakers of one of that study's L1 English varieties (Ozark English), and indeed grew up not far from Huckleberry Finn's stomping grounds, may account for my acceptance that this construction occurs—without being universal—in at least some varieties of U.S. English. I'm sure that I've heard it from living speakers. (And I wish I could afford a set of DARE to see what it says about questions like this one.) Than what does, however, appear to be most prevalent in dialects of England, and that probably accounts for its appearance in Australia. Deor (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified above that by saying it sounds Irish what I meant was if I were to expect to hear it in the NYC area it would be from an Irishman. Purely subjective OR, of course. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that this construction really sounds alien and foreign to most speakers of American English, at least to the large majority of the population living in major metropolitan areas. I guess I'm not surprised to hear that it is current in the Ozarks, which, together with southern Appalachia, is very culturally conservative and often preserves usages (and nonlinguistic customs) that are no longer current elsewhere in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very diplomatic way of referring to the lubricious doings of my Ozarkian cousins. Well done, Signor Polo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-go-lucky hater

Besides JEALOUS or ENVIOUS, is there a term for those that specifically despise or show disdain for happy-go-lucky people?165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, type A personality/anal retentive types tend to, although those terms refer to them being uptight, not specifically to hating those who aren't. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jealousy and envy are approximate synonyms, but pretty much the opposite of disdain. The first is wishing you were like them, while the other is wishing they were like you. (Unless we count the case where you both meet in the middle, these are two different things.) StuRat (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The jealous and envious were actually meant as a mild joke considering that the haters might not be either of those... (but should be in my opinion). I am trying to focus on the "hater" aspect where it is obvious that what they are hating (by word and deed) is specifically the carefree, no-worries attitude.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killjoy? (Note also the synonym listed there.) Deor (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thats pretty close. But that is more focused on active fun than on just one's good fortune or general contentedness at all times.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Naysayer, detractor. Even better: "detractivist"165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have me completely confused, StuRat with "Note that jealousy and envy are approximate synonyms, but pretty much the opposite of disdain. The first is wishing you were like them, while the other is wishing they were like you. (Unless we count the case where you both meet in the middle, these are two different things.)" What (jealousy, or jealousy and envy together) means "wishing you were like them" and what (envy or disdain) means "wishing they were like you"? I know of no definition of either "envy" or "disdain" that means "wishing they were like you." Bielle (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are grouped together. Disdain, in the context of hating someone because he is different from you, pretty much means you wish they were more like you are. (Of course, there are other reasons to hate someone, in which case it doesn't mean this.) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "disdain" to mean that, at all. Is there a reference, or does anyone else have such a read on the word? Bielle (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only means that in this context. Just like "there" means "at the store" in "I'm going to the store and will buy some bread there", but doesn't mean that in a general sense. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disdain" means scorn or contempt for something, the opposite of "deign", which means to consider something worthy.[2] Jealousy or envy could go along with that, but not necessarily. Like I say those who hold the USA in disdain might just be jealous. But they might also be repelled by everything we stand for. That wouldn't be jealousy, it would be hatred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so let's take a specific example. Say the Taliban. They have disdain for the US because it's not like Afghanistan was when they were in control. If the US was 100% devout Muslims under Sharia law, and women were heavily repressed, and the government was a theocracy, then presumably they would no longer have disdain for the US. So, in this context, "disdain" means they wish the US was like them. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they would continue to have disdain for the US, and they have no wish for the US to be like them, only for the US to leave so they can restore their terroristic, murderous regime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why wouldn't they want the US to become West Afghanistan ? StuRat (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "puritan". There is no such term in English as "anti-hedonic", but there should be. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's something of a slander against the real historical Puritans, though. Their views on correct behavior were fairly rigid, but they had nothing against pleasure per se. I suspect that usage of the word puritan we may owe to H. L. Mencken, one of my favorite authors but not a particularly reliable historian. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"prudish", "censorious" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with Tom Lehrer's friend "Hen3ry": "Like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does happy-go-lucky mean cheerful, or optimistic, or carefree, or careless, or what? For some senses, an opponent might be a control freak. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mofusil

I came across mofusil in a wikipedia article, and not knowing what it meant did a little searching. I see it is used 3 times within wikipedia. I think it likley that it means Wikt:mofussil (note the spelling difference) Do you agree? Would it be sensible for me to change all the mofusil's to Wiktionary links to mofussil? -- SGBailey (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "mofusil" into google and it gave results for "mofussil", but it also asked me if I want to search instead for "mofusil". So I clicked that and it gave me a lot of hits that use "mofusil" in the same way. So it looks like it's an alternative spelling for the same word -- whether non-standard or not I don't know. But Wikipedia itself contains numerous uses of "mofussil", and only a few of "mofusil", so I think your proposed action is a good idea. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article that uses that spelling? Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typing mofusil into the Wikipedia search bar yields Paranapiacaba, Jafferkhanpet, and Chinnalapatti. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- SGBailey (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]