Language desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 9

Using the word "Mississippi" as a device for measuring time

Does anyone know how or why the word "Mississippi" came to be used as a device for measuring time? For example, when we want to time some event for, say, ten seconds, one might count aloud "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, ... ten Mississippi". Where, how, and why did this practice originate? Also, is there anything here on Wikipedia about that topic? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the origin, but I did find a list at Wiktionary Appendix:Words used as placeholders to count seconds with some referenced examples, but nothing on the origins, sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest published use of "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, ..." I found at Google Books is from 1936: How to Use Psychology in Business by Donald Anderson Laird. This can be gauged individually, without the help of a stop watch, by counting: " One — Mississippi; two — Mississippi; three — Mississippi; etc." This comes close to indicating a second on each count. Your question has been asked at various forums, but usually people only commented on the obvious fact that it was chosen because of the length it takes to utter "Mississippi" for most people at "normal" speed, while pointing out that plenty of other words could fulfill this function as well, and some people reported that they indeed had used different ones while growing up, such as "hippopotamus" or "alligator" or "one one-thousand, two one-thousand", and so forth. But no one had anything on origins, except (intentionally) silly speculation. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this led to the name of the state being pronounced as muhsip in my childhood dialect. (Wummuhsip, twomuhsip, threemuhsip, fawmuhsip, fahmuhsip, simmuhsip, semmuhsip, eymuhsip, nahmuhsip, temmuhsip.) μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word Mississippi is a little too long for this purpose, unless you rush it. The one thousand phrase works better. --Trovatore (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we used to have an article on the concept of using various words to mark seconds of time. Maybe it got deleted for lack of references... Or maybe I'm imagining it. Dismas|^(talk) 16:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading a history-of-cooking cookbook, and one of the first recipes that specifies a cooking time says to cook for "two pater nosters"; the editor indicates this would be about two minutes. That's not a word, of course (they weren't thinking of elevators), but a universally known phrase, which kinda counts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the editor was referring to the prayer, the "Our Father" ("Pater Noster" in Latin). Reciting the entire prayer twice would likely take two minutes. Reciting the phrase "pater noster" twice certainly would not take two minutes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, duh?--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, duh, what? Your prior statement specifically made reference to repeating the "universally known phrase" (i.e, the phrase "pater noster"), not the prayer (i.e., the Our Father). The prayer itself is not a universally known phrase; the phrase itself is. So, again ... um, duh, what? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Um, duh?" a universally-known 1997 one-hit wonder by the boy band, The Fransons? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Describing facial expression

How can I describe (writting) a facial expression that looks like this but without the eyebrow lifted. Like when two friends are talking:

A You did X

B No I didn't do X

A Yes you did.

B NO, I didn't. I was with John Doe when that happened

A [who had been with John Doe when X hapened gives the look I want to describe and tells to his friend] Really... Are you sure?

So. How can it be described? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the photo is of someone being supercilious, or perhaps (super-sibilantly) silently semi-supercilious. Super (L.), above; cilious, from cilium (L.), hair. The word has come to mean arrogantly superior; showing contemptuous indifference; haughty, or hubristic, but it can also mean a simple expression of surprise or shock. That's how I generally use it. I'm a left-eyebrow raiser from wayback, but I wouldn't think the dictionary definition applies to me. Others are free to disagree, but I am haughtily indifferent to the opinions of others. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incredulous? Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quizzical expression? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look of suspicion Such a gentleman 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, it is not much of a suspicion, but "A" at this point has realized "B" is clearly lying. So, perhaps he is going with the "O RLY?" expression — a relevant example. (Disclaimer: O RLY is also used as a sarcastic response to an obvious fact) —Such a gentleman 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a glare. Deor (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a skeptical look, with a cocked eyebrow. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono said "looks like this but without the eyebrow lifted". Deor (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I have no effing idea. Perhaps she means this? μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I cover the left side of his face (our right), I see "gazing intently". Glare (Deor) suggests some strong emotion behind the eyes, like anger, which I don't see here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was also going by the little dialogue that Miss Bono supplied. If I were person A, I think I'd be glaring by the end of that. Deor (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question the notion of knowing the expression "without the eyebrow lifted". One can't respond to what one can't see. I am trying to simply duplicate one side of the face with the other. But I am not really analyzing the overall face due to the necessity of suppressing an unwanted cue. I think we are underestimating the vast amount of information communicated by a face, and the infinite subtlety of its cues. Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Sorry the late reply, I was on holidays! It's like O RLY!. I tried to search for a face like the one I was suggesting here but I found nothing except for that image... Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]