Language desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

What do you call a quantifier/determiner/whatever that takes plural agreement/countable referent?

One of my pet peeves is when people misuse the word "infinite" as though it meant "infinitely many". We have an article on the infinite monkey theorem, which literally construed seems to be about a single, infinite monkey (that's one scary monkey!).

I have no grammatical objection to, say, putting out this infinite fire would require infinite water, though stylistically I'd probably prefer "an infinite amount of water". But I completely reject "infinite monkeys" used to mean "infinitely many monkeys"; that's just flat wrong. Infinite monkeys are multiple monkeys, each of which is individually infinite.

My question is, what is the linguistic category at issue here? It doesn't seem to quite fit quantifier (linguistics), and determiner seems too broad. Is there a name for a word or phrase that expresses a (possibly vague) number of discrete objects, rather than a quantity of some mass noun? --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but non-mathematicians don't want to be aware of this question. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "normality" and "normalcy"?

I see "normalcy" quite often but I have never used it, I always say and write "normality". My native ENGVAR is South African but I am regularly exposed to many varieties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Normalcy" is usually associated with U.S. President Warren G. Harding and his campaign slogan, "Return to normalcy". The word was hardly used before that. --Xuxl (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Wiktionary entry for "normalcy" says "Although sometimes used, normalcy is less common than normality in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is frequent in India, however." Eytmonline says that "normalcy" is "Associated since c. 1920 with U.S. president Warren G. Harding and derided as an example of his incompetent speaking style." The OED quotes Harding as saying: "America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration." (see also Return to normalcy). Before that the word only seems to have been used in a mathematical sense, as the property of being normal (= at right angles). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, other than the mathematical term there is no difference in meaning? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED cites Fowler: "In BrE normality is the customary term, and normalcy is widely scorned", but perhaps South African English considers the words to be of equal standing. Dbfirs 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, as in BrE, "normalcy" does not natively occur in South African English, but is intruding from other varieties through media exposure. I personally find it quite jarring and as I said earlier I couldn't bring myself to use it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The endings -cy and -ty come from Latin -cia or -tia. The ending -ity comes from -itas. The Latin suffixes both make nouns from adjectives, and there's really nothing dyscromulent with either, although Harding's version is a more modern coinage, hence new & improved. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, "new" often does not equal "improved", but perhaps that's a British way of looking at the world. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the British also understand irony when they see it at the end of a sentence. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes difficult to identify in written form though, but point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-age

What's the grammatical term for a measurement word ending in -age that measures something, like mileage or tonnage, to name a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Michner (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary's entry on -age [1] suggests appurtenance, see sense 5) here [2]. This would not only apply to words like 'tonnage', but also other words that semantically carry the sense of appertaining [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is beverage a case of this? Peter Michner (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One basic fact not mentioned in the appurtenance article is that these words are nouns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ending -age usually originates from the Latin -aticus. But many such endings have been adopted into English and become linguistically productive, as is the case with mileage and tonnage. See the etymology of outrage. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard nonce coinages with this suffix: I remember hearing set-builders in a theatre talk about "rostrumage" (i.e., how many (or what size of) collapsible rostra were available or would be needed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and then there's things like cordage and signage (the former through Old French, but the latter is rather modern).SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard a contestant on a TV cooking show explaining a dish, which included "epic prawnage" (I suppose that'd be "shrimpage" to some). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have prawn in the US, they are just less refined, tend toward hirsutism, and a are bit more prone to pub brawls than attending wine tastings than shrimp are. The "Shrinkage" episode of Seinfled provides the more iconic -age word up here in God's favored nation. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic transcription request

What is the Arabic in this image? http://files.lfbah.webnode.fr/200006491-62123630b7/50000000.png - It's for Lycée Français MLF de Bahreïn WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

البحرین MLF المدرسة الفرنسیة Omidinist (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hand (skin) texture; back & front

Is there a difference in skin texture of both sides of a human hand? For example, if one side is rough, is the other side considered the same, methodically? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's quite common to have calluses in the palms while the back of the hands are smooth. This happens from many types of manual labor, such as doing landscaping work using a shovel to dig holes. For the reverse, maybe somebody who gets into fist fights a lot but has a desk job ? StuRat (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The palm is thick (even when not calloused) for protection from frequent use and is highly innervated for sensitivity while the skin of the back of the hand is thin and less sensitive. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. I could feel it too. It’s just the information of Palmistry, they say either (1) ‘skin’ texture or (2) ‘hand’ texture or (3) feel the ‘back’ of the hand, its texture should be either, rough, silky, smooth, hard, coarse skin and so on, three different words in three websites but meaning of rough, silky, smooth, hard, coarse skin and so on are all the same, for each of the three… -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat and Medeis: Just to clear my thought, when its states 'hand' texture or 'skin' texture, does it mean the 'palm' texture or the 'back' of the hand? Reason for asking, when it means 'palm' texture, it states 'palm' texture... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "hand texture" must not mean the palms, which leaves the sides of the hands, back of the hands, and fingers and thumbs. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I understand; made me think for a bit though. Thanks

I hate other websites with informations -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for people with desk jobs who get in a lot of fist fights, we get scars and broken thumbs and pinkies. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol.

Say I distinguish the two (hand and palm), what about ‘skin’ texture? – All three’s information is the same btw, e.g., rough skin, rough palm, rough hand… -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palms and fingers have fingerprints which are an adaptation toward grasping not found on the back of the hands, and vestigially on the feet. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also have skin, not as similar looking or feeling type as the backside, and could it be either/which side possess the following: soft, very soft, firm, rough, smooth, hard, coarse, scaly, and silky? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ig before gn?

The Prefix page has the following text for the "iX" type prefix. "ig- (before gn- or n-), il- (before l-), im- (before b-, m-, or p-), in- (before most letters), or ir- (before r-)". My question is about the first part, using ig- in front of gn- . This would create a word starting with iggn, which I don't think there are in english. Does anyone have any ideas on what is meant or should it be changed to simply n- (I'm thinking that "Ignorant" is supposed to be the example here, but it seems a reach.)Naraht (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text is sloppy. The origin is never from ig-. The prefix is in- which assimilates to i- before roots in gn-. The latter initial 'gn' is very rare in Latin, so in-gnorant > ignorant is the only example I can think of in English. The words unknow-ing ignor-ant and agnos-tic are cognates from English, Latin and Greek, with differing endings and other linguistic assimilations. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's about what I suspected, but I couldn't find refs to back it up. Another example is "ignoble." Since that confusing/incorrect text is used several times at prefix, maybe you could fix it up? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You SOB. I am about to go eat dinner with the widower of my mother's best friend. Could you ping me? I don't have time now and am afraid I'll forget later, SemanticMantis. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Ok, consider this your reminder. I don't trust myself to fix it alone, but I can look over/consult on the changes to wording if you'd like. The simplest change I can see is "i- (before gn-)," I'm not sure if it's correct to say "ig- (before n-)". Another possible example is "ignominy" - but I can't tell if that's ig+nomen or i+gnomen, and if we start with Latin or French or something else to determine which one applies. And saying "ig- before n-" makes it sound like we would expect "*ignecessary" instead of "unnecessary". It really should be fixed though... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent on this matter.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent means unnoxious. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be obnoxious :) .

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

08:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SM. That article is a mess, the lead has a blatantly false claim and the entire in- section needs to be redone, but I don't have an hour today to spend trying to fix that chart. I have watched it and put a remark on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that some Latin roots starting n- were derived from earlier forms in gn-, and had privatives in ign-, whereas other Latin roots never had a 'g', and their privative started inn-. So certain Latin-derived words in English that start with 'n' take ig- and others take in- (and others un-). You can't tell which by inspection. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be quite aware of that, which is why I am loathe to spend the time myself correcting the article, when others don't seem to be aware of it: Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loathe = verb, to despise; Loath = adjective, very unwilling. Common error. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are actually right, Jack, but since I pronounce it to end the same as breathe, even in the adjectival form; I am loath(e), I spell it that way too. If I rhymed it with both I'd spell it loath, but I don't, so I don't. Do you "insulars" (as opposed to us "continentals") say I am loath to rhyme with "both"? Or is it just a spelling convention? μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we say "loath" to rhyme with "both". Wiktionary: loath gives no alternative pron. But regardless of that, no dictionary worth anything would agree that "loathe" is an accepted spelling of "loath". Wiktionary certainly doesn't, but it does note the common confusion between the two words. It also notes that "loth" is an older version of "loath". Had you written "loth" rather than "loathe", I'd have heaped much praise upon you. As it is, though ... Yoars sinsneerlie.

(PS. Australians are just as much continentals as Americans are. Arguably more so, since we and Antarctica are the only continents that are not joined at the hip to other continents. We used to be called the world's largest island, but since the geocartographological consensus has long been that we're a continental land mass and not an island, that honour has gone to Greenland, assuming it isn't actually two islands with the gap between them being icebound and invisible from above. If climate change continues to do its work, the matter may soon be settled.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having bin razed speaking English, I've never found much reason to resort to a dictionary, I just right words I come acrost as I pronounce them. But grammar's a whole nother question. Things like "should of" and "different than" and "I suggest he is warned" really bother me alot. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin question

The Finnish article about Juniperus communis, the common juniper, at fi:Kataja says that juniper is strong and tough wood: it bends but does not break. ("Taipuu muttei katkea" in Finnish). According to the Finnish article, this has given rise to the Finns' reputation as a "junipery people" ("katajainen kansa").

Now this "bends but does not break" reminds me of Paris's motto "Fluctuat nec mergitur" ("It wavers, but it does not sink"). How would one say "It bends but it does not break" in Latin? JIP | Talk 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flectitur nec frangitur would be one way. Deor (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The motif comes from Aesop's fable of the Oak and the Reed. However, I've only found one Latin text of that, which does not use the key phrase directly. La Fontaine renders it in French as 'Je plie, et ne romps pas'; would an apt Latin translation therefore be 'plicat nec rumpitur'? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the opposite motto "frangar, non flectar" ("I will break, but I will not bend"). That Italian WP article refers the alliterative juxtaposition to Horace, Livy, Lucan, Ovid, Seneca, and in fact Augustine wrote, in De catechizandis rudibus (On the Catechising of the Uninstructed): "flectamur facile, ne frangamur" ("may we bend easily, lest we be broken") which sort of matches what you are asking. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) <added later> (Sorry, Deor, I totally missed your post) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]