Language desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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.

May 17

Tihwa

An ancient name for the city of Ürümqi was 迪化 (Tihwa or Dǐhuà). What is the Uyghur Arabic script translitteration of this name? Thanks! --2.37.228.109 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would write it this way: «دىخۇئا». —Stephen (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater

Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater
Had a wife but couldn't keep her.
He kept her in a pumpkin shell
And kept her there very well.

What is the meaning of this nursery rhyme? I imagine that it is about a man named Peter who struggles to keep his wife with him, because he eats pumpkins all day and never works. He loves his wife very much, but without a job, his wife decides to dump him. Peter does not want his wife to leave him, so he makes a giant pumpkin and traps his wife in it. Do I have the right meaning of "keep"? Is this one of those nonsense nursery rhymes? 198.30.87.2 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I assumed that Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater was about a recent widower burying his dead wife as fertilizer, but this article and this one suggest that the wife was a prostitute and that the husband jealously murdered her. Not academic sources, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly be suspicious of the first one: it repeats the popular 20th-century notion of Ring a Ring o' Roses referring to the Black Death, although the eminent folklore researchers Iona and Peter Opie demonstrated that the words had gradually mutated to their familiar modern form from rather different ones that had nothing to do with the plague. {The poster formerly known as 87.18.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Nursery rhyme#Meanings of nursery rhymes one must be very careful about trying to ascertain meaning from traditional rhymes with no known author; most of the "meanings" of nursery rhymes we have were basically invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century (many centuries after they were probably first created) with no known actual historical or literary methods used to verify the stories behind them. Many of these putative "meanings" are fairly untrustworthy anyways. As was noted about a week ago, a big part of the "meaning" of any art form has to lie in the audience; this is doubly true where we have no known author to interview and ask them what they meant. --Jayron 32 14:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a meaning of "to provide financial support for" as seen in the phrase "kept woman". Rmhermen (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and in this case it could mean he couldn't afford a house, so carved out a large pumpkin, instead. Clearly not practical, but nursery rhymes aren't expected to be accurate. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that than being whipped soundly and sent to bed, for the unforgivable crime of being born to a nymphomaniac who lived in a shoe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe dwellers get a bad name, even with a profession. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a job to live large when you have a cunning pussy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're a cunning linguist and a master debater. --Jayron 32 21:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or when you have a famous dick. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are most likely skipping rope rhymes, invented by children. If so, they have no meaning, but are the products of children's imagination. OK, there's a guy in the village who grows pumpkins and eats them. The children name him Peter Pumpkin Eater. His wife leaves him, and word gets around among the villagers that Peter Pumpkin Eater couldn't keep her. The children make up a skipping rope rhyme. Not hard to see how it develops. Akld guy (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I once read a book (Who really Killed Cock Robin?) that argued that the apparent nonsense in nursery rhymes is the result of censorship to remove sexual or pagan themes. I suppose its possible, and in some cases even plausible, but the author seems to ignore the fact that sometimes people just make up nonsense rhymes for the fun of it. Iapetus (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites cited by Ian should be taken with a pinch of salt. For example, one of them claims that "Mary, Mary, quite contrary" is "Mary, Queen of Scots - and her silver bells, cockle shells and 'pretty maids' were not implements of gardening (who said they were?) but rather torture devices she used while persecuting the Protestants during her reign."

Looking at her article I see that she came to the throne at six days old and was the mother of James I. She married the future king of France and some time after his death remarried in a Protestant wedding ceremony. Also, for the last eighteen years of her life she was held captive by Elizabeth.

As this is the reference desk, here's a question. King Arthur has a brother Brian and his wife is pregnant with a son, whom she has decided to call Charles. Arthur dies and the following day his queen gives birth. Does the crown pass to Brian or Charles? 78.145.24.30 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's wife had Charles or Arthur's wife? In either case, Arthur's wife eventually becomes the king's wife. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This scenario is slightly different. Arthur is king and his wife is the queen. Charles is the son of Arthur and his wife (let's call her Debbie). 78.145.24.30 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I'd give it to Brian. King Brian is a terrible regnal name, but it seems cut and dry by primogeniture. Debbie could go to war for Charlie, but if she's how I imagine her, they'll lose. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about King Brian Boru? Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might sound better in Gaelic than it looks in English. Mysterious world of consonants, there. I still recognize the one true King of Munster, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The question, as asked, was ambiguous, but I assume that it was Arthur's wife who was pregnant (not Brian's) and she gave birth to Charles on the day after Arthur died. I would assume that Brian becomes king at the time of Arthur's death, if there is no older brother or sister. At birth a day later, baby Charles becomes next in succession if there are no existing children of the marriage, and eventually will become king himself if Brian dies with no offspring. Akld guy (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar of English nursery rhymes

Jack be nimble
Jack be quick
Jack jump over the candlestick

Fee Fi Fo Fum.
I smell the blood of an Englishman.
Be he alive, or be he dead.
I will grind his bones to make my bread.

Why do English nursery rhymes have a preference of using this form of grammatical construction? Using this grammar, what are the rhymes supposed to mean? Also, what is "Fee Fi Fo Fum"? And about the content, why would Jack jump over the candlestick? Artistic depictions usually make Jack about the size of a candlestick and paint a man who has to jump over it. Is this artist depiction true to the original meaning? 198.30.87.2 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack be nimble" is an imperative - we are giving Jack an order to be nimble - which is unremarkable modern English grammar. "Be he alive or be he dead" is a subjunctive construction, which connotes uncertainty or counterfactuality. The subjunctive is not as commonly used in English as it used to be, but it's still part of standard English grammar. It means "whether he is alive or dead". As for "Fee Fi Fo Fum", WP:WHAAOE: Fee-fi-fo-fum, which gives a few possibilities for its origin, including one from Shakespeare. And according to Jack Be Nimble, jumping over a candle without putting the flame out was once held to bring good luck. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little hard to be sure whether "Jack be nimble" is addressed directly to Jack. It could be a third-person imperative, which is expressed with the present subjunctive. --Trovatore (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that some candles were and are quite large, particularly those used in churches for permanent lighting rather than individual devotional purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, the two Jacks, of beanstalk and candlestick fame, are pretty lame in my opinion. Sing a Song of Sixpence is where to find the real action. although grammatically it's pretty prosaic. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that "Jack" as a name has been frequently used in literature to mean any generic guy, maybe something like "Joe Schmo". Another nursery rhyme example is "This Is the House That Jack Built". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe Shmoe and the Beanstalk" sounds fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC) These nursery rhymes often really mean nothing at all, you know. [reply]

Right, they mean bupkis, and in that context "Joe Schmo[e] and the Bupkis-stalk" works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... "goat droppings"?? You must be thinking of a more hircine tale.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Beans". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Beanz Meanz Hanz". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Buggsy, you're a real scream[reply]

Keep in mind that nursery rhymes are for small children, so the words are each kept short, with lots of repetition, for easy learning. "Be he alive, or be he dead" could be written "Whether he's alive or dead", but it wouldn't be as memorable. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would it be as poetic. For an example of somewhat twisted English, see the Frog poem.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum might be the notes for musicians tuning up, just as we use doh, re, me, fa, soh, la, te, doh, or My Dog Has Fleas today? They do seem to be in descending order of musical note, but I'm no musician so what do I know. Akld guy (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The poor devil. You can get chilli powder for that. But it's only three syllables in Act 3, Scene 4 of King Lear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's where it's fum. Another few neurons used up. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jumping over a candlestick" was common at weddings, with those who were successful being granted good luck. Collect (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And those who were not, were hot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more on this custom see [2].

Disenfranchised

"Disenfranchised" means unable to vote. But more and more it seems to be used as a synonym for "disadvantaged," "socially marginalized," or "politically alienated." The US media is using it a lot to refer to poor whites who support Donald Trump. Is this correct? 173.17.170.8 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "disenfranchised" means "deprived of civil or electoral privileges."[3] It's often used metaphorically in reference to groups of people who feel they have been "left out" of the electoral process - or, more accurately, that the election didn't go the way they wanted it to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:disenfranchised says "Not represented; especially, not having the right to vote". So, the broader meaning of not having any power in society seems to apply here. For example, pollution is often far worse in poor areas, because the people who live there lack the political power to keep the polluters out, even though they do have the vote. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the poor and minorities often are prevented from voting in the US. See voter suppression in the United States. As yet, that article seems light on 2016 examples, but requiring photo ID (which poor people often lack), a permanent address (which the homeless lack), or barring anyone convicted of crime (which is disproportionately minorities), are some current methods. Arranging for long lines in poor and minority areas on election day by understaffing them is another method. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

think of it as "not having the franchise"...and the right to vote is a kind of franchise...but there are other kinds of franchises..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the strongest underlying themes of U.S. politics in recent years is that the wealthy, the well-connected and the insiders wield vastly disproportionate political power. So, even though ordinary working people and middle class people have the right to vote, their votes are far less powerful than they ought to be. This results in a deep sense of disenfranchisement, even if the formal right to vote exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's been true for along time, but the effort has accelerated in recent years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We finally seem to be seeing some signs that it might change, as there seems to be an extreme reaction against "establishment candidates" (supporting the rich and powerful) in the US. Hillary might not have been able to fend off Bernie Sanders if not for the superdelegate system that favors establishment candidates, and establishment candidates in the Republican Party never had much of a chance. Trump, while himself rich and powerful, claims to be fighting for the little guy (of course, he flip-flops even more often than a real politician). So, if not this election, we may soon have a populist President who actually does support the little guy over the power brokers. Then the Supreme Court may actually favor the little guy if the President(s) appoint(s) a few judges. For example, repealing that decision that allows local governments to take personal property by eminent domain for no other reason than to increase their tax base. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming we're not disheartened, anyway. Often a package deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]