Language desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 11

Antivaxer

Who decides on the spelling of new words? To me, the above spelling seems completely logical, but my spellchecker insists that I need a double x - antivaxxer. It must be the the only word in English with a double x. How has this happened with such a new word? HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With just one "x", it could be pronounced with a long "a", as in "brakes" or "lakes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no "x" in those words. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody decides, but dictionaries usually simply report the spellings people are using, in this case presumably the newspapers. "Antivaxxer" follows the usual rules for doubled consonants. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that X is never doubled when adding -er, e.g. boxer, fixer, mixer, sexer, taxer, waxer. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A double X seems to at least be neologistic. See with words like wikt:doxxing, wikt:looksmaxxer, wikt:hopemaxx, wikt:faxx, wikt:haxxor, and wikt:Jaxxon which have come about since the rise of the internet. 115.188.65.157 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Foxx and Jamie Foxx are pre-internet examples. Both are stage names, hence made up, but no more made up than the above exxxamples. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx is not in showbusiness. We have a disambiguation on the surname Foxx... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X is equivalent to ks. It's pronounced as a consonant cluster, so the checked pronunciation of the preceding vowel happens by default. The logical pronunciation of antivaxxer is like antivakskser. You won't find a lot of logic in English spelling. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "antivaccer", pedantically? The OED has a comment on the double x. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...probably has its origin in the language of advertising." That would explain the lack of logic. And yes, this pedant agrees with "antivaccer". HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: See Exxon. 2A02:C7B:21D:5400:40DC:49E9:7557:F298 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which name dates from a 1960s rebranding (according to our article), so not even as old as me. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation supposedly had research done which showed that no language commonly written at the time used "xx" in its spelling, other than Maltese. AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the dounle-x in Maltese - as in Naxxar - is apparently pronounced "ssh" (not that that would bother a big corporation). Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As is the single x in Portuguese. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the late-1960s corporate execs and their naming consultants would have been a lot less concerned with how XX was pronounced in Maltese than with having a relatively clean cultural blank slate, to make sure that a double X had few distracting pre-existing associations in major world markets which might detract from the name "Exxon" when it was unveiled. I guess they assumed that the Double Cross symbol of Tomania in Charlie Chaplin's "Great Dictator" movie -- two X's, one mostly vertical over the other -- was safely in the past...

AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bad-faith ultimatum?

Is there a word, term, or academic jargon in English or any language for the following "negotiation" tactic or scenario:

One side is offering terms, demands, and conditions that are so harsh on purpose fully expecting that the opposing side would reject them so that the former could have an excuse to engage in the use of force and violence against the latter?

Both the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia in the July Crisis and the Rambouillet Agreement seem to be examples of this. Also, if there are any other historical examples, please share. StellarHalo (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobson's choice came to my mind, though it doesn't necessarily imply the second part of what you wrote (using the rejection as an excuse for attack). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1939 German ultimatum to Poland seems to fit, although they made sure that the Poles wouldn't accept the terms by not actually telling them what they were. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicitous? Like Hobson's Choice it has wider applications but it perhaps captures the misleading/misdirection aspect.

As for why there might not be a good answer, it seems to me that it's a tactic that is rarely effective. I mean I recall Russia made something like that sort of an offer before invading Ukraine, but no-one took it seriously as they essentially asked for Ukraine's total surrender, and Russia still became a pariah after its unjustified invasion. --2A04:4A43:90FF:FB2D:5D8B:8092:F428:CD8A (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "effective" in the case of native propaganda, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania worked well for the Germans. The unfortunate Lithuanians gave up a chunk of their country rather than face a German invasion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then Hitler handed over the rest of the country to Stalin in the annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and then re-invaded himself, only to be invaded by the Soviets again; but this is beyond the scope of the question. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I know Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War said she did the reverse–make what she felt were very fair offers of some form of negotiation with the Argentine dictatorship because she thought, correctly, it would just ignore them, leaving it looking unreasonable and discouraging the US from coming down on Argentina's side. (Discussed in Laver, Breaking the Deadlock.) Blythwood (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]