Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 July 21

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 20	Language desk archive	July 22 >

Slang

The phrase "ride a St. George" means to have sex. Why? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of some help. I can't open it right now, but it looks promising. JackofOz 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, it specifically refers to the cowgirl position. St George is typically depicted on his horse slaying the dragon, so I think that's the connection (thus 'riding in the style of St George', not 'riding of St George'). Henry ^Flower 10:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowgirl. ;) --Proficient 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author as a verb

The question 3 threads up got me thinking. "Author" is more and more commonly used as a verb (unfortunately). But we can't use "writer", "poet", or "novelist" as verbs. What's special about "author"? JackofOz 04:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for 'writer' there is already the verb 'write'. And poets and novelists 'write poetry' and 'write novels'. But one cannot 'auth' or 'write authory' or something. So at least there is a need for a verb. DirkvdM 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "writer" and "novelist" are ruled out as verbs by their clearly nominal suffixes and in the case of "writer" also by the existence of the verb "write". For "poet", I don't know. User:Angr 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Author" has a nominal suffix too, sort of...at least it does in the Latin form, auctor. Adam Bishop 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's so unfortunate about it anyway? --Ptcamn 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's ungainly and unnecessary. Why not just use 'write'? --Richardrj 11:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important difference between 'author' and 'write' (hint - it's similar to the difference between 'author' and 'writer'). Henry ^Flower 12:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then, I'll bite. Enlighten me. BTW, the OED has "to be the author or originator of (a book, play, remark, etc.)", but says it is obsolete except in the US. --Richardrj 12:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Author' implies creative expression, and ownership of the resulting work. For example, I write shopping lists, but I don't author them (because it's not a particularly creative genre). Literary theorists discuss the death of the author, not of the writer (meaning that they don't presume that the writer's intended meaning is authoritative). Incidentally, the OED commentary suggests that this is yet another example of people getting het up over 'new-fangled' usages that actually have rather long and distinguished histories. Always amusing. :) Henry ^Flower 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Henry, but I'm with JackOfOz - I still think there is something a mite pompous about using the word 'author' as a verb, OED history notwithstanding. There may be a need to make the distinction between an author and a writer (although the literary theorists you mention would question that distinction), but is there really a need to distinguish between authoring and writing? --Richardrj 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was minimalism a goal? Maybe we don't really need to distinguish them, but you'll be excising half the lexicon if you only allow words that are really needed. --Ptcamn 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be pompous to use the verb "author" when "write" would suffice (as in Henry Flower's example of "I authored a shopping list"), but there are definitely examples in the OED entry of "to author" being used where "to write" couldn't be used:

The divine blessing which authors all the happiness we receive.
He once authored the famous Ziegfeld Midnight Roof productions.
The saying was authored by some husband.

User:Angr 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, "authoring" is used to describe the process of creating CD or DVD content; i.e. not just copying files to a disc, but determining the layout of data files, menus, etc. --LarryMac 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are other words ending in "-or" that can be either nouns or verbs, such as "proctor". It appears that if a word ends in "-or" and is meaningless without the "-or" ending (unlike, say, "investor"), then it can serve as both a noun and a verb. --π! 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The world seems to consist of 2 kinds of people: those who "get het up over 'new-fangled' usages that actually have rather long and distinguished histories" (per Henry Flower), and those equally amusing types who defend to the death the most absurd and unnecessary neologisms.

Appealing to the OED or any other lexicon is not all that helpful - one could find all manner of words recorded that may have had a few appearances here and there over the course of centuries, but which are not part of the standard repertoire of English words. A lot of neologisms arise from journalese, corporatese, PR-ese or IT-ese. There seems to be a constant pressure to say ordinary things in new and different ways. I bet the journo or whoever came up with the most recent incarnation of "authored" didn't consult the OED, they just made up a word to meet this demand, completely unaware they weren't really coining a new word. I put the new verbs "helm" and "transition" into this category too. 50 years ago, who ever helmed anything, or transitioned from somewhere to somewhere else? Nobody. Was the world a whole lot worse off? No. I recognise that language is constantly changing to reflect a constantly changing world, and new words are often required. What I object to is the coining of new words where there is already a huge smorgasbord of perfecly fine choices available. JackofOz 04:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... perhaps I shall read some poeted works and writed volumes. :P --Proficient 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'ex-' and 'former'

It is very common to hear both the phrases 'former (a position, such as the Chief Secretary for Administration)' and 'ex-(a position)'. The function is quite similar. Is there any difference between the two words 'ex-' and 'former'?

--Brian Chau 21/7/2006

None that I can see, except that 'ex-' is more informal and more likely to be used in things like newspaper articles. --Richardrj 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex-" takes up less space in a headline. AnonMoos 08:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex-" is originally an affix while "former" is an adjective. ("Ex" can now be a noun.) --Kjoonlee 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight tendency to use "ex-" to refer to an immediately former holder of a position (thus "former president Jimmy Carter", but "Ex-president Bill Clinton"). As I say, it's only a slight trend, though, and the two are largely interchangeable. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like us to try to revive "erstwhile", "quondam," and especally "whilom." "Bill Clinton, whilom president of the United States" has a ring to it that "ex-" just can't manage, don't you think?· rodii · 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - I keep forgetting his full name is Whilom Jefferson Clinton :) I do like "quondam", though. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Englebert Humperdinck -- "Tell me when will you be mine, Tell me quondam, quondam, quondam". For the record, I use "erstwhile" fairly often. I also get strange looks from people. --LarryMac 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. --Proficient 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'so that' and 'such that'

I asked a question here a couple of months ago about these two linking phrases and whether or not they are distinct from each other, so apologies for asking again. I'm drafting a report in which I want to say "it should be possible to manage our funds so that/such that exchange losses are minimised." Which of the two is correct, and why? Many thanks. --Richardrj 09:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think they are interchangeable, though they mean slightly different things. "Manage our funds in order that" versus "manage our funds in such a way that"; the only slight difference is that 'so that' makes it explicit that the minimisation of losses is an intended consequence. But since that's already clear from the context, either would do. Henry ^Flower 10:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, my grammatical intuition tells me that only the first one sounds natural to me. --Kjoonlee 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Such that" always sounds stilted to me. I would personally choose between "so that" and "in such a way that". Jameswilson 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "A so that B" when A is a specific method, and I am explaining that I am using the method to accomplish B, e.g. "I'm using a US credit card in France instead of cash so that I don't have to suffer another exchange loss when I change my leftover euros back to dollars". I would use "A such that B" when A is a vague method, and B is the goal I want the method to accomplish. "Manage our funds such that exchange losses are minimised" means the goal is to minimise exchange losses, and the general idea is to manage our funds, but the exact method for managing our funds is not yet known. "It should be possible to manage our funds such that exchange losses are minimised" means that we think there is a method to manage our funds such that exchange losses are minimised, but were not yet sure what the management method is. The statement as a whole seems hazy to me, and I think a more forceful statement about how exchange losses will be minimized might make the report better. Gerry Ashton 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I wasn't asking for a critique of the sentence, just comments on 'so that' and 'such that'. --Richardrj 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So that" sounds better. As mentioned above, "such that" might imply an unintended consequence. --Proficient 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sýr - Czech word

How is the Czech language word "Sýr" (cheese in English) pronounced? Could someone tell me in relation to pronounciation of English words? Basically, what I need is the way to say "ý". --Bearbear 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a long (in the phonetic sense, not in the English-historic sense) "i". "Sýr" would be roughly equivalent to English "seer". [si:r] --Ptcamn 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seer have two syllables? A better approximation would probably be sear or sere. But it's a long vowel, so it's like seeear. —Bkell (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what dialect? In mine, there is only one syllable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster gives two pronunciations for seer: one pronounced the same as sear or sere, and another pronounced like see-er. I've heard it pronounced the second way, but it's not a common enough word for me to say that the two-syllable pronunciation is more prevalent. —Bkell (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See-er and seer mean different things. The American Heritage Dictionary gets this right. A see-er, with two syllables, is just a person that sees things. A seer, with one syllable, is a particular kind of see-er—one that sees things by supernatural means, a clairvoyant. --Ptcamn 08:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sýr" is pronounced like "sear," but with a rolled "r," kind of like in Spanish. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]