Language desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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 1[edit]

Why is there no DOGalog if there's a CATalog, no DOGegory if a CATegory, etc.?[edit]

So, why can't we shop items from a DOGalog if we can from a CATalog?

Why can't we file subjects in DOGegories if we can file them in CATegories?

We CATer meals, but why don't we DOGer them?

Why does English have to be a CATastrophe of a language, but not a DOGastrophe?

Did the original author of English love cats more than dogs? WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THESE WORDS BEING CAT-APULTED INTO the English Language with CAT- suffixes more than dogs?

Also, if the cannon came after the CATapult, why wasn't the cannon named the DOGapult instead, if dogs are mightier than cats?

Oh, and is there anything feline about bovines (i.e. CATtle)?

Thanks for CATching this string of questions and answering! --70.179.161.230 (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the date, but I'll give a serious answer. Greek κατάλογος (katalogos, "an enrollment, a register, a list, catalogue"), from καταλέγω (katalego, "to recount, to tell at length or in order, to make a list"); from Latin catapulta, from Ancient Greek καταπέλτης (katapeltēs); Ancient Greek καταστροφή (katastrophē), from καταστρέφω (katastrephō, "I overturn"); all from Greek: κατά (kata, "down, against") (no known connection with "kat" meaning "cat" in Dutch, Danish, Volapük, West Frisian & Afrikaans (all from Proto-Germanic "kattuz"). The exception is Old French achater ("to buy, to purchase") for the origin of "cater". Dog is (correction) might be from Proto-Germanic *dukkōn (“power, strength, muscle”). Cows, of course, are "caput", but not "kaput". (Sorry about the boring answer (and thanks, Wiktionary). I can recall some of my April 1st jokes from the past, including two occasions when teachers complained to the Headmaster, and one when the school was almost closed for the day, but I'll leave it to others to supply the humorous replies. "Kaput" describes the contents of my "caput" these days. ) Dbfirs 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Dog' is from Proto-Germanic *dukkōn? Has that been finalized? It has forever been one of the hardest words in the English language to pin down the etymology of. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this is apparently p. 207 of the (new) Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, revised by Seebold (2002). The claim is on the dog article here and the dog entry at Wiktionary. I would love to get a photocopy of that page: I very much suspect it is based on a misreading. I would bet that *dukkōn does not even occur in the Dogge entry. I think they saw the early form "docke" for "Dogge", then they went over to the entry for the modern word "Docke", which is just a homonym, and from there got *dukkön. Anyway, etymonline.com is just a blog by someone interested in etymology; Douglas Harper has no qualifications, as he makes clear in his statement on the site. www.oed.com has a large and interesting writeup on the etymology.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the page you are referring to? I can find no mention of the word. Maybe this is the old version. Also, I know Harper is not qualified, but his work is pretty much spot-on most of the time, and very informative. Not having access to the OED, this is the only resource I use. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies. I should have checked the OED before believing Wikipedia and Wiktionary on "dog". (I'll edit the entries to say "possibly"). The OED just says "origin unknown", adding "No likely cognates have been identified with a meaning at all close to that of the English word, and all attempted etymological explanations are extremely speculative." and "The word belongs to a set of words of uncertain or phonologically problematic etymology with a stem-final geminated "g" in Old English which is not due to West Germanic consonant gemination and therefore does not undergo assibilation. These words form both a morphological and a semantic group, as they are usually Old English weak masculine nouns and denote animals; compare frog, hog, pig, stag." Dbfirs 14:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the 5th or 6th edition, from the 19th century. The 2002 is the 24th edition. The most recent is the 25th fifth, from 2011. If you're a Liverpool resident, you can register with the Public Library and log-in from home to get access to sources like Oxford English Dictionary: [1]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to "Kluge"?. The OED I cited is the current on-line addition, and neither I nor Kage Tora are currently Liverpool residents, but the same applies in Cumbria. The full on-line OED edition is completely up to date (in so far as the OED ever is). Dbfirs 20:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Liverpool resident..... I just never go to the library because I am never here long enough for it to be worth it. I don't think that Atethnekos was insinuating that only scousers have privileged and exclusive access to the OED online. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was responding to KägeTorä's link to the older Kluge. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — my misunderstanding of you both. (I thought from a previous comment about the centre of the UK that KT had moved north, but it depends how you define centre.) Apologies for being confused.

Can we find evidence that the "dukkön" theory is considered wrong by experts? Dbfirs 06:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not: Seemingly the only source which supposedly mentions *dukkön in relation to dog, is p. 207 of Kluge-Seebold (2002). That's partly what makes me think it's just a misreading. I'm going to ask on REX if anyone can send me a facsimile of the page. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word origin of the animal we call the "cat" is unrelated to the prefix "cata-" which means "down from" or "down to" and appears in "catalogue", "catapult", "cataclysm", "cataract", and a host of others.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skinning a cat[edit]

Is it "How many ways of skinning a cat are there?" or "How many ways are there of skinning a cat?" --Carnildo (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences are correct. The original version of the phrase is "There are more ways than one to skin a cat", from the 1840 short story The Money Diggers by Seba Smith. See this very informative forum thread. Tevildo (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might anyone know what is the meaning of the phrase?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means "there is more than one way of accomplishing a task". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Latin phrase on gravestone[edit]

Can someone help to translate this Latin phrase on a gravestone into English? It appears to say "JUSTUM ET TENACEM PROPOSITI VIRUM". Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what propositi is doing there, which looks like the genitive of propositus, "declared" or "planned" (i.e., put forth). "Justum et tenacem virum" is "a just and tenacious man" in the accusative case, as if he were being called just and dedicated. Someone better than I at Latin will have to fill in the implied words here. The machine translation from google is hilarious: "sticky and just a project". μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Google Translate gave me "just and tenacious project man" rather than what you got. I note that an alternative translation of propositi is "resolve"; I wonder if the phrase therefore means "a man of justice and tenacious resolve"? The gravestone was that of one of the Chief Justices of the Straits Settlements. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from Horace, Odes III.3. See here. Iblardi (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken from a quote by Horace. The full quote is Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida, which is translated as "The man who is just and resolute will not be moved from his settled purpose, either by the misdirected rage of his fellow citizens, or by the threats of an imperious tyrant." Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! So can the phrase on the gravestone be translated as "The man who is just and of resolute purpose"? Ah, I just noticed that the website that Iblardi referred to translates it as "The man of firm and righteous will", which is rather nice, though this may not be a precise translation as the translator's aim was to render the passage into verse. Any thoughts on whether the latter is a good translation of the phrase? — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more literal translation would be "a man [who is] just and steadfast in purpose". See Lewis and Short, tenax (propositi). Iblardi (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for the useful responses. I'll update the relevant file description pages on the Wikimedia Commons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we BUILD a BUILDing, why don't we PUDD a PUDDing?[edit]

We can build buildings, so why don't we pudd puddings?

Oh, and by the way, that was some PHENOMENAL kiwi pudding that you pudded this evening! --70.179.161.230 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the book Driving on Parkways, Parking on Driveways by Loo F. Lirpa, you might find the answer to this question.--Cam (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called backformation, feel free. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because "building" is a noun derived from a verb, while "pudding" always was just a noun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's easily demonstrably false, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether you believe Etymology Online or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Let's consider the morphology of the words. Building has two Morphemes while pudding only has one. In forming the worm building, you begin with the verb build and add the bound morpheme -ing to the end turning the verb into a noun (or another verb depending on the context). Pudding cannot be broken down because it is already one morpheme. To continue on, if backformation is required to create pudd as a phoneme, Baseball Bugs is correct. Ryan Vesey 01:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a derivation of "put" or "set" referring to the fact that it has to set or stay put while it coagulates. THe spanish verb that sounds similar is poder to put.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French gulls...[edit]

In French, what is the difference between a 'goéland' and a 'mouette'? As far as I can ascertain, both mean '(sea)gull', but both are used together in sentences, as though they refer to two different, but closely related things. Similar to how the term Lories and lorikeets is used in English, I guess... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the French Wikipedia for Goéland:"En réalité, il n'y a guère que la langue française à faire cette distinction de nomenclature entre « mouettes » et « goélands » : pour simplifier, dans la nomenclature normalisée, un goéland est une grosse mouette, et inversement." See also Mouette for comparison. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I could translate that using Google, but could you confirm for me what that actually says? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed from your original post that you could speak French. It says, "In reality, French does not really make this distinction in name between "mouettes" and "goélands"; to simplify, in general nomenclature, a goéland is a large mouette, and vice-versa." ('vice-versa' here probably means that mouettes are small goélands). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kage, your first part was wrong: Here is what the first sentence means: "In reality, French is the only language to make this distinction in name between "mouettes" and "goélands";" --Lgriot (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was something wrong there - the two phrases I wrote were slightly contradictory. Still, not bad for A-Level French taken 22 years ago. :) Thanks for the correction! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says that goéland derives from the same root as gull, while mouette is presumably related to English mew. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, according to the French Wikipedia, it comes, via Norman, from the Old English maew, so it's ultimately a Germanic word, cognate to the modern German Möwe. Smurrayinchester 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that an alternate name for the Common Gull is the Sea Mew. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's The Mewstone on the coast of Devon and Mewstone off Tasmania. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]