Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 February 24

= February 24 =

Lighted vs. Lit
I frequently hear the word "lighted" more and more. "He lit the candle" and "The candle was lighted" are both correct usage, yes? But I hear questionable uses such as, "That photograph is well lighted." "The street lamps lighted the path." What's the rule for correct usage? --24.249.108.133 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Lit" is a transitive verb, and "lighted" is an intransitive verb, I believe. -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And that would make the two "questionable" uses correct, right? (No wait, maybe not the last one...) 惑乱 分からん 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the sentence "That photograph is well lighted" the verb is also transitive; it is used in the passive form, so the erstwhile object (as in "The photographer lighted the photograph well") has become the subject. In any case, I don't believe transitivity makes a difference. In the US the two forms are interchangeable. In British use, "lit" is still far more common. --Lambiam Talk  03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that lit/lighted was analogous to knelt/kneeled, spelt/spelled, etc, where the irregular forms are being gradually replaced by the regular, but less traditional forms, in America at least. I could be entirely wrong on this, though. -Elmer Clark 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spelled, yes. To my American ear, at least, "Spelt" seems a Britishism, except when referring to the grain.  But I would stumble if I came across "kneeled".  And "lighted" just sounds wrong in all of the contexts used above, no matter which examples you used.  To me, "lighted" would be used for something like, "the bug lighted on the table".  Corvus cornix 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To me (as a Briton) that would be "alighted". "Lighted" would seem archaic to me. Although my natural inclination would be to say "landed" anyway. But I agree that all uses in the initial query would sound wrong and should be "lit". -- Necrothesp 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Help find more expressive or polished Spanish words for FIESTA
Everyone uses the word "fiesta" too much. What other Spanish words would be more elegant or classy for an celebration? (Yes I have already thought of celebracion...need other possibilities).

THANK YOU!

CC Grammy 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some alternatives from a Spanish dictionary of synonyms. Note that I'm listing all of the entries, you'll have to look them up to see the connotations of each, some of these are obviously not the word you're looking for.
 * celebración, guateque, festejo, festividad, verbena, juerga, festivo, variación, dia inhábil, dia feriado.
 * --NorwegianBluetalk 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reunión, would be classy and elegant.
 * Borrachera, means a drunken partly about equal to a "kegger"
 * Parranda, going out, on a binge, partying
 * Encountro, encounter
 * Tiempo, a time together
 * Festocha, partay
 * Despedida, farewell party
 * Sena, a dinner reunion


 * Surely it's "encuentro"? 惑乱 分からん 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And "cena". Corvus cornix 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought "cena" was just "dinner" or something... 惑乱 分からん 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank y'all soooo much! - Great experience using Wiki for the first time. CC Grammy 03:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)CC Grammy

Where did "cheesy" and "corny" come from?
I sometimes hear the term "corny" or "cornball" to describe unbelievable or overly earnest romantic movies. And the word "cheesy" to describe overly enthusiastic game show hosts and smarmy newscasters. Where did these words come from? --72.202.150.92 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheesy. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian.:

"'cheap, inferior,' 1896, from Urdu chiz 'a thing,' picked up by British in India by 1818 and used in the sense of 'a big thing.' By 1858, cheesy had evolved a slang meaning of 'showy,' which led to the modern, ironic sense. Cheesed 'disgruntled, exasperated,' is from 1941, British slang, but the connection is uncertain."


 * Corny according to Word for Word:

"'Corny or cornfed as in trite, hackneyed or sentimental, made its appearance about 1930 as a jazz musician's expression. The cornball variant arrived about 1945. It might look as though corny were one more piece of city slicker mockery of things rural, as in corncobber, a rustic and corncracker, a poor white Kentuckian. But the slang term corn is much older, and almost certainly influenced the jazz meaning."
 * Rockpock e  t  06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to the excellent analysis above: according to the OED, the modern use of "cheesy" to mean "tawdry, hackneyed, unsubtle, or excessively sentimental" was first recorded in the United States in 1943. The British "cheesed" to mean disgruntled, fed up or exasperated is more usually heard as "cheesed off" and is now usually only used by older people. -- Necrothesp 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an exhaustive list of lie/lay, sit/set, rise/raise kind of verb pairs?
I would appreciate if someone can point out a link on the internet, where I can get a practically complete list of lie/lay, sit/set, rise/raise kind of verb pairs. 202.141.96.146 06:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya
 * I don't think there are any more except for perhaps fall/fell ("I fell the tree") and drink/drench ("I drenched it in dye"). --Kjoonlee 09:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about the etymology of these word pairs (the pattern of drink/drench especially), I believe there are a number of other examples (but of course at the moment I can't remember any of them). Tesseran 09:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This kind of pairing was common in proto-Germanic and remains more common in modern German than it is in English. The only other example that I can think of besides the ones already mentioned is watch/wake, where, as with drink/drench, the meanings of the pair's members have shifted so that the original causative meaning of "wake" has disappeared.  ("Watch" comes from a verb that meant "be awake".)  By the way, to correct Kjoonlee's typo, "I fell the tree" should be "I felled the tree".  Marco polo 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "I fell the tree" is correct in present tense, "I felled the tree" is past tense. If you'd be interested in Germanic comparative linguistics, I think you could find several examples, although some, (like Swedish "brinna"/"bränna" for "burn", and "vakna"/"väcka" for wake up) are only currently used in one or a few languages. 惑乱 分からん 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * German has intransitive (auf-/er-)wachen vs. transitive (auf-/er-)wecken, which I guess is the same as vakna/väcka in Swedish. Wikipeditor 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I think the n in Swedish vakna, might be derived from an old inchoative form, which I guess (?) even might be related to the -en-ending in verbs such as "redden" etc, the word "vaka" means "watch over". 惑乱 分からん 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Korean has quite a few of those (for example intransitive/transitive 나/내, 길/기르, 크/키우, 서/세우, 타/태우, transitive (accepts a direct object, but no indirect object) 쓰 vs. transitive (mandates an indirect object) 씌우), although most if not all can probably be interpreted as having morphophonemic suffixes rather than a vowel change in the stem. Here are two German pairs:
 * intransitive schmilzen [] “melt” vs. transitive schmelzen [] “smelt”
 * transitive saugen [] “suck” (with some people using two different past participles: gesaugt for having cleaned a place with the vacuum cleaner, and gesogen for everything else) vs. transitive säugen [] “suckle”
 * Wikipeditor 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you added transliteration and translation to the Korean hangul examples, thanks. 惑乱 分からん 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't the Wiktionary links have translations? Anyway,
 * Nada: to occur (in Nature), naeda: to put forth, to submit.
 * Gilda: is long, gireuda: to grow/nurture something
 * Keuda: is big, kiuda: to grow stuff bigger
 * Seoda: to stop moving, to stand; seuda: to make someone stop, to make someone stand
 * Tada: to ride, taeuda: to give someone a ride
 * Sseuda: to put on a hat (for example), sseuiuda: to cover something, to put a hat on someone else
 * --Kjoonlee 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ixnay, Wiktionary didn't work. It's good etiquette, anyway... Thank you for the info. 惑乱 分からん 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, shouldn't "gilda" and "keuda" also be in the infinitive form (to be long/big)? If Korean is like Japanese, there doesn't seem to be any direct equivalent to/ distinction between the infinitive and present tense, but when translating into English, it souds better... 惑乱 分からん 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the Korean "ride" pair is somehow related to the homophone "burn" pair. Wikipeditor 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which pair? The Swedish, or is there a "tada"/"taeuda" pair meaning intrans/trans burn in Korean, too? 惑乱 分からん 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter (both pairs are Korean). The different meanings were apparently homographs (except for any possible difference in pitch accent marks) as early as the 15th century – that is, in the earliest alphabetic texts (Reference: On, entry #01 is for "mount/ride" v. i., #02 is "burn" v. i.; earliest attestations at bottom). I haven't found anything on a relation in Martin 1992. Perhaps the "burn" meaning was originally used for flames of an already existing fire that then "mounted" (that is, spread to or were transferred onto) other things, as opposed to independent outbreaks of new fires which could have been more adequately expressed by 불나- pul na- "fire + (to) emerge"; the na- is the same as in the above list. (Note: Burnt things would likely take the accusative instead of the nominative case if that etymology were correct.) Wikipeditor 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (edited)

Returning to the original query, there is the very marginal rot/ret pair, where "ret" means "cause to rot", or did once. It survives, as far as I know, only in the vocabulary of linen-making (you ret flax).  &middot; rodii &middot;  20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one seems to have mentioned the weak transitive/causative verb "hang," which still survives in reference to hanging people (hang, hanged, hanged vs. hang, hung, hung). Wareh 21:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good one. German has hängen, hängte, gehängt vs. hängen, hing, gehangen. Wikipeditor 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know about a list, but look at causative. Also, if you don't limit yourself to etymologically related words, you'll find lots of others like 'fall/drop' (vs. 'fall/fell' for a tree/person). Drmaik 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

"The government has collapsed"
I've noticed this phrase has two quite different meanings, and want to know if my observation is correct. The primary meaning in the US seems to be that now there is no longer any form of government, and total anarchy exists, as happened shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The British English meaning seems to be more along the lines of the ruling coalition in a parliamentary system breaking up, resulting in the formation of a new coalition. Which is the older meaning ? StuRat 10:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, the meanings seem basically the same, just used with different strength and/or precision. 惑乱 分からん 14:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like a dramatic difference to me. The BBC recently reported that the Italian government was "on the verge of collapse", leading us poor Americans worried that NATO or EU troops would be needed to restore order from the resulting anarchy and riots that would be expected once they no longer had any form of government.  Are there any terms that could be used instead to distinguish between these cases ?  (I would think "the coalition has broken up" should be used in the later case, myself.) StuRat 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To express the first meaning, it would be more likely to say "Government has collapsed" or "All government has collapsed". AnonMoos 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be due to the different nuances of 'government' on either side of the Atlantic. In a parliamentary democracy, the government is formed in and from parliament, and can be changed by the will of parliament. In the US system, the executive forms its own administration, and it generally completes its term. Then, in this latter system, the term 'government' is used to refer to the condition of the administration and legislature together. Thus, in the UK, a government falling is a serious matter, but it describes the government being removed from power by the parliament in constitutional process. However, in the US, a government falling would more likely describe the overthrow of constitutional process: that the authority of administration and legislature is removed. — Gareth Hughes 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a big differenence between the "fall of a government" in the American system and in parliamentary systems like that of Italy. When Americans talk about a "government" they mean the state itself. (Any given president/cabinet is simply an "administration.") If you're in Rome and someone tells you the government has fallen, you may decide to turn on the news when you get home. If you're in the U.S. and you hear the government has fallen, it's time to hunker down in your basement with a shotgun and a year's supply of canned goods. -- Mwalcoff 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In Portuguese the word governo (government) means only what americans call the current administration. Estado (state) means the institution which exists through many different administrations. I guess it´s the same in Italian and other European languages. I didn´t understand the original question ultil I read this answer. It wouldn´t be a big deal for me to read in the paper that the American government had collapsed. I´d think that the President and the Congress could not agree anymore and then someone resigned. A.Z. 20:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but what term do parliamentary democracies use to refer to their legislative, executive, and judicial branches collectively, if not their "government" ? Would they say "the state has collapsed" to say that all 3 branches had ceased to function ? Also, note that, under the US Nixon administration, something roughly equivalent to "the government collapsing" under a parliamentary democracy happened, with the Vice President leaving, then many others in the administration being fired, and finally Nixon resigning. However, I don't think anyone said "the government is collapsing" then. StuRat 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK the 'government' is what is called in the US 'the executive' -- i.e. the Prime Minister and cabinet. The legislature is the Houses of Parliament. The judiciary is independent, its members being appointed by the Crown. It is difficult to imagine the collapse envisaged by StuRat, since it would mean that they were all dead. I have a notion that constitutionally power would revert to the Crown, which in the case of the nuking of London on the day of a royal wedding might cause a few problems. Chris Towner 12:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think 'the state has collapsed' would be the nuance used in the UK that is equivalent to what in the US would be called the collapse of government. The 'three branches' description is rather alien to parliamentary democracies in that sovereignty is vested in the parliament (although, in constitutional monarchies, an actual sovereign is bound by precedent and/or law to exercise sovereignty in accord with parliament). The fall of the Nixon administration in the US would be described as 'fall of government' in the UK. However, I, as a British citizen who cheered when it happened, wouldn't describe Thatcher's resignation as 'fall of government'. That's probably becuase the Conservative Party maintained majority in Parliament and the resignation resulted in an internal, party election for a new leader, Major, who was simply asked to form a new government by the Queen. — Gareth Hughes 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If a royal wedding was nuked it would undoubtedly cause problems (an understatement!), but the Crown would not fall, since the line of succession is worked out to the nth degree and there would be someone somewhere who was the heir. Some fiction has postulated the complete elimination of the Crown, which could not actually happen without thousands of co-ordinated assassinations across the globe. And even then a rightful heir could be found eventually. -- Necrothesp 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * However, 'Her Majesty's Government' is separate from the Crown, appointed by it based on its ability to command a majority in Parliament. For the government to fall, means the loss of its full command of Parliament. It is essentially different from a coup d'état in that a coup is an unconstitutional removal of political authority. The extinction of the Royal Family, to some or lesser extent, might leave the government intact, just unsure of who the personification of the Crown which they serve is. Thus, perhaps in US English, 'fall of government' might be understood as something close to a coup, whereas in British English it is clearly a constitutional change. — Gareth Hughes 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding StuRat's question, the word "government" in countries with parliamentary systems can mean either "state" or "administration." The meaning is inferred from the context. If someone says, "I got a tax refund from the government," it's clear the person is referring to the state and not to the current cabinet. -- Mwalcoff 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "complete elimination of the Crown" could be achieved without a single loss of life. The Crown only exists because the Parliament lets it.  For example, the Queen could not unilaterally abdicate; the Parliament must pass a law that permits her to do so (as it did when Edward VIII abdicated - see His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936). The Parliament could, theoretically, pass a bill abolishing the Crown and turning the UK into a republic, and the Queen would have no choice but to act on her Prime Minister's advice and give the bill Royal Assent, thus putting herself out of a job.  Whether this is ever likely to happen is of course an entirely different question.  JackofOz 02:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Heracles/Herakles
Hi. I'm looking for the correct pronounciation of Heracles/Herakles. I have never heard the word spoken, and cannot find a reliable web page or guide. The wikipedia article gives the Greek spelling, and I have seen pages telling me the greek version is pronounced iraklis. Is this how we should pronounce it? Should it be Herakils? Heraklees? Herayklees? I thank thee for any help given. Goldfritter 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression is that, based on Ancient Greek, it would be pronounced similar to, with the stress on and  (although that impression might be under impact from Swedish). English lacks a true "long e", but I think some approximation like HEE(y)-ra'-KLESS would be close. Improvements? 惑乱 分からん 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Back in 1987 around London they used to pronounce it as . m-w.com seems to mention --Kjoonlee 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always pronounced it . —Angr 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Angr's pronunciation is standard, at least among American Classicists. The "iraklis" version is strictly Modern Greek.  Classical Greek approximately //.  Wareh 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most (European, anyway) languages seem to have their own customary way of rendering classical (Latin and Greek) names, which don't necessarily correspond closely to how they were pronounced in antiquity, or to how the people in the next country pronounce them. But in English, it happened that the Great vowel shift, which took most English long vowels on a voyage round the mouth, occurred soon after the humanists had rediscovered the ancient pronunciations, more or less; and the English vowels took the Latin and Greek ones with them. As a result, traditional English pronunciations of classical names used vowels that nobody else in Europe would have recognised for them - for example the universal for Greek '-ης'. --ColinFine 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Upside ones head
What the phrase "upside ones head" mean, as in "computer dating is like pimping but you rarely have to use the phrase 'upside your head'" (from Futurama)? There's been at least one song which uses the phrase, and it is also often used on TV. In addition, is there any known etymology of the phrase, since "upside" doesn't appear to having any meanings which would make sense in this context. Laïka 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only ever heard it in the context of "I'll smack you upside the head", meaning an openhanded upward smack on the side of the head. I suppose the implication is that pimps frequently threaten to smack their whores upside the head, although when I was growing up in Texas it was a fairly standard threat from parents and teachers to children. I suppose parenting and teaching are a lot like pimping too. —Angr 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase makes no sense to me at all. I know 'upside' only in 'upside down', and in a recent word (which might be hyphenated: 'up-side') meaning 'advantages', as in 'on the up-side, we don't have to go through with it'. --ColinFine 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase ... upside your head is not to be taken literally. It is intended to illustrate severe punishment for "stupid" behavior usually spoken by a parent as:


 * ''... and if you do that again I'm gonna whomp you "upside yer head" (sometimes accentuated with an object such as - "I'm gonna whomp you "upside yer head" with this fryin' pan... )


 * ...colloquially as: "you do that agin I'm gonna kill ya" but with no intent to really kill. --hydnjo talk 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's short for "upwards, on the side on your head". In the TV sitcom My Wife and Kids, the father regularly so slaps his son. StuRat 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)