Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 25

= July 25 =

To speak the truth....
While looking up the etymology of the word "truth", it came to my attention that there was no verb form of "to speak the truth." This interested me since there is a verb to express the act of being dishonest - "to lie." I noticed the same situation in Spanish, and my friend told me that it was also the same in French and Dutch. Is there any language in which there is a verb form of "to speak the truth" as there is one to express the act of being dishonest? 65.9.238.124 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but many languages, like Classical (but not modern) Chinese could use a noun or adjective as a verb. Thus you could say "Person X is truthing". I don't know a modern Chinese word for "speaking the truth", but the existence of one wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps a reason that there isn't a common word for "speaking the truth" is that there is an assumption that one speaks the truth most of the time, and lying is something less common, and requires a more specific phrase.
 * A side note - English has a sort of word to talk about speaking the truth: soothsaying. Sooth has similar origins to truth. The soo bit comes from the Indo-European root of the verb 'to be' (like Latin sum/es/est/sumus/estis/sunt and so on), and the same -th suffix as truth (and width and length). Steewi (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to finish the thought. The point is, that soothsaying is "speaking what is" (as opposed to "speaking what is not") in an etymological sense, although the meaning these days is more mystical. Steewi (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OED "truth, v. To name or call truly; to describe with truth as" It is an obsolete form of the word but it does exist. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It also exists as "To speak or deal truly" as in "Truthing it in love". Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not quite obsolete; used in "These Boots are Made for Walking" by Nancy Sinatra: "You've been lyin' when you shoulda been truthin'" -- Rodhull andemu  23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Galore
This has bugged me for a while, and having read some of the excellent responses and discussions on this page, I thought I might pose the question here.

What part of speech is the word "galore"? As in "I have apples galore". The dictionary.com definitions are split between whether it's an adjective or an adverb. To me it makes more sense as an adjective (you're quantifying the apples, a noun, right?). If it is indeed an adjective, then are there any other adjectives which, in English, come after the noun? "Aplenty" may be one. What about adjectives which don't describe quantity? Thanks in advance. Willnz0 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a nice question. There are only a few words which can only occur after the noun ("postmodification" of the noun head) like galore and aplenty. Others are just mostly idiomaticish things like elect in the president elect, designate in the president designate, and public in a notary public. They are usually called adjectives although they are weird adjectives as normal adjectives can be used attributively in pre-modifying positions (i.e. the _____ NOUN) or in predicates (i.e. SUBJECT is _______).


 * There are adverbial type things that can postmodify as well. Like out in the way out or X-ward in the way southward, the way homeward.


 * Several postmodifiers can also occur in premodifying position. Like the only decision possible or the only possible decision. Note how only is required in order to get the postmodification, you cant say *the decision possible.


 * Some of these have distinct meanings when occurring in the different positions. Compare the following: the country proper vs. the proper country, the citizens concerned vs. the concerned citizen, the citizens present vs. the present citizens.


 * Some adjectives like asleep have a different pattern. They can be used in predicates like The children were asleep but not in attributive premodifying position *the asleep children. They can occur in postmodifying position: the children now asleep, the house currently ablaze.


 * A special case are constructions with words like somebody, anyone, everything as in somebody new, anyone young, everything big, etc.


 * You might be able to analyze some of these as ellipted clauses. That is, the only day suitable = the only day (that is) suitable.


 * I also find this to be a pretty interesting area of English grammar. – ishwar  (speak)  05:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And a very nice reply, Ish ishwar. My only quibble is words like president elect etc.  I see this as an example of inappropriate dehyphenisation.  To me, president-elect is one word, and a different word from either president or elect.   The whole word is a noun, a compound noun admittedly, but still a noun, so there should be no need to consider what part of speech elect is because in this context it's only part of a word.  Same for governor-general-designate - although that presents a slightly different case because in some countries governor general is not hyphenated.  In Australia it is; as is attorney-general.  I guess that means that in Australia governor-general-designate is counted as one (compound) word, but in other countries governor general designate would be counted as three words.  Hyphenating the parts makes the job of analysis less burdensome because you have fewer words to analyse.  Mind you, my cunning plan falls apart with Prime Minister-elect.  There, Prime Minister is conceptualised as a single title to which -elect is appended, rather than a Minister-elect who happens to be primus inter pares. --  JackofOz (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A good reply indeed. Particularly interesting to me is the words that have different meanings in different positions. I'd encountered this in French. "Ma propre voiture" means "my own car" whereas "ma voiture propre" means "my clean car". In the case of French, the meanings are entirely different - there seems to be no logic to the meanings. Whereas in English they are closely related, usually just with different emphasis. Is that fair?


 * Secondly, to return to the original question, any ideas why galore is often said to be an adverb? How can it possibly be mistaken for an adverb? Willnz0 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably precisely because it doesn't pattern syntactically as an adjective. Adverbs are often "pro-prepositions" (i.e. single words that stand in for prepositional phrases, the way pronouns are single words that stand in for noun phrases), and "galore" could be seen as standing in for a phrase like "in abundance": "apples galore" = "apples in abundance". —Angr 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "galore" a late loanword from Gaelic or Scottish dialect? Perhaps that explains the position? Other examples of postposition in English: the Church Militant; the Siege Perilous; the House Beautiful; Lord Dunsany's fantasy short storyThe Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth; and, from Eric the Viking, the Horn Resounding. Postpositioned adjectives seem to be, ah, rampant in heraldry. Three leopards or, couchant on a field gules, etc... Rhinoracer (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It comes from the Irish "go leór" meaning sufficient or plenty. Fribbler (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably sort of comes from both Irish go leor and Scottish Gaelic gu leòr simultaneously. It may be significant that this is a prepositional phrase, not an adjective, in both languages. —Angr 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hijacking the thread but slightly related. Is there a term for the backward construction like Eric the Viking mentioned above (or Eric the Red, Billy the Kid? What parts of speech are the "the" and the qualifier? Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the OED galore is an adverb meaning "in abundance or plenty" or a noun meaning "Abundance or plenty (of something". It has been in the english language since at least the 17th century and is taken from the Irish word go leór meaning "enough"; however some sources contest the Irish root believing the word to be of Scotish Gaelic decent.  Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re JackofOz: "this as an example of inappropriate dehyphenisation". So, your analysis is then that words like postmaster general are not syntactic phrases but are compounds like blackboard, bluebird, etc. This is also an interesting issue, and there has been different analyses of these as well. There is not a very clear distinction in English between stem + stem compounds and a phrase consisting of a noun plus a modifying word. Some people have looked at word stress patterns to determine the matter or looked at the degree idiomatic meaning (e.g. blackboards are often green not black). So, although the big grammars of English dont consider postmaster general to be a compound, an argument could be made that they are — just as with clay soil (is it clay-soil, a noun-noun compound, or [clay soil]noun phrase?). On a side note, the hyphenation is orthographic and isnt criterial for determining compound vs. phrase as the hyphenation is rather inconsistent and has much variation in English. And your last part "my cunning plan falls apart with Prime Minister-elect", your analysis doesnt have to stop there because complex words have an internal morphological structure. For instance there are two unlockable words: un-[lockable] "not able to be locked" and [unlock]-able "able to be unlocked" — each has a different internal structure (and different un- prefixes) which account for the different meanings. So, you can analyze thus: [Prime-Minister]-elect.


 * That's worth exploring a little. I wonder if the hyphen isn't more significant than you say.  If I gave you a list of single words to parse, and one of them was "governor-general", would you say "Oh, that's a trick question.  This is two words, a noun and an adjective"?  Or, if the precise numbers of words of different types in some text was important to know, would it contribute to the count of adjectives as well as the count of nouns, or only to the count of nouns?  For my part, I'd count it as one word, a noun, but I'd count the unhyphenated version "governor general" as two words, a noun and an adjective.  They both of course refer to the same office, but there are many other examples of alternative titles where one has more/less words than another.   --  JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on how you define word. If you define a word orthographically as being separated by spaces or certain types of punctuation, then you would conclude that governor-general and governor general were different and I suppose also login or log-in as different from log in. I was thinking of a linguistically-oriented definition. (Is linguistically-oriented one word or two?) That is, using grammatical criteria to decide the issue. Then the orthographic conventions would then be irrelevant. Here's a hyphenation question: what do you do with a University of Michigan-Oakland University joint project? Is Michgan-Oakland one word? That is at odds with what our intuitions say — it should be [University-of-Michigan]-[Oakland-University], right? Laurie Bauer (who's closer to part of the world) usually has very interesting things to say about English words, so if you're interested in compounding issues (with a litle about orthography & a lot about stress patterns) take a look at this paper of his: Adjectives, Compounds and Words. – ishwar  (speak)  06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Willnz0: "in English they are closely related, usually just with different emphasis". Well, we need more examples for comparison. The two proper’s are kinda different in meaning. Premodifying proper = "suitable, appropriate", postmodifying proper = "as strictly defined" — perhaps more similar to each than your French example propre. And "any ideas why galore is often said to be an adverb?". I definitely agree with Angr, these type of words dont fit into the traditional grammar scheme so there isnt a set label for them. And that reasoning (equating with adverb-prepositional phrase substitution) could be the dictionaries' reasoning. If you dont know, the term adverb is mostly a wastebasket label for all the words that traditional grammar doesnt know what to do with. To be sure, there is a core group of "adverb" words like quickly, carefully but if you want to have a coherent description of English grammar, you'll need to redefine adverb to apply to only a single syntactic class of word or discard it entirely. So, as galore is different from other adjectives, adverb is a perfectly suitable label for dictionaries.


 * Re Rmhermen: The the is a determiner (specifically an article). The construction is apposition.


 * The R. Quirk grammar notes that "the postpositive adjectives, as in the president elect and vice-chancellor designate, reflects a neoclassical style based on Latin participles and much in vogue in Elizabethan times". – ishwar  (speak)  16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As in the Witchmaster General, or Surgeon General nowadays.

...and what of Alexander the Great? (If you think my remarks trite, spare me the Retort Wounding.) Rhinoracer (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the word "Chancellor-designate" in an edit not 24 hours ago. --  JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a rather large instrument here...
In the context of an auction, what is "the instrument". I'm thinking it may be either the appraised value of the item or the estimated auction sale price. StuRat (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The instrument" is the title deeds to a property etc. It's often used in auctions as a term but I had a bit of trouble getting a definition until I slapped myself in the face and just looked it up in a dictionary: . Fribbler (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem quite right. I was watching a Cosby Show episode where he went to buy a painting at an auction.  He asked his son-in-law what the "instrument" was, and he replied with a price.  The bidding then started below that price but soon rose above it. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

cheese-eating surrender monkey
What or who is that?83.52.209.197 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we have an article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys. —Angr 10:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember not to feed 'em Freedom fries. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific Tibetan script question
Hi, all... Does anyone know the correct Tibetan spelling of the Om mani padme hum chant? Tibetan script (and its picture) gives the 3rd syllable as ན -based, whereas the chant pages (and the svg thereon) gives it as ཎ -based. From what I can gather, this may reflect the difference between "ni" and "ṇi". Does anyone know the correct version? Thanks for your time, --Storkk (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you try this website. If you can't find the answer there, the guy who runs it is very helpful.--Shantavira|feed me 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much... I'll fix the corresponding page. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It it, that that, yeah yeah
Is there a word for using the same word in a sentence, one after the other??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Epizeuxis, it would seem. You learn something new everyday! :-) Fribbler (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the anonymous user means it quite like that. That that is not repetition for emphasis but is lexical ambiguity as in That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. I don't know what the specific term is for using the same word one after another, or if there is one, but I think (but I might be wrong) that lexical ambiguity or polysemy is what the IP is asking about. She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cue for an excuse to repeat a linguistic urban legend:

A renowned linguist was delivering a lecture in which, as an aside, he noted that in English two negatives make a positive, but that two positives can't make a negative;

From the audience came, in the tones of a weary New York cabbie:

"Yeah, yeah."

Rhinoracer (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Epizeuxis is a very, very good word. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The accidental or substandard repetition of a word or of some other written element is called dittography. The accidental omission of some element is called lipography, though our article lipography simply redirects to lipogram (a literary composition systematically avoiding some letter, or similar element). The incorrect suppression of a repeated element (like libry for library) in speech is called haplology (also jokingly and self-referentially called haplogy); in writing it is called haplography.
 * Dittography and lipography occur very commonly, and they are hard to detect in one's own work. I myself suffer distressingly from lipography. Either may be considered a neuropsychological symptom, and may indicate some more general disorder of language processing. More likely, perpetrators are simply tired, lazy, inattentive, or growing old. (Join the club?) Such terms are also useful in textual criticism.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Rhinoracer, in another, it's an insolent Australian student saying "Yeah, right!" -- Julia Rossi (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

When we are writting about a country exactly which part of the name should be in capital letters?
Hy there, as English is not my first language I have some difficulties with some of its rules. AFAIK only true names begin with capital letters (besides the first word in a sentence), "true names" being either personal names like Christian, Paul, James (and including family names) or national names/labels like Roman, English, German, British. However this seems to be a bit unclear in the case of the names of countries/states. Most of the time all nouns of the name are written in capital letters: (e.g.: Democratic Republic of Congo) but here and there I also found examples of Nabeatean kingdom, Roman empire, etc. So what are the rules, and are there any exceptions? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unclear even to those of us who English is a first language. Your two examples are in a grey area; however in both cases the first part is being used as an adjective for the second part (a non-proper noun) rather than the whole thing being used as a proper name.  You may also see Roman Empire, in this case the author is using empire as part of the proper name. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Someone more knowledgeable can probably give you a more succinct explanation but just as a starting point I would look to MOS:CAPS. Basically, if it is a proper noun then it should be capitalised. In fact, I would say that Roman Empire should be capitalised as Holy Roman Empire was its name. Words like empire and kingdom are capitalised if they are part of the official name. So you would have Kingdom of Belgium or United Kingdom. However, if the words are used in a more generalised way then they would not be capitalised. For example, 'Belgium is a kingdom' or, er... 'Rome had a large empire' (sorry, I'm not very good at thinking of examples). As I said, someone else can probably give a better explanation but that's a starting point for you. She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were two completely different regimes. As my high school history teacher said of the latter, "It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire." -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (written after Flamarande's message below) I typed 'Holy' when I didn't mean to :P It just rolls off the tongue so nice... Either way it'd be with a capital E. See Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire. She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed; well I was bold and created Nabatean kingdom with a minor K. I guess it might be moved but what the hell... Flamarande (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say in that usage it might be Nabatean Kingdom but I might be wrong... I haven't heard of it before so I don't know. You're right, someone will come along and move it if it is wrong :) She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus if you were talking about one of these in general you would say a Roman empire. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside: Coneslayer, your high school history teacher stole that line from Voltaire. Search that page for the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". —Angr 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one chooses on something like this: create the relevant redirect! (I just did.) As a proper noun, I'd write Nabatean Kingdom. "This was during the era of the Nabatean Kingdom". As a common noun, though, I'd use lower case "The Nabatean kingdom was entirely unlike that of Britain." - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, time is of the essence...
What is the origin of the word, "nevertheless?" It does not seem to make any sense literaly, and as a transitional word it seems to make even less sense. My second question is, what is the origin of the expression, "Time is of the Essence?" I am assuming that there was more to this expression at one point, but it was lost over time. By itself the expression makes no sense, time is of "the essence" of what? 65.9.252.237 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, so long as you read "never" more loosely than its modern narrow meaning. A modern equivalent phrase might be "is not lessened" (i.e. "in importance/impact"). Obviously, the phrase you cite is a fragment, and needs to be preceded by something by which "time being of the essence" is not lessened. Just my 2¢ --Storkk (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless has been around since the 14th century. It is similar to the eariler natherless and nautherless. Nonetheless means all the same thus it is nothing less than. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could 'essence' be something to do with 'essential'? She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Time is of the essence" appears to be a legal term which has entered the common vernacular. This blog post discusses it a bit, and then gets way too technical for me, perhaps somebody else can summarize it.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a crack at it. :-) Here is my reading of his text: Ordinarily, in the area of contract law, it's enough to do the thing that you signed a contract to do; doing it late isn't necessarily grounds for the other person to break off the contract and go hire someone else (although it might be, it depends).  It's therefore been a tradition to add "Time is of the essence of this agreement" to contracts where the person making the contract wants to hold the other guy to doing his job in time, and they can break off the contract if he doesn't do so, even if he only missed the deadline by a little bit.  The blog then goes on to discuss the extent to which the American courts have upheld this type of thing in actual contract cases (summary: not very much), and he suggest some alternate ways of phrasing such a requirement that might be more effective.
 * Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is just an attempted translation of a blog post anyway; please do not refer to the above paragraph as legal advice, see a professional instead.
 * -- Grey Knight  ⊖  20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To apply that to your question, I suppose the common intent is "Time is of the essence of this situation", with the particular situation being referred to understood from context. That is, the very essence (fundamental ingredient; essential's second definition) of the situation is timeliness.  -- Grey Knight   ⊖  20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So to answer one of the original questions; 'time is of the essence' has its origins in a legal term meaning 'time is of the essence to this contract' or 'time is essential to this contract'. This was a stipulation added to ensure that the person signing the contract completed their end of the bargain in an allotted time. Is that right? She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Grey Knight, I see you've practically answered my question, the edit conflict got me confused! She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Defeat
The recent headlines about the crushing defeat of Brown's labour party has made me think about the way defeat is used. Various people are defeated, others defeat, but the outcome for each is very different. It seems a slightly ambiguous verb/noun; Is one or other of the usages incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Od6600 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eg? You mean the way if I kill you, the news reports are going to say you've been killed by an insane wikipedian? (just to be clear, this is not a threat) Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! It was a little vague. Compare and contrast if you will;

(1) Prime Minister Brown's labour party acknowledged their crushing defeat at the hands of the Scotish national party.

Versus

(2) The SNP's defeat of PM Brown's labour party was a surprise result.

Od6600 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Od6600 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you are asking. The Labour Party is the direct object of the verb "defeat", while the SNP is the subject.  The full statement is "The SNP defeated the Labour Party.", or "The Labour Party were defeated by the SNP.".  In both cases there are two particpants, the one performing the defeat, and the one to whom the defeat is done; notice that your #1 talks of a defeat by ("at the hands of") the SNP, and your #2 talks of the defeat of the Labour Party.  These prepositions indicate which participant is which.  I hope that clarifies things for you, please ask if I was still unclear.  -- Grey Knight   ⊖  20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the crux of the matter is that when "defeat" is used as a noun, as in example sentences (1) and (2) above, In (1), "their defeat" is using the possessive pronoun "their" to indicate the direct object of "defeat", while in (2), "the SNP's defeat" is using the possessive phrase "the SNP's" to indicate the subject of "defeat", and then uses the phrase "of the Labour Party" to indicate the "object". Basically, "their defeat" (and "my defeat", "your defeat") etc. is ambiguous between the subject and the direct object readings. —Angr 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you defeat, the sentence is in active voice. If you are defeated, the sentence is in passive voice. This applies for most action verbs. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read, say, " . This all changed with Smith's defeat." with no preceding information, merely as a dramatic lead-in to the next paragraph or chapter, you'd assume it was a defeat of Smith by someone/something else (eg. Jones). You'd be unlikely to discover they were really talking about Jones being defeated by Smith.  So it can be used unambiguously in a context-free context (hey, I like that). But "Smith's defeat" by itself could refer to Smith defeating someone else just as much as to someone else defeating Smith.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec:):Yes, but the OP was asking about the noun 'defeat', as previous posters have noticed. Angr, 'their defeat' may be formally ambiguous, but pragmatically it certainly is not. Without an expressed object, it can only mean that they suffered the defeat - if you want the possessor as subject, you need an object ('their defeat of the Labour Party'). A more genuinely ambiguous case is 'orders': 'his orders' can be either the orders he gives or those he receives. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do believe my examples were about the noun defeat. Oh, I see.  You were responding to Paragon 12321.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A word meaning "levels of abstraction"
A while ago, I read about an article here about a word that was used to describe varying levels of abstraction. For instance, a sociologist might discuss the impact of the Internet without needing to know the specifics of how it works, or a biologist could study the cell structure in a plant without detailed knowledge of how its constituent atoms interacted. I'm sure it originated as a legal term, but there have been a number of situations recently where it would have come in handy.

Does anybody have any idea what this word might be? hitman012 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The opposite of "greedy reductionism", I guess... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From an enginering POV, we sometimes call technical items we don't know (or care) about a "black box". That is, we know what the inputs and outputs are, but don't know the details of how it works.  In some cases, the reason we don't know is a security issue, and only a select few are privy to the actual workings of the "black box".  You'll also note that this term is used for the cockpit voice recorder and similar devices onboard airplanes.  This is essentially the same usage, in that the people who normally use the box, the aircraft crash investigators, don't know, or care, how it works, as long as it does. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi hitman012, take a look at Reification, Reification (computer science). The term is used in psychology and computer science (among other contexts) in a sense similar to what you seem to be mentioning here. Also, the concept of "High Level Chunking" is relevant. The latter is not a single word, and the former is perhaps not thoroughly explained by the links, but there's a start for your independent research. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)