Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 24

= April 24 =

fish vs fishes
Can I have all the possible definitions of "fishes"? More specifically, i suppose, can 'fishes' be used as a noun?

Thank you! 216.165.25.53 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fishes can be used as a plural noun, but rarely. It (like peoples) is mainly used to express the fact that what's being referred to is a plurality of kinds or divisions of the creatures rather than just an undifferentiated mass of them—so one might title a book about the various species of them "Fishes of the World" rather than "Fish of the World." (And my Merriam-Webster Collegiate informs me that Fishes [capitalized] is used as an English equivalent of the constellation name Pisces.) Deor (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. In addition: "the zero plural is te more common to denote hunting quarries, eg: We caught only a few fish, whereas the regular plural is used to denote different individuals, species, etc: the fishes of the Mediterranean. (Quirk et al.); so the plural also may indicate individuals if we wish to differentiate among them. Bessel Dekker (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The English word fish can be compared with the German word Wort ("word"), which has two plural forms, Worte and Wörter.
 * See http://german.about.com/library/definitions/bldef07b_0103.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and the same goes for Land. There is a difference with English, though: these German words do not have zero plural. There are, of course, English words where there are two distinct forms, both morphologically plural: isthmuses - isthmi etc., which, however, seem to have the same meaning.
 * A difference in meaning is found in such pairs as indices ("subscript or superscript numbers") - indexes ("word lists, part of the end matter of a book"). Bessel Dekker (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a few of those. Stadiums (venues for sporting events) and stadia (ancient units of distance) also come to mind. Deor (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Fishes' tends to be restricted as Deor and Bessel have suggested, but it is not quite so narrow as they imply, especially in older use. I am quite surprised to find that the WP article feeding the multitude refers to the event as 'the miracle of the loaves and fish', because in my experience 'of the loaves and the fishes' is much more common. The OED gives examples of 'fishes' up to 1842, and none of the quotations seem to mean 'kinds of fish'. On the other hand it does date the collect. sing. used for pl. back to 1300. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

French Translations: 4
I am stuck on the following translations and any assistance would be much appreciated:

a) "In this picture there are four children" - would it be "En ce tableau il y a quatre enfants" or "Dans ce tableau il y a quatre enfants" or "Ce tableau il y a quatre enfants"? I am mainly unsure of what French preposition should take the place of "In" in the given context.

b) "Three of the children are picking up pebbles on the shore of the lake" - would it be "Les trois des enfants ramassent des cailloux au bord du lac"?. Mainly I am unsure of:

i) The use of the definite article for "Three of the children"

ii) The translation of "on the shore of the lake". In English, we could write "by the shore of the lake" also, so are the two translations the same (with "by" or "on")?

c) "The master is relating the story of the generals to the pupils" - would it be "Le maîte raconte l'histoire des généraux aux élèves"?

d) "Show me the pupil who is not listening" - would it be "Montrez-moi l'élève qui n'écoute pas"? The other thing I am unsure of is how to say "show me a pupil who is not listening". Should the indefinite article be masculine or feminine in this case, if it was a general statement and the pupil described is not known?

As usual, I greatly appreciate the help I get and always recommend the reference desk to anyone I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Dans ce tableau il y a quatre enfants
 * b) Trois des enfants ramassent des cailloux au bord du lac
 * c) Le maître raconte l'histoire des généraux aux élèves
 * d)
 * Montrez-moi l'élève qui n'écoute pas - show me the student
 * Montrez-moi un élève qui n'écoute pas - show me a student
 * when gender is unknown or mixed, always use the masculine form

--Ianare (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here: for case d): if you are talking to just one person, if would obviously be 2nd person singular, so: "Montre-moi l'élève qui n'écoute pas" etc. Lectonar (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Modulo T-V distinction, of course. —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Name
1. What's the name given to a surname that is the surnames of both of someone's parents, such as "Walsh-Moloney"?

2. Which name comes first in such a surname: the mother's surname or the father's surname? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's called a double-barreled name, although those can have other origins than the surnames of the individual's parents. Which comes first depends on the parents' choice; I've encountered both. —Angr 07:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure how common the practice is around the world, but here in Slovenia there's also a lot of cases where the double surname in the case of women is 'maiden name' 'married name' (granted, they don't use hyphens, so it's slightly different). One of the reasons, I am told, is in the case of a studied woman not wanting to loose the connection to the various articles they might have written before marriage. There are apparently also cases where husbands also take the wife's maiden name for consistency. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But in those cases, surely maiden name or married name does not refer to both elements, but only to the element representing the lady's original surname? Or am I mistaken? Bessel Dekker (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Frédéric Joliot-Curie was born Jean Frédéric Joliot, but added his wife's surname, Curie.  She also became a Joliot-Curie.  His mother's maiden name never came into it.  There are examples of a man changing his surname completely to be the same as his wife's surname, the exact reverse of the usual tradition, but can't bring one to mind right now.
 * Btw, not all double-barrelled surnames are hyphenated. Ralph Vaughan Williams's surname was not Williams, but Vaughan Williams, for example.  These are called "unhyphenated double-barrelled surnames".  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a case of a famous man (or the husband of a famous woman) taking his wife's name upon marriage, but a former roommate (flatmate) of mine did that. Before he married his girlfriend, they flipped a coin to see whose name they would use, and she won. —Angr 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article on Married and maiden names suggests that Jack White of the White Stripes is another. Ka renjc 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In certain periods in history, if a man inherited a landed estate from his mother's family, or came into it through marriage, and it was bigger and richer than anything else he owned, then it wasn't at all unsual for the man to add his mother's maiden name or wife's surname onto his own, or in some cases to even use that surname instead of his paternal surname (it's a plot point in Humphrey Clinker, for example). AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See Man wins right to use wife's last name | Stuff.co.nz. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As to which goes first, it varies. In Britain usually the last element corresponds to the first quarter of a coat of arms, which is almost always paternal.  But for counterexample the fifth duke of Marlborough (who inherited the title through a daughter of John Churchill, the first duke) changed his surname from Spencer to Spencer-Churchill, and put the Churchill arms first. —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin phrase
Here's one for the the Latinists: cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animo. If they could tell me what that means then I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitefox (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require a Latinist, since it's Latin only in the loosest sense. As one can easily find out by Googling, it's a bit of Dog Latin that is intended to translate the lyrics "When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face, you get sprung" in the song (?) "Baby Got Back." Deor (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It starts out fine with the first three words, but then goes downhill... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

PC
Why do people say "Macs or PCs" when Macs are PCs? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Macs are Apple Macintosh computers, whereas "PC" is short for "IBM Personal Computer", clones of which were produced during the 1990s cheaper than IBM could do it for and thus became more widely available. See Influence of the IBM-PC on the PC market. The distinction was found useful and continues to this day. I wonder why nobody cloned Apple Macs?--TammyMoet (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been various Mac-compatibles (some officially approved by Apple at one point), but most were driven off through lawsuits or bought off by Apple. The current effort in that direction is Psystar... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quibble: the term personal computer and its abbreviation PC existed, and were applied to Apples among others, before IBM claimed them (to the irritation of – well, at least me). —Tamfang (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The “PC clone” universe became possible when someone reverse-engineered IBM's Basic Input-Output System in a way that IBM could not legally defeat. Cleanly reverse-engineering Apple ROM is apparently harder.  —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Once upon a time, Macs were different enough from the IBM-PC standard (a 'PC'), mainly the CPU archictecture (powerPC instead of x86) to be in their own category. Now that they use x86 chips and other regular IBM-PC compatible parts, it's just out of habit. You're quite right that there is no difference between them anymore. --Ianare (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who owns both a Mac and a PC, I'd have to disagree. There's certainly enough difference between the two (in terms of the operating systems and usage conventions, if not strictly in terms of the hardware within the casings) to make it useful to differentiate between the two in everyday speech, and this happens to be the terminology we have. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

US
Why do people say "US state" instead of "United State"? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there's no such thing as a United State. The adjective "united" in the name "United States" doesn't mean that there are a bunch of states, each of which, taken individually, is united; it means that there are a bunch of states which are united to each other (i.e. it refers to unity among states, rather than unity within states). This can be seen clearly when the country is referred to as the Union, as in Civil War contexts. Therefore talking about a "United State" is nonsensical, because it doesn't follow at all from the name of the country. Thus, taking a given state, its distinguishing characteristic is not that it is internally united, but that it belongs to an entity called the United States or the US - therefore it's called a US state. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Occasionally people do say "a state of the United States", but Lazar Taxon is right... AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would "one of the United States" be acceptible? Bessel Dekker (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's good enough for the 11th Amendment, it's good enough for me. --Sean 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * United-to-the-others-of-the-bunch State? --pma (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A case of RAS syndrome? Livewireo (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not really. "U.S. state" is no more a RAS than "Australian state". --  JackofOz (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably true: at least, I would read "United State s state" rather than "United State state", so that there is no repetition, hence no redundancy. Thanks for the interesting 11th Amendment reference! Bessel Dekker (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most people would say "yoo ess" state; some might go so far as to say "United State s state"; but I can't see any case for "United State state". --  JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that "United State s state" sounds perishingly close to "United State state" if you don't enunciate carefully (e.g. "I bought this compack disk in a United State state "). --  JackofOz (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of reading something that began: "I always wanted to be a Three Stooge." —Tamfang (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Name for party noisemakers
Okay, maybe I've lived in a non-English-speaking country too long, but I cannot for the life of me remember the name of the little noisemakers found at children's birthday parties and New Year's Eve parties that you blow through and a little tube of paper unrolls and it makes a noise like a kazoo. What are they called??? —Angr 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Google suggests "Party blower". Nanonic (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've wondered about this for a while as well, and I've lived in an English-speaking country (England) all my life. A "Party blower" is a fairly generic term, including those little cardboard trumpets. I think Angr is looking for a specific term for those springy things that shoot out, amusingly go "wwwwaaaapp" then roll themselves up again when you stop blowing. My late father, born a Geordie, referred to them as a "hadaway-come-back" ("had away" is Geordie for "go away") which while descriptive would be incomprehensible much further south than the Wear. Tonywalton Talk 16:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sure we had a name for them when I was growing up, but unless it was simply "noisemaker" (and that article doesn't even mention them) I can't remember what it was. —Angr 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * wiktionary has party puffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.110.74 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Online party supply retailers, such as Amazon and Party City, call these "blowouts," though the term was not in any dictionary I saw. John M Baker (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Name vs. username
On the Internet, why do people say "name" instead of "username"? Saying "name" makes it sound like the person's username is their real name. 58.165.23.195 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In context it should be clear enough. —Angr 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. gr Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A name is simply what you call something. A username is a type of name - it may be different than a person's legal name, but it's still a "name". As Angr points out, which name meant (legal, user, nickname, stage name, regnal name, devotional name, nom de plume, nom de guerre, etc.) should be apparent from context. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes peoples' usernames are their real names. Tonywalton Talk 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So name is the hypernym. Bessel Dekker (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gender in cables, pipes, etc.
While helping a friend shop for computer extension cables, we found ourselves wondering about the use of 'male' and 'female' in terms of plugs, connectors, sockets, and the like. I've been trying to find out how old these terms are in this non-biological context...I've seen them applied to pipes and other connectors, but haven't been able to find any information on when or how this form of naming originated. Now my curiosity is piqued, so any information would be appreciated. Thanks! Kufat (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, with plugs, the male end has something to stick into the female end... Adam Bishop (talk)


 * Yeah, the symbolism is obvious...I'm more wondering when people started using it. I can't imagine it being used for plumbing during the Victorian era, for example...but I have no evidence either way. Kufat (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Gender of connectors and fasteners, maybe there's something about the history of the metaphor there. —Angr 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no evidence either, but I'd suspect the metaphor goes way back before the Victorian era; it's just too obvious to have gone un-noticed for thousands of years until RS-232 was invented. Think stonemasons and carpenters making mortise and tenon joints some thousand years ago in Romanesque cathedrals. Then there are the pin and socket constructions on the Stonehenge sarsens and various socketed constructions in the masonry of the Pyramids, dating back millennia before that. Tonywalton Talk 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The OED gives examples of male (6) - this meaning - from 1588: "The Trepan is of two sortes, one male, and the other female." --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's great! Kufat (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

latin question on accusative and infinitive
How would you translate a sentence like "He said he likes himself" into Latin, using the accusative and infinitive? I've read that they always used the accusative and infinitive construction in the classical period, whenever it was correct to do so, so I'm assuming that's the form to use here, but it seems awkward. You can either go "Is dixit se amare se," with one "se" for the accusative "subject" of the infinitive, and one for the object, or leave one of them out, when the meaning doesn't seem so clear. Also, if you do need two "se's," can you say "Is dixit se se amare," or do you have to separate the "se's"? thanks, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would probably go with "Dixit se amare seipsum" to avoid the confusing repetition of "se". —Angr 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Dixit se sibi placere". Iblardi (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He said he knew he remembered hearing himself announcing that he wished that he had taught himself to barber himself.
 * Sẽ tondẽre sẽ docuisse sẽ cupĩre sẽ nũntiãre sẽ audĩvisse sẽ reminĩscĩ sẽ scĩre sẽ dĩxit.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [I changed sapere to scĩre. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)]


 * You could also use "sese" or "semetipsum" (although that would also make it rather emphatic). A native speaker would obviously not use a dozen "se"s in a row, they would just reword the sentence to make it clear, just like we can do when we have a confusing sentence in English. There are other verbs to use, like Iblardi's example which cleverly avoids the double accusative. In this case you might even want to give up and use a relative clause, which is not entirely wrong in classical Latin, and perfectly acceptable post-classically - "dixit quod se amat". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much to all. Adam, do your sentences become "Is dixit sese amare" and "Is dixit semetipsum amare"?? Wavelength, by our logic, you are missing one "se" or you need to put in a "sese" at the beginning. But I don't imagine any Romans would have still been listening by the end of such a sentence anyway :) ta to all again, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They would be the same as Angr's sentences - dixit se amare sese/semetipsum. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In my example, the English sentence contains eight explicit third-person singular personal pronouns and one implicit one (the subject of the gerund "hearing"). The Latin sentence contains eight explicit ones and one implicit one (the subject of the verb dĩxit).  Incidentally, that subject could be either is (he) or ea (she). -- Wavelength (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through a Latin composition book (Bradley/Arnold/Montford) to see if there were any examples of this, but there weren't; checking other composition books might help. It's possible that they just avoided writing sentences like this, because there was no separate word for "himself" like we have. I mean, there are lots of things that can't be translated literally into Latin (or from Latin into English) because the necessary construction doesn't exist. Another possibility, however, is "inter se", although that is usually used for "each other" ("inter se amant" - they love each other). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)S

Thanks again, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)