Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 21

= May 21 =

Pollack
From http://www.smh.com.au/world/strangebuttrue/british-supermarket-rebrands-fish-to-spare-blushes-20090409-a1ux.html:

"To an English ear, "pollack" sounds unfortunately like a slang word for testicles, as well being close to two other words used as insults, one of them racist."

I get the slang word for testicles part, but what are the two other words used for insults, especially the racist one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We actually just had this question last month. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pollack is a derogatory German term for people from Eastern Europe. The Germans employed foreign workers from Bohemia and Moldovia in the coal mines with the increasing demand caused by James Watt's steam engine.  In a second wave other professions followed to seek riches in the West.  They were just as "welcome" as the later waves of immigrants from Italy and Turkey.  (Similar to Mexican immigrants in the US.) People using the therm were not too interested in getting the country of origin right.  Any non-local individual could be called by that name (particular behind their backs.)  Several reinforcing historical events kept the word in use as a derogatory name.  In several derivative steps a fish also called a Köhler (coal-maker) became known as Pollack, too. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Polack" as a derogatory term for a Pole is used in American English too. +Angr 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the great European colonization of the Americas Germans and Poles tended to arrive together from the same ports. Expressions from both languages entered into the local English language. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be worth pointing out that Polak (or similar variants) is the standard neutral word for a Pole in many Slavic languages, including Polish itself. — Emil J. 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the standard term in Norwegian, too. --NorwegianBluetalk 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that this term (as a derogatory one) doesn't appear to be present in Australia.
 * A follow-on question for the British English speakers: do you pronounce the first "o" in Pollack the same way as you pronounce the first "o" in bollocks? And, for that matter, the "a" in Pollack compared to the second "o" in bollocks? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To the first question yes: to the second question, yes depending on what dialect you are speaking. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the insults is probably pillock, which is fairly mild. I don't know what the racist one is. Polish people tend to be called Poles. I haven't come across Polak in the UK as a derogatory or non-derogatory term.


 * As a scouser, 'Polak' sounds nothing like 'pollack' to me. The former has a long 'o' and the latter a short 'o'. However, 'pollack' does rhyme with 'bollock' (singular, for certain people), but I would never even think about it unless it was brought to my attention, as it has been. People are thinking too much. It's the name of the fish! Get over it! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't yet buy the idea that Polak was used widely for Czech and Romainian people in Germany, but this is just a gut feeling. For Poles, certainly (half the Ruhr industrial revolution was done by Poles).--Radh (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my American dialect, Pollack/Polack as a derogatory term for someone from Poland sounds nothing like pollack, the fish. The "o" is long in the derogatory term, short in the fish.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they have decided to call it 'Colin' instead of 'pollack' so as not to offend Poles, I am going to send them a letter asking them to change the name from 'Colin' to something else, as it offends me! 'Colin' is my NAME! :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why our article Pollock starts out: Pollock (or pollack, pronounced the same and listed first in most UK and US dictionaries) .... If "pollack" is the predominant spelling, shouldn't the article title reflect that? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH, I've only ever seen it with an 'a' in this thread (and the article linked above). It IS usually with an 'o'. The only reason the dictionary lists it first, as I know you are well aware, is that alphabetically 'a' comes before 'o'. The predominant spelling is, in fact, 'pollock'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It says "most dictionaries", but is there any English dictionary where "pollack" would not be listed before "pollock"? My hunch is is that it's about more than mere alphabetical order.  If not, it should be deleted.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know of no dictionary in any language which lists words in order of commonality rather than alphabetical order. Pure alphabetical order - a comes before o. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It refers to the order in which variant spellings appear for a particular headword. The one that comes first is regarded by the dictionary's compilers as the most prevalent. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm getting at. If pollack is listed as the most prevalent spelling in most dictionaries, shouldn't that mean that our article is titled "Pollack" and not "Pollock"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and at the risk of taking the bait, I shall say that's a load of pollocks. The word is listed first with an 'a', purely because of alphabetic convention. Nothing to do with prevelance of spelling. I've only ever seen it with an 'o', besides in this thread, as said earlier. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Pollock. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, even if it does sound like a purportedly derogatory word for someone from Poland, what of it? Should we change the language so that no words that sound like or look like derogatory words for other nationalities/cultures/races exist anymore? Phrases like, "find a chink in their armour" and "nip it in the bud" should be changed? PC gone mad! Forget it! It's our language! I'll call a pollock a pollock. I'm not going to call it Colin. That's silly! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a Pole, I don't feel offended at all by the existence of a fish which happens to be called pollack in English. Besides, Polack used to be a neutral term for a Pole in former times. You can even find the word in Shakespeare's Hamlet. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, what do Poles call us Brits? Is there a fish with a similar sounding name? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A neutral term for a Briton is Brytyjczyk (masc.) or Brytyjka (fem.). One, fairly mild, term of abuse that comes to my mind is Brytol (plural: Brytole). Angol (pl.: Angole) would also work for those who don't care to distinguish between English and British people. I don't know of any fish with a name similar to either one of these. There is the word angielka which, depending on context, may mean an English woman, a kind of wheat bread, a horse breed or a small glass. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article en:Polish language has interlanguage links to the following 17 articles with similar names for the language: (1) ast:Polacu (Asturian language), (2) co:Lingua pulacca (Corsican language), (3) cv:Поляк чĕлхи (Chuvash language), (4) es:Idioma polaco (Spanish language), (5) gl:Lingua polaca (Galician language), (6) it:Lingua polacca (Italian language), (7) kk:Поляк тілі (Kazakh language), (8) lij:Lengua polacca (Ligurian language (Romance)), (9) mt:Lingwa Pollakka (Maltese language), (10) nap:Lengua pulacca (Neapolitan language), (11) os:Полякаг æвзаг (Ossetic language), (12) pt:Língua polaca (Portuguese language), (13) qu:Pulaku simi (Quechua), (14) sq:Gjuha polake (Albanian language), (15) scn:Lingua pulacca (Sicilian language), (16) tet:Lia-polaku (Tetum), and (17) vec:Łéngoa połaca (Venetian language). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: Name of Poland. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There once was a naive young Pole,

Who worked for his bread shovelling coal,

So he came here as a plumber,

But thought it was a bummer,

He said, 'Sod this! I'll get more on the dole!' --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I didn't realise that would be considered as trolling. In fact, that has been said a few times to me in recent weeks, and I honestly did not have that intent. I always thought trolling meant trying to make a discussion for no reason other than to have a discussion with someone, e.g. bored with no friends just wants to argue with someone. It was just a poem, put specifically in small script to show people that it was meant as a joke and not as an answer to the question. I did not even expect a reply (or someone to reformat it for me with line breaks - thank you, whoever that was). I understood that this was the protocol for Wikipedia. Anyway, apologies if you were offended, but it was meant in jest. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty seeing how that would even be trolling. It's not even offensive unless you consider any mention of Polish people being offensive.  I think we have an AGF violation here.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not assuming good faith. The limerick is even nice in itself (and actually, I did reformat it), but I think playing on anti-Polish stereotypes is more offensive than calling some fish "pollack". And it did look to me like an invitation to discussion – which would have been completely off topic – like, who's more naive: the one who doles out money for nothing or the one who pockets it? The free movement of labour within the EU is a quite sensitive topic so please be careful with that. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, [unpronounceable name], and apologies to Kpalion for having apparently caused offence, though it was never intended. 'Pole' was the only nationality that I could find that rhymes with 'dole', and, as a side note, I do not know of any Polish people on the dole, and I have many Polish friends and acquaintances. Let's end this sub-thread here, before it does turn into a discussion, and the entire thread gets deleted. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * *looks on in bewilderment at these 'anti-Polish stereotypes' unheard-of in this corner of the world.* --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more bewildered by what possible humour there was supposed to be in the limerick if it wasn't supposed to 'hilariously' refer to the supposed phenomenon of Polish people coming to the UK as plumbers and then 'scrounging' on benefits after losing these jobs. It's a stereotype that seems to be widely and generally held by people who read certain newspapers, for example. I would actually suggest that KageTora delete the poem and the following discussion. It's probably best not to get into the defences of it. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending anything. Also, this sub-thread (and corresponding limerick) will need to remain until I am sure that my apology has been read. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

堂姑嫂 in English?
How do you say 堂姑嫂 in English? thanks F (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cousin-in-law? (For those who don't read Chinese, the term describes the relationship between a female (A) and the wife (B) of her elder male cousin from her father's side. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well technically yes, but I think colloquially we would say "cousin's wife". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Systema Piezatorum
Hello! What is the Latin term "Systema Piezatorum" meaning. I cannot translate it. Thank you, 79.219.188.10 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Piezatorum" is a latinized participle (masculine, genitive, plural) of the Greek verb piezein (to squeeze or press), referring to Johan Christian Fabricius's collection of pressed insect specimina? If so, it could be translated as "system of the pressed ones" or something like that. I couldn't find any reference for this though. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an obsolete term for the order hymenoptera, used by Johan Christian Fabricius, Alfred Brehm and a few more of this time span. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I found a reference explaining Fabricius' etymology here (Frédéric Cuvier, Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, Strasbourg & Paris, 1826). It says that piezata ('squeezed') indicates that the jaws are compressed to form a nectar-tube. --Heron (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the etiquette when somebody sends you a 'hello'
Hello, what is the best way to deal with the situation when somebody 'X' comes from somewhere to meet you and says that 'Y' (whom X met recently and you know both X and Y) has sent you 'hello' and X also wishes you a nice recovery. Who should we thank first, X or Y? and what should we say here? if we have already thanked 'X', what is the best way to say thanks and/or hello to 'Y'? Should it go like, 'Oh, I say hello to Y as well and thank her for her wish and thank you (X) also for bringing this hello along' or something like this? Thanks - DSachan (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no strict rule in this situation (that I am aware of). Still, I would probably first thank the person who is present (X), add some expression of gratitude towards Y, and then promptly return my focus to X. Of course, it depends on one's relationship with both X & Y, as well as their relationship with each other. If X loathes Y, then it is not necessarily a good idea to express any gratitude towards Y in X's presence. If both you and X practically worship Y, and Y has much higher status then either X or you, then it may even be appropriate to direct most of your gratitude towards Y and practically ignore X's comment. If you have equal respect for both X & Y, and X & Y have a good or neutral relationship with each other, then I would focus mostly on X, as he is the one who actually came to visit you, although I would earnestly acknowledge Y's 'hello' as well. Something like, "Thank you so much, X, and do say hello to Y for me next time you see him/her. I really appreciate your coming here to visit me." ...or if the situation is less formal: "Thanks X, and you'll have to say hi to Y for me later. I really appreciate you coming over to visit. It means a lot." 71.174.22.234 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys


 * My understanding is that in diplomacy, when dignitary A1 expresses condolence/well wishes etc on behalf of dignitary A2 and the people of Country A to dignitary B1 (and through dignitary B1, to dignitary B2 and the people of Country B), then dinigtary B1 should express his or her thanks first to dignitary A1, and through him/her, to diginatry A2 and the people of country A. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Name
What is the earliest (recorded) instance of the name Asad/Assad? 723 A.D. is the earliest I can find... 71.174.22.234 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys


 * Asad ibn Hashim would have been born sometime in the second half of the 5th century, but I can´t find any details. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of verbal particle "up"
What is etymology of verbal particle “up” in expression “screw up”? Sirrom1 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Screw up" originally meant, "to raise prices", so the "up" part indicated the upward rising motion of prices. OED: 1631 W. BRADFORD Hist. Plymouth Plant. (1896) 357 He scrued vp his poore old father in laws accounte to aboue 200li and brought it on ye generall accounte.

When someone screws up your payments (raises the prices you must pay), it botches (screws up) your plans, thus giving rise to the modern definition.

In World War II, the particle "up" used in combination with a verb made an impact on slang. Louse up, ball up, gum up, mess up, foul up were among the less offensive forms meaning to botch, to make an egregious mistake, to bungle, to err repeatedly. Screw up, in this sense, is first found in a December 1942 issue of Yank, and was further popularized in the 1951  Catcher in the Rye, the famed novel by J. D. Salinger: Boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful. The verb is both transitive (screw up my sex life) and intransitive (I really screwed up).

71.174.22.234 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys

Applause from the Peanut galleries--Radh (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Screw up' has had various literal and metaphorical meanings over the centuries. But without some strong and specific evidence, there is absolutely no reason to relate one such ('raise prices') to another ('make a mess of'). I'm sure that the answer to the question is the meaning of 'up' given as no. 18 in the OED: "18. To or towards a state of completion or finality. (Frequently serving merely to emphasize the import of the verb.)   a. With verbs denoting consuming or destroying." --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

english mother tongue
Hello Community, i started to edit some articles in the german wikipedia.

Now i looked at the english part about my home valley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montafon

My question to the community:

Is it a big problem, when my english is not very stylish and if there are some grammatical mistakes?

Thank you Bernd

(I could improve my english and could give some knowledge to other...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csae2930 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no serious mistakes that I could see (no hyphen for mountain biking), but I did rearrange it a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most successful English writer
Who is the most successful English writer? I mean in accordance to most sold books, most awards winner etc. Please keep in mind the 1st writer to the present writers. I know this may be difficult, but that`s what wikipedia is meant for, I hope! 59.103.63.74 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "the 1st writer to the present writers"? Are you saying we should consider all writers in English, from the dawn of the language through to the present day?  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotta go with John Wycliffe, I think. He didn't win any awards that I know of, but he's the clear winner on sales if you include revisions to his work, and it's highly doubtful that there's ever been a more influential writer in English.
 * But Wycliffe was primarily a translator, so he might be excluded on that basis. According to our list of best-selling books, Dickens wrote the most successful book to be written in English.  Within the academy, of course, Shakespeare's preeminence is unquestioned.  John M Baker (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds ridiculous, this, but I think J.K.Rowling should be given consideration, considering kids are beating each other up outside bookshops just to get signed copies. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JK Rowling is currently the most successful, with wealth of GBP 499m putting her 101st in the Sunday Times Rich List ahead of all other writers. Barbara Taylor Bradford (GBP 166m) is second and Jackie Collins (GBP 90m)third.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what about the awards? I couldn't find a complete list of awards for Rowling. I counted 13 awards for Harry Potter books, but that paragraph writes "among other", so there are probably more. I counted 20 awards in Philip Roth's article and 25 awards for Stephen King I have no idea whether those list are complete either, and it is likely that there are other authors who have won more, but I'm posting it here and waiting for better bidding ... ---Sluzzelin  talk  10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cough*Shakespeare*Cough*. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It really will vary depending on criteria. Financially-successful from book sales will quite likely be different to award-winners (it's common for mainstream and critical support to be different in the arts). Similarly people like Shakespeare, Dickens (though less so) were in an era where your book wasn't sold around the world to millions of customers, it didn't get the rights bought for the movie from hollywood etc. Ultimately in terms of 'most important' then from an academic perspective i'd reckon on maybe Shakespeare, Dickens or perhaps Chaucer. Finance wise I think the income-streams are so much more open these days so it's hard to compare with older writers but obvious Rowling has made a fortune from her very popular books - as has Jacqueline Wilson and Roald Dahl was a very popular children's book writer when I was younger (Matilda, The witches, Boy,Fantastic mr fox etc.) ny156uk (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The correct spelling is "Financially successful" without a hyphen. See Manual of Style, sub-subsection 3, point 4.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure the manual of style really applies - fair enough if my input was in an article, but the reference desk is pretty informal (perhaps that's why I prefer to contribute here away from the fussiness of articles that get many views). ny156uk (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you click on "history" at the top of this page, then click on "Page view statistics", you can see the following statement: "Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language has been viewed 13963 times in 200904." For comparison with other pages, there is Wikipedia article traffic statistics with "Most viewed articles in 200808". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the "toolbox" on the left-hand side of most pages, you can follow this chain of links: Special pages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Monthly wiki page Hits for en.wikipedia ("Page hits per day for en.wikipedia in month 2009-04"). -- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, King James I of England has his name on several editions of a particular book. In terms of name-recognition vs. personal effort expended, I suspect he'd win!  —Sladen (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he didn't write it. He would be more like a publisher.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)