Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 September 23

= September 23 =

What does -teng mean in Ghanaian surnames?
I've encountered that the people with surnames like Boateng or Kwarteng are Ghanaians and I suppose -teng means something specific in Afrcan languages("son of"?). Any ideas?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This page suggests that it, at least according to the Ga language, denotes the level of seniority in a family hierarchy -teng meaning "middle". I couldn't find anything with specific reference to the surnames you mentioned but I hope this is helpful nonetheless. Biggs Pliff (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Charities
What do you call a charity or those in a charity whose purpose is to give money to other charities for their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.219.252 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The term I have heard of is "philanthropic organization", for groups like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which pretty much operate as you describe. -- Jayron  32  12:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See "Supporting organization (charity)".—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Charitable foundation redirects to Foundation (nonprofit), with the definition


 * A foundation (also a charitable foundation) is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes.


 * Duoduoduo (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Analyze/Analyse
I am confused about these two ways of spelling the word (so as many others I have hit on). What's the correct way?  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See American and British English spelling differences. Analyze in the USA and Canada, analyse in Britain and Australia. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!   Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Analyze" in Canada? I thought Canadian spelling was strictly British. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- this is covered in the above-mentioned article. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The -ize ending comes from the Greek ending -izein which means what -ificar meas in Spanish. So the -ize spelling is usually correct, and the -ise ending is the Brits being contrary. Of course the verb in analyze is luo/luein, ("suelto/soltar") and is a coinage based on the noun analysis. Hence in this case the analyse spelling is the better one. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you approve Medeis. However, both -ize and -ise are acceptable in British English; see Oxford spelling which says, "The belief that -ize is an exclusively American variant is incorrect", although admittedly -ise is far more common. This doesn't apply to -yze though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure, but isn't the Oxford comment on -ize regarded as approving the American spelling reform? I thought the -ise spelling was the pre-Webster one, along the lines of the -our spelling. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the -ize spelling is the older one, taken over directly from Latin -izo from Greek -ίζω; the -ise spelling is due to later French influence. But with -yze/-yse it's a different story, since there is no Latin -yzo or Greek -ύζω. I'm not even sure where the /z/ in these verbs comes from; maybe a back-formation from the nouns in -ysis? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's either a back-formation on analogy or it is Greek for "to make anal". μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I always laugh when editors, particularly Americans, say that the English spoken and written in England is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I always laugh when Brits say that the English spoken and written in America is wrong. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's silly either way, but surely what I described is sillier and more ironic. Only an American wouldn't see that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's silly either way. And maybe it's sillier and more ironic when an American thinks that the English spoken nowadays in the ancestral homeland of the language is wrong. Or maybe it's sillier and more ironic when a Briton thinks that the language as spoken by roughly two thirds of the world's native speakers is wrong. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be blunt about this, I do a lot of copy-editing, including grammar and spelling corrections. It's almost always Americans who incorrectly "correct" UK (or Australian) spelling to the American style, in apparent total ignorance that there is even another way. Had one just yesterday, telling a person from the UK that he had incorrectly spelt militarised. Sad, but common. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're just factually wrong. UK editors do plenty of it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's my experience that Americans are more likely to "correct" Anglicisms in blissful ignorance that there is any way to do things but the American; whereas the "Brits" (by spelling preference, if not political loyalty) know damned well that there is more than one way to do it, but are firm in their stance that the American way is just plain wrong and must be corrected. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of the reverse. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but my memory is that about half of my WP:ENGVAR reverts are British to American, and half are American to British. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What's really sad is HiLo's all-encompassing shoulder-chip against Americans ("Only an American wouldn't see that"). There must be 100 examples of his bigotry all over Wikipedia by now.  I guess it's also been imparted through his students out into the wider community; I hope I'm wrong but I fear the worst.  Time to get over it, mate; you're giving us senior Australians a bad name.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What I do make sure of with my students is that they are aware that there are many "correct" forms of English, depending on where one is and with whom one is communicating. That's what's missing with the Americans who change perfectly good UK and Australian spelling to American spelling in complete ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But why make it about their nationality? If someone makes a mistake, you're entitled to correct them; but making the tiresome point over and over and over again that it's Americans who are the worst offenders is just a cheap shot that does you no credit at all. Only a person who was looking for some way, any way, of playing the anti-American card would resort to such rubbish.  All it does is betray your insecurity.  And that's already clear from your user page, where virtually your entire wiki-identity is about your thing against American error-makers.  If that's all you can think of to say about yourself, it makes you seem to be a far less interesting person than I'm sure you really are, so you'd be better off just saying nothing.  Really.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a go. But it is common when "correcting" one form of spelling to another here to at least name the target version in an Edit summary, e.g. "Reverted to UK English". While that doesn't say from what, it's obviously implied. A lot of what you refer to on my user page arose from when certain moral values, which hardly exist in Australia, were used to judge both Wikipedia content and me. Again, it will be a bit of a strain to avoid mentioning the home of those values when involved in discussions about them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you should never mention where they're from. It's one thing to note that the editor who has just changed the spelling of the Australian Department of Defence to the American variant Defense is an American and they should understand that there is such a thing as AusEng and it applies in such an article.  But it's quite another to make the huge leap into a general statement that Americans or whoever are the worst offenders with this sort of thing and they are somehow genetically incapable of understanding that their way is not the only way.  That's what I object to.  Even if it were statistically provable (it obviously can't be because it relies on one person's selective and implicitly biased reporting of their own experience, hardly a representative sample of anything), what would be the value of saying it?  It's as wrong-headed and xenophobic as saying that most criminals are Italians, or most drug-dealers are Asians, or most taxi drivers are smelly Muslims who have no idea where they're going.  Or, indeed, that most Aussies are loudmouthed beer-guzzling surfies with insatiable appetites for sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll and for whom Big Brother is their cultural Parnassus and whose favourite leisure activity is regurgitation.  As a teacher, you surely have a special responsibility to break down stereotypes, not actively promote your favourite ones.  Play the ball, not the man, and certainly not the man's country.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I stick to my point. It's almost exclusively Americans who don't know that there's another way to spell. My perspective was above. It's sad. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Me no like when mista HiLo talk mean. Make me sad. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm sure HiLo48 will be along soon with a citation from an unimpeachable source. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, I don't know if they still teach spelling in the US, but when I was taught it in the '70's there was no confusion or ignorance of differences; the teachers explained quite clearly that the British did it wrong. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. At least you knew that they did it different. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More annoying to me are the Americans who consider British spelling more sophisticated and so decide to affect it, but don't actually know when to apply the US→GB rules and so commit hypercorrections like tenour and humourous. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Family Relations and In-Laws
To what extent are in-laws part of your extended family? Specifically speaking, how do you describe persons who are married to the sons and daughters of your grandparents? Do you call those persons "aunts and uncles", or do you call those persons "aunts-in-law and uncles-in-law" due to the fact that they are not related to you by blood but their children (your first cousins) are related to you by blood through the biological aunt/uncle? Also, what happens if your grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and forefathers and foremothers all have brothers and sisters? To what extent are all those individuals (cousins, aunts, and uncles) part of your family tree? How much consanguinity would a person, say, from England have when he marries a person in the vicinity, assuming that the two individuals are centuries-old natives? How much consanguinity would a person from England have when he marries a person of Japanese descent on both sides of the family? 164.107.102.65 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The term for a sibling of a grandparent is usually "great-uncle" or "great-aunt".
 * "In-law" terms are normally only used for relatives connected by a marriage in one's own generation or a descending generation. Husbands and wives of the siblings of one's mother and father would be called "uncles by marriage" and "aunts by marriage" or similar.  "Uncle-in-law" would more likely mean your wife's or husband's uncle... AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just pointing out here that usage of "uncle" or "aunt" in England (at least) is somewhat fluid. In some areas, these words are used for close friends of the parents, or maybe more distant relatives of the parents than brother and sister. I have been researching my family tree for some time, and when I started, it took some time for me to realise that people I'd been calling "aunt and uncle" were either my parents' cousins, or my own adult cousins, or not even related to me. All the people I've found that are related to me I count as my relatives! As for consanguinity, in some parts of England it is possible to marry your cousin without even realising you are related to them - I grew up in one such area and it was quite common. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't mean your first cousin. It seems relatively unlikely that you could unwittingly marry a parent's sibling's child unless there had been significant family estrangement; in which case it's less likely that you and the unknown cousin would live in the same area and get together. (Of course, studies suggest that around 4% of all children may be being raised by a man who does not realise he is not their father  and this number rises to as much as 30% in some areas, so this means there are areas where you may well unwittingly marry - or have children with - a close blood relative as you don't realise your father is not your biological father, but this doesn't appear to be what you mean, and in many of these instances, people would never realise there is a genetic relationship). My own family tree research suggests that in a relatively stable population in a locality, people have frequently married more distant cousins (4th, 5th, 6th cousins etc), possibly not knowing the familial connection. (4th cousins share a set of great-great-great-grandparents. Most people don't know the names of their 3-times-great-grandparents, let alone all those ancestors' descendants). However, as consanguinity is a bar to marriage in Catholicism, in Catholic areas of Europe - at least in the Low Countries and Germany - lists of marriage dispensations are a very useful source of genealogical information for the 17th and 18th centuries as marriages between second and third cousins required the special permission of (generally) the bishop. (First cousins may not marry at all in Catholic canon law). Clearly, at least in Catholic areas, it was considered normal historically to be aware of who your second and third cousins were. Valiantis (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually yes I do Valiantis! One instance I'm thinking of was where two people got engaged, and at the party they realised that she was the daughter of one brother, and he was the son of another sister. So the names were not the same, and in both cases the families had moved apart (albeit only 8 miles or so) and lost touch, back in the days when not everyone had telephones even. My husband tells me of other instances he came across when he lived in the same area. My optician also told me cases he'd come across in that area. Some communities in England are, shall we say, notorious... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I taught first cousins at nearby schools in the same city, and they didn't know each other.   D b f i r s   20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'll happily concede it's entirely possible for cousins not to know each other, I'm not really persuaded that it's particularly common anywhere in England for cousins to unwittingly marry or come close to marrying (with the exception of the "paternity discrepancy" I mentioned above), and no more likely, I'd suggest, in England than in any other West European nation. Even if cousins don't know each other personally, they're likely to know of each other, or to be able to identify they are cousins at some point before agreeing to marry ("Say, that picture of your grandma looks awfully familiar!"). The fact that Dbfirs knew that he was teaching cousins seems to indicate that the relationship was readily discernible to an interested outsider even if they did not know each other personally. The example you refer to seems to be very much a case of (passive) family estrangement. Even before telephones were widespread, families living less than 10 miles apart typically communicated even if this was only by letter (or Christmas card) and/or occasional visit and/or through a third family member who was in contact with both. Interesting as these exceptional occurrences may be I don't think they really address the OP's query about typical consanguinity in English marriages. There are of course certain areas that are jocularly considered hotbeds of "inbreeding" and some have even made more (questionably) serious suggestions that this is the case, but I've never understood the joke here to be that people were unwittingly marrying close relatives. Valiantis (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the cousin's fathers were aware of the connection, but there was no communication. I found out because I knew someone who had known the family a long time ago (and I enquired because they looked alike).  I agree with Valiantis that unwittingly marrying close relatives must be very rare, though wittingly marrying a relative (usually less close than first cousin) was very common in many areas in the past.    D b f i r s   06:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying, AnonMoos, that the man married to your aunt by blood is not simply called your uncle? Americans simply refer to their aunt and uncle visiting.  They don't, so far as I have ever heard, say their aunt and uncle by marriage are visiting. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are times when it's necessary to make clear that an uncle is not related to the speaker by blood but only by marriage. In the typical case we don't need to make such a distinction, but it's not wrong to do so.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning whether one can make the distinction. I am asking if AnonMoos or those he knows actually make the distinction casually, as his statement seems to imply may be the case.  See also eam. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not how you interpreted my comment to refer to "casually", but 164.107.102.65 was looking for specific terms to refer to a parent's sibling's spouse, and "aunt/uncle by marriage" or "aunt/uncle through marriage" seem to be the most suitable terms (certainly less confusing or less likely to be misinterpreted than "aunt/uncle-in-law"). AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My Scottish relatives are generally aware of their second, third and even some fourth cousins, and can also identify a number of once, twice or even three times removed cousins. Most are Lowland Scots and not Catholic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The same applies in my (non-catholic) area of northern England (though in the case of third and fourth cousins I just knew I was "related somehow" until I constructed family trees). In the past, marriage of cousins here was legal but frowned upon because there was a high probability that there were also other connections further back.  Construction of my family trees revealed one case of marriage between first cousins who were also second cousins by another route, plus further more distant consanguinity.  This was not in my direct ancestry, I hasten to add, though I did discover that my parents were fifth cousins and they didn't know about it.  This close intermarriage is much more rare now, of course, with modern travel.  I've never heard the terms "aunts-in-law" and "uncles-in-law" used here.  Perhaps "by marriage" might be tacked onto the usual "uncle" and "aunt".    D b f i r s   20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)