Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 15

= February 15 =

Indecent exposure
why is it refered to as indecent exposure? can you decently expose yourself-'excuse me,miss,would you very mind having a look at this?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.213.216 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can decently expose yourself in front of your wife/girlfriend in private, and also, I am pretty sure no-one will arrest you in the men's toilets (unless you physically assault someone), nor in the hospital whilst having a scan for testicular cancer or some other bollocks.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be innocent exposure, as if you split your pants or tear your skirt. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In most cultures and legal jurisdictions, exposing one's face and hands is not considered indecent. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See Indecent exposure. In England, the traditional offence under the Vagrancy Act 1824 was "every person wilfully openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female...  shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond" (emphasis added).  The prosecution had to prove the intention to "insult" (and that a female was the flasher's target), which was the "indecent" element.  Under the current legislation (the Sexual Offences Act 2003), the prosecution must prove that "he intends that someone will see them [his naughty bits] and be caused alarm or distress", which serves a similar function. Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit sexist, isn't it? What if a female does it?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Females, not having a "person" (penis), cannot commit indecent exposure! (Under the 1824 act, that is.  The position under the 2003 act may be different - I'm not aware of any decided cases).  They can, however, commit the common-law offences of "outraging public decency", "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace", and various other statutory public order offences. Tevildo (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that what "person" necessarily means here? Generally, in law, references to the male gender include the female, so "person" could be a penis, a vulva, an anus, breasts, buttocks, whatever.  Also, I'm intrigued by "every person ... exposing his person".  A person's person?  That's perhaps the non-sexist version of "a man's man".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OED: person = "Law. The human genitals; spec. the penis." The latter definition was adopted by the High Court of England and Wales as the meaning of person in the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the case of Evans v. Ewels [1972] 1 Weekly Law Reports 671 at 674–675: "It seems to me that at any rate today, and indeed by 1824, the word 'person' in connection with sexual matters had acquired a meaning of its own; a meaning which made it a synonym for 'penis.' It may be ... that it was the forerunner of Victorian gentility which prevented people calling a penis a penis. But however that may be I am satisfied in my own mind that it has now acquired an established meaning to the effect already stated. It is I venture to say, well known amongst those who practise in the courts that the word 'person' is so used over and over again. It is the familiar synonym of that part of the body, and, as one of the reasons for my decision in this case, I would use that interpretation of what was prevailing in 1824 and what has become established in the 150 years since then." (The defendant, who had unzipped his pants and exposed a V-shaped patch of his stomach to a woman with intent to insult her, was acquitted of the offence as his penis had not been visible.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2003 Act uses the term "genitals" instead of "person". Proteus (Talk) 10:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Two words that are sounded the same but they don't have any etymological or semantic connection
I'm looking for the linguistic term which describe the following case: Two words that are sounded the same but they don't have not any etymological or semantic connection. For example: the word "he" in English and the word "He" (היא) in Hebrew, that they have the same sound but they are definitely different words. Another example is the word "me" in English and word "me" in Hebrew (me = מי = who). Is there any term that describe this cases? ThePupil (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Within the same language they are homophones: there v. their. Between languages they would be false cognates: bad English, bad Persian. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The best pair between Hebrew and English is arguably the monosyllabic Hebrew די: "enough", (e.g. cut it out, stop it), often a command used by or addressed to young children, and pronounced identical to the English word "die". -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

False cognates are similar in form and meaning. I think ThePupil's question is not about pairs of words necessarily having the same meaning, as היא is the Hebrew for "she" and מי is the Hebrew for "who". In this case a better reply would be false friends - words that look or sound similar but differ in meaning. Note that false friends may or may not have etymological connection (see False friend). --Theurgist (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. This is the term that I looked for. Thank you. ThePupil (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me point out that it is very rare for words in two different languages to really sound the same -- because different languages use different sets of phonemes. Cases like the example here only sound the same at a superficial level. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)




 * See sí. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)