Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 1

= November 1 =

Laws with someone's name in them
I'm intrigued by the modern(?) naming phenomenon of things like Emily's Law and Oscar's Law. I find it annoying, because I can never remember what each law is meant to do (perhaps because I'm old), and whether Emily was a puppy. Is there a generic name for this naming habit? When did it start? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I've heard them both described as "named laws" or "namesake laws", though I'm interested to read others' input.  ~Helicopter  Llama~  02:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * List of eponymous laws... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's just a bit too broad. (And includes neither Oscar nor Emily anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The first signed one I remember (I'm not too old) was Polly's Law (better known as Three Strikes) in 1994. Adam's Law (or the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act) was called that on America's Most Wanted for many years before it became official. That likely helped the trend. That show was huge. Might still be. Not nearly as terrifying a theme song as Unsolved Mysteries, though. They're almost always something about childproofing, but sometimes about pleasing widows. Definitely catchier than "Bill 126" (or worse, "Bill's Law"). I guess the generic term would be "Eponymous Safety Law". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The ones I remember best are Grimm's Law and Verner's Law. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Science/mathematics has had Boyle's Law and Avogadro's Constant and Maxwell's Equation and L'Hopital's Rule and Fermat's Last Theorem and zillions of others. I never had any trouble distinguishing these from each other, but when it comes to legal statutes and social advocacy, I'm with HiLo48.  I can never remember who Emily was and why she had a List.  And who the hell is Craig, for that matter?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think HiLo48 is asking about laws (in the legal sense) and other protective means informally named after victims (often children). I didn't find a collective name for this type of nomenclature. One very early example, long before the 1990s' Megan's Law, Amber Alert, etc. is the Coogan law from the 1930s, but in this case the namesake was a well-known celebrity, unlike Megan, Adam, Amber, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I was looking for. HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea that those are also called laws didn't even cross my mind, for some odd reason. Very few children get those sorts, stupid little things they are. Maybe if they were required to spend their time in the lab instead of playing outside? I'd call it Hulk's Law. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is, working in the lab. Can't forget all these annoying laws. I mean, unless you can. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Volstead Act is pretty well known. That happened in 1920.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Code of Hammurabi is (probably) before all our times. But I think this is only about first names, with apostrophes. Lawmakers would be more likely to get something about #hammyslaw or #andyslaw retweeted than something evoking eye loss or not drinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * [[User:HiLo48: just in case you haven't seen it, there's List of legislation named for a person, which I can't see linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjective for road traffic that goes in the same direction as you
Road traffic in the opposing direction to yours is "oncoming"; what's the adjective for traffic that goes in the same direction as yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.60.98 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The best I can think of is co-moving, but the adjective is more commonly used in cosmology than for road traffic.   D b f i r s   20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Law-abiding? Outgoing? Equidistant? Right-lane (or left, wherever you are)? Normal?


 * If traffic's coming your way, that's because one of you is going backward. So I'd go with forward, even if it isn't an exact antonym. Might not be an exact one, since nobody cares when everything's flowing. Only the obstacles get noticed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you're driving on a one-way street, you're going to see plenty of oncoming traffic, hopefully all in the other lane(s). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I typically hear it mentioned is when someone swerves (or bounces or flies) into it. If it's missing you by a safe distance, I wouldn't consider it oncoming. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you leave a road by taking a left-hand turn (in the US, where you drive on the right) onto a side road, and you need to cross over the opposing lane and give way, and you misjudge your departure and you smash into a vehicle in that lane, you would be guilty of turning against oncoming traffic. But if your exit was on your right, and you're not in the far right lane, and you turn into the path of vehicles that are still going in the same direction as you were until you turned, what would that offence be called?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In my case, driving without a licence. Greg's Law again. Not sure about the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Same-direction" traffic. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick google search indicates that's pretty much it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My WWW search (not necessarily a Google search) for equidirectional traffic found some results, including http://www.google.ca/patents/US3941201, with the expression merger of two equidirectional single-lane traffic flows.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, all single-lane traffic flows are "equidirectional", or at least they better be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The expression equidirectional lanes is used at http://www.google.com/patents/CN101654103A?cl=en.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can accept the term "equidirectional lanes". What I can't accept is the notion that a single lane would be anything other than equidirectional. Unless they're trying in some roundabout way to explain what the term "equidirectional" means by providing a redundant synonym. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Suicide lanes weren't equidirectional, Bugs. And you must remember the "reversible lanes" on Lake Shore Drive, which were (supposedly) equidirectional at any given time but not equidirectional per se. Deor (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those turning lanes are not traffic flow, they are for turning. And reversible lanes in Chicago and elsewhere, along with road construction where all traffic is reduced to single-lane, as well as logging roads in the mountains are, at any given moment, unidirectional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Equidirectional" or "unidirectional" is a reference to a road; it is not a reference to a flow of traffic. A "suicide lane" is equidirectional (or unidirectional). The suicide lane probably has road surface marking that defines where it can be used. The flow of traffic has to be referred to by terms that create a relationship between vehicles. "Oncoming" traffic is one of those terms. The question is what term refers to traffic going in the opposite direction as "oncoming" traffic. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The expression merger of two equidirectional single-lane traffic flows refers to two traffic flows where one traffic flow is equidirectional with the other traffic flow. For example, if two single-lane traffic flows are both westbound toward an interchange, then they are equidirectional (one with the other).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are right. I should not have said that "suicide lanes" are "equidirectional". Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Though suicide is (said to be) a one-way ticket to Hell (southbound lane). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean
In The Mikado, we find this bit:
 * Young man, despair,
 * Likewise go to,
 * Yum-Yum the fair
 * You must not woo.

I don't understand what the second line means. Any ideas? --108.202.177.21 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it the "go to" that bothers you? "Go to" is just an exhortation like "come on". It's found all over the place in Shakespeare mostly with a negative meaning (expressing disapproval) but sometimes with a positive meaning (expressing encouragement) just like "come on" nowadays. Here it clearly expresses disapproval. I think it was already archaic in 1885. According to me the whole four lines mean: "Young man, give up hope and do not try to woo the pretty Yum-Yum". Contact Basemetal   here  07:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. I was thinking it was a roundabout way of telling him to "go to despair", but your explanation makes more sense. Pooh-Bah is telling Nanki-Poo to stay away from Yum-Yum, as she's spoken for. It doesn't quite work out that way, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Somehow I didn't notice this in Shakespeare - he has too many weird words, so you start just ignoring stuff you don't know. In this case though, there's also "Likewise" which strikes me as weird, but presumably is just a filler iambic word to maintain the meter. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Likewise" here is just another way of saying "and" I think but I agree that the choice of this particular word has surely something to do with the meter. Contact Basemetal   here  07:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Far be it from Gilbert to tinker with words just to fit a meter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @ 108.202.177.21: If "you start just ignoring stuff you don't know" when studying Shakespeare (or anyone else), you run the serious risk of misinterpreting things. For example, when Juliet declaims "Wherefore art thou Romeo?": wherefore is not in most people's lexica these days, and it's reasonable-ish to just assume it's an oldy-worldy way of saying where (it in fact means why).  But it's not reasonable to assume a comma before Romeo.  So, rather than it meaning "Where are you, Romeo?", as countless school productions have had it, it actually means "Why are you Romeo?" (in the sense of "Why couldn't you have been plain Mario Vercotti or something, rather than the son of my family's sworn eternal enemy?").  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In earlier versions of the script, there is a character, a Lord, called Go-To. Like Poo-Bah and Pish-Tush, his name is a dismissive interjections (though the other two are each two interjections). --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside on go to: Apparently it also meant "have sex". This comes up in Othello, in an early conversation between Roderigo, who is infatuated with Desdemona, Othello's wife, and Iago, who for poorly explained reasons is scheming to bring about Othello's downfall. Iago has advised Roderigo on how to conquer Desdemona, not with any actual intent of helping Roderigo, but simply to further his own plot. IAGO: "You charge me most unjustly." RODERIGO "With nought but truth. I have wasted myself out of my means. The jewels you have had from me to deliver to Desdemona would half have corrupted a votarist: you have told me she hath received them and returned me expectations and comforts of sudden respect and acquaintance, but I find none." IAGO "Well; go to; very well." RODERIGO "Very well! go to! I cannot go to, man; nor 'tis not very well...." Modern audiences are unlikely to "get" these jokes except by reading the explanation in the footnotes. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My family of origin have always used the expression "get to", usually in constructions like "Stop wasting your time; now get to and finish your homework". I suppose it might be short for "get to it", but the "it" is never spoken.  It's always "get to and ".  Is this at all related to "go to"?  My sense is that it has Irish roots.  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Mixed gender in Latin
In Latin, does a group of mixed feminine and neuter nouns default to feminine forms, in the same way that a group of masculine and feminine nouns defaults to masculine? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently it's more complicated than that. This is what Bennett's New Latin Grammar says: (There are no page numbers in this file so I just cut and pasted here the relevant bits):
 * B. AGREEMENT AS TO GENDER.
 * 1. When the Adjective is Attributive, it regularly agrees in gender with the nearest noun; as,—
 * rēs operae multae ac labōris, a matter of much effort and labor.
 * 2. When the Adjective is Predicative—
 * a) If the nouns are of the same gender, the Adjective agrees with them in gender; as,—
 * pater et fīlius captī sunt, father and son were captured.
 * Yet with feminine abstract nouns, the Adjective is more frequently Neuter; as,—
 * stultitia et timiditās fugienda sunt, folly and cowardice must be shunned.
 * b) If the nouns are of different gender; then,—
 * α) In case they denote persons, the Adjective is Masculine; as,—
 * pater et māter mortuī sunt, the father and mother have died.
 * β) In case they denote things, the Adjective is Neuter; as,—
 * honōrēs et victōriae fortuīta sunt, honors and victories are accidental.
 * γ) In case they include both persons and things, the Adjective is,—
 * αα) Sometimes Masculine; as,—
 * domus, uxor, līberī inventī sunt, home, wife, and children are secured.
 * ββ) Sometimes Neuter; as,—
 * parentēs, līberōs, domōs vīlia habēre, to hold parents, children, houses cheap.
 * γγ) Sometimes it agrees with the nearest noun; as,—
 * populī prōvinciaeque līberātae sunt, nations and provinces were liberated.
 * c) Construction according to Sense. Sometimes an Adjective does not agree with a noun according to strict grammatical form, but according to sense; as,—
 * pars bēstiīs objectī sunt, part (of the men) were thrown to beasts.
 * Contact Basemetal   here  11:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Searching for go to in Shakespeare
I went to Open Source Shakespeare to try and search for all the occurrences of "go to" in Shakespeare's works, but the way their search works means that I either get all of the passages containing a form of the verb "go" and the word "to" even possibly several words away, such as "And I in going, madam, weep o'er my father's death anew: but I must attend his majesty's command, to whom I am now in ward, evermore in subjection." (All's Well, I, 1) which of course gives me tons of irrelevant garbage, or else nothing because their search converts my search for "go to" to a search for "goto". Use of quotes doesn't do it. Does anyone have some clever idea as to how to use that tool to search just for occurrences of "go to" (and in general exact occurrences of phrases containing two or more words separated by spaces) or is that tool hopelessly flawed? Contact Basemetal   here  23:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Go to advanced search, select for "SEARCH TYPE": "Exact keyword (slower)", put "go to" (without the quotes) in one of the search fields and press "search". Alternatively you can download the complete works of Shakespeare (in one book) from Project Gutenberg, then open it in whatever program or browser you prefer and search the file. - Lindert (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It did work. I thought I was doing all that but in the end I was screwing up by clicking "GO" at the top right instead of "Search" at the bottom.
 * So I am happy to officially revise my statement and announce that the search works well on that site.
 * Regarding the search for "go to", focussing on the interjection (skipping all the "go to bed", etc., as in "She desires to speak with you in her closet ere you go to bed." (Hamlet, III, 2) that have nothing to do with the interjection) the first two examples I get are again in All's Well: "Go to, sir; you were beaten in Italy for picking a kernel out of a pomegranate; you are a vagabond and no true traveller: you are more saucy with lords and honourable personages than the commission of your birth and virtue gives you heraldry. You are not worth another word, else I'ld call you knave. I leave you." (II, 3) and "Go to, thou art a witty fool; I have found thee." (II, 4).
 * So to repeat: I was actually wrong about that search tool. It's a great tool. You can also search with regular expressions.
 * There are 202 occurrences of "go to" in the works of Shakespeare but of course most of those are not the interjection but "go to bed" type occurrences (there are actually 18 literal occurrences of "go to bed" in Shakespeare). There is no way a search engine could pick out those in a plain flat text. You'd need a tokenized marked-up text.
 * Anyway, have fun with Shakespeare. Highly recommended.
 * Contact Basemetal   here  23:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to get you started:- "Go to, I'll no more on't; it hath made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages: those that are married already, all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are. To a nunnery, go." (Hamlet, Act III, Scene i. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)