Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 10

= August 10 =

Bad, wicked, decadent - words with definitions and uses that mean the opposite of the primary definition
Why are these terms used to describe something pleasant or good or favorable? People use "decadent" to describe chocolate and market it as such! When people see an awesome thing, they say, "That's wicked!" Michael Jackson sang a song about being bad, but I think he probably meant that he's awesome, unless he actually thought of himself as evil. Why is evil good? Are there words to describe bad things good than good things bad? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't always the same answer for these things, but in many cases, irony, argot (in the case of "bad = good", that's clearly developed from youth argot), or semantic drift (which accounts for the opposite meanings of the verb "to cleave") are all plausible explanations. -- Jayron 32 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no source for this, but along the lines of irony, uses such as "wicked" seem to stem from the fact that the bad guy in a story, Smaug, Scorpius tends to be the most interesting one, and uses like "decadent" to describe things like food are an unabashed rejection of puritanical restrictions and boring moderation. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * With food, there has always been an association between the devil and certain foods, usually red and/or spicy (although devil's food cake isn't so much spicy as a contrast with angel's food cake). So, a food can be said to be "wicked hot" or just "wicked", and, in time "wicked" can then become a generic term for anything good. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pop Tarts, in particular, were both "so cool, they're hot" and "so hot, they're cool". Of course, that was 1994, when O.J. was guilty and not guilty, and Sunny Delight was both orange juice and not O.J. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By 2015, rollerblading was so uncool, it was radical again. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wicked" is a word that emerged in the teenage sub - culture about the time that good old ballads gave way to "house" and "garage".  I think it started off in the black population and was copied.   Am I right in thinking that since that time there has been very little in the way of memorable pop music? 78.149.122.51 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that, but "wicked" was regional slang for "superior" (or whatever) in New England long before that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wicked in New England is not an adjective meaning superior, it's an general adverb intensifier which is a near perfect synonym of "very". The adjective use of "wicked" is not used at all in New England English, but rather is associated with California English.  -- Jayron 32 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. My mistake. My brain was going back to summer camp in Maine. Unquestionably there were occasions of "wicked good" ice cream, but of course wicked there is being an adverbial intensifier, not an adjective with a directly positive meaning. I have to admit, though, that I recall it being used to intensify positive adjectives, and even inherently neutral adjectives ("wicked hot"). I do not recall it ever being used to intensify inherently negative adjectives ("wicked bad", not to mention "wicked wicked"). StevenJ81 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it does not explain too much of "why is this term used", the fourth comment of this blog post quotes the DARE entry for the Boston "wicked", tracing it to 1960.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find a cite, but I'm sure I once ready that "wicked" (in the sense of "good") began as criminal slang (where a "wicked plan to rob a bank" would - from the robbers point of view be a good one). On the subject of Ivan the Terrible - I've always, ever since I first heard the name as a child, parsed that as "Ivan the Terrifying" (analagous to a "terrible disaster"), not "Ivan the Low Quality".  Do many people parse it as the latter?  Iapetus (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also "sick", "fully sick" etc. There's also a reverse phenomenon.  Ivan the Terrible would never have been so named had he lived a few centuries later.  Back then, it meant "inspiring terror", not "of very low quality".  In the KJV of the Bible, the word "awful" is used - of God Himself, no less - to mean "awe-inspiring" or, as people say these days, "awesome".  To call someone "awful" these days, Dick Emery aside, is not much of a compliment, really.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And now "terrific" is positive, though it used to be negative. But "terrifying" is still bad. Semantic shift is fine, the alternative is rampant neologism, e.g. "amazeballs" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Neologism" was once a neologism. Not sure of its rampitude, though. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, "fast" has about the most contradictory meanings of any word in the OED - rapid, or immovable; entirely and almost; etc.. "Make" has the longest entry, but most of its meanings make sense with regard to each other. Collect (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just throwing in a couple of references: See "Auto-antonymy" in Blank's classification at Semantic change, and note this New Yorker article, especially the fifth paragraph. Deor (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, think of 'badass', which does not mean somebody with irritable bowel syndrome nor does it mean someone with a particularly bad donkey. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 14:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Shrek is a badass with a bad ass. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sanction" has inverted its meaning, and I think that has something to do with newspapers needing a word to describe the action against Ian Smith and Rhodesia when it decided to go it alone in 1965. 92.19.28.56 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did that start as giving sanction to efforts to boycott/restrict trade? Trade restrictions are not routinely permitted under international law, so maybe someone (who?) had to sanction the boycott ... and then sanction itself absorbed that meaning. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See, autoantonyms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the original question, I wonder if it's not so much a use of irony as it is a case of exploiting people's sense of excitement when faced with danger/evil. Reading advertisements for chocolate, for example, you might easily mistake it for an ad for sex. Words like sinful, decadent, naughty, and so on. But that's what people want. Perhaps a bit like the shift in marketing of cigarettes away from promoting health ("More doctors smoke Luckies!") to being dangerous ("Rather fight than quit!"). Gluttony is a deadly sin, after all. (Note to self: market a line of chocolates with a trade name of Unhealthy, skull and cross bones logo). MJ's professions to being "Bad" were not made ironically: the song and accompanying video make it clear that he's claiming to be a dangerous individual (there is irony in a falsetto-singing dancer claiming to be a badass, but his claim itself was not made ironically).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.97.146 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, he was a pedo, let's not forget that. You can't get 'badder' than that. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He could've sent his kid's parents a nasty letter instead of lots of money. That was nice of him. But no, there's bad and then there's bad. The marketable "bad boy" is only allowed to kill "bad guys", and only with a gun. Not required, but it helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

etymology of 'normal' as related to army study in Tennessee circa 1913-15
I listened to a explanation of the etymology of the word 'normal' from a PhD psychologist in a one-hour therapy session that I have been unable to follow up on. I can't find any information on the topic. Will someone please direct me to the history/research (if it exists).

I was told that 'normal' first shows up in the English language in reference to a study commissioned by the U.S. Army sometime between 1913-1915 to determine the qualities that make a good soldier for recruiting purposes for WWI. There were two study groups studied: current 1913-15 'good' soldiers (as defined by professional psychologists conducting the research study) and 'bad soldiers' (as defined by professional psychologists conducting the research study). Group participants were provided by the army.

One-third of the participants in the 'good soldiers' group were named Norm. Therefore, the 'good soldiers' group were called 'normal'. Thanks a whole bunch. 134.228.197.104 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, according to the online etymology dictionary "etymonline", which is a pretty solid source on word origins, the word normal dates to at least 1500 with the meaning "common" or "typical", and "conforming to common standards" dating to 1828 at the latest, and probably much earlier, while that of a "normal person" to 1890; though that usage does not seem to be all that distinct from the earlier meanings, especially the 1828 cite. The story you give is purely apocryphal, I can find no evidence in serious scholarly works to confirm it, and given the long history of the use of the word normal as you describe, clearly it can be discounted at face value as purely fanciful.  If someone has a login to allow them access to the full Oxford English Dictionary, you can also get a more detailed etymology.  -- Jayron 32 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The OED agrees, and notes mid-fifteenth-century French "normal" and English "enormal" ( Fro þeise rewlys be owtakyn alle verbe neutyr enormalys, for þei folow no ryth rewle of coniugacyon. Qwech be verbe neutyr enormalys? Patet per versus: Sum, volo, fert et edo sunt enormal(i)a credo. around 1450 from D. Thomson's Middle English Grammatical Texts. ), and, of course, Classical Latin "normalis".   D b f i r s   22:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By the mid 19th century, "normal school" was the typical name for teacher training colleges. Maybe "normal" was first used in reference to a soldier a century ago, but the word goes way back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I think that's through French, e.g. École_normale_supérieure. That article should probably be linked at normal school... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Consider the anecdote may have been intended as a joke. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't the word standard in Romance languages?  Portuguese normal and probably Italian and Spanish as well. 92.19.28.56 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to this, psychological tests determined not that many recruits were called Norm, but that their average (or "normal") mental age was 13. Sort of unclear as to whether it means among the two million who were tested or only the 8,648 completely insufficient minds. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * More detail on that. Many morons were indeed good enough, just not good enough to ever become officers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Army Alpha for our article on the tests. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And Army Beta. A picture is worth a thousand words. That's probably why the difference between D- and E stupid isn't defined in writing in either. Likely down to horse sense. A man who looks capable of normal heavy lifting can't be that mentally inferior. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * New recruits go to an army training centre, where their ability to perform various tasks is used to assess whether they have the potential to make successful soldiers.  A pivotal point in the assessment is when they become "captive", i.e. can no longer nip out to the corner shop when they need something but are confined to the training centre.   Virtually all of them get through, which shows that pre - recruitment assessment works well. 92.25.66.109 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, or a hundred years ago? WWI casualty numbers seem to suggest a lot of people weren't up to the task, either on the field or in the office. Attrition warfare is not the sort of thing that should only look stupid in hindsight. Lately, it seems the army far better grasps the "don't get killed" concept. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But note the article that you linked to: "Attritional warfare in World War I has been shown by historians such as Hew Strachan to have been used as a post hoc excuse for failed offensives." I agree however that recruitment in the early 20th century (especially once a country entered hostilities) was based solely on passing a superficial medical examination. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not making excuses, or blaming anybody. Sometimes plans look good on paper, but you never know what'll happen till you try. It could have gone worse, all things considered. America didn't "lose the war", and learned a lot that came in handy for the next one. Every tool the educated, efficient soldier has today is directly linked to the way those dumb farmboys (and even the incapable geniuses) used what they were given. The mistakes they make are leading to the day when a small task force of supernerds invents a flying patriotic cyborg that enables anybody on the "with us" side to just go for a soda. And when that robot dies of old age, the world will rest in peace. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The government will announce today ...
See this story, for example. What is the deal with this strange form of communication? The news agency obviously got these details by way of a press release from the relevant government department or minister's office. Surely that press release amounts to an announcement itself? If not, what is it? There may be a speech or a press conference later in the day, at which an announcement is made orally by the minister or some spokesperson. And maybe more details are provided at that opportunity, and questions can be asked and evasive answers provided. But does the press release count for nothing? Written communication tends to be given greater weight.

Sometimes formal announcements are made by something going online, not a face-to-face meeting of humans. What then is the status of the earlier press release? I presume press releases are provided online to news organisations these days, rather than via a paper circular shoved in the relevant pigeon holes, as was the traditional practice. So why does one online announcement outrank an earlier online announcement? And what if there was some bureaucratic glitch and the government decided to delay their announcement, or postpone it indefinitely? Would they then do a new press release saying "The government has decided not to announce that it plans to cut carbon emissions by at least 26 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030."? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason for the careful word usage is that it's not official until the actual announcement, and they can always change their minds until then. If the plans were changed, the news agency would say they either decided to cancel the announcement or delay it, either of which would be news in and of itself.  StuRat (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In such a case, it wouldn't be wrong to say, "The government announced that it was going to announce X, but then announced it had decided not to announce X after all". Could these press releases be called "meta-announcements"?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would think of it as a "heads up" kind of thing. It also reminds me of Dilbert's boss and his "preliminary pre-meeting meeting". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be more accurate to say "The government unofficially announced that they will officially announce...", but any good wordsmith will tell you that repeating a single word 2-4 times in a sentence is bad form. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's good to make sure everybody knows ahead of time what's going to be announced and when it's going to happen. In extreme cases, a spokesman speaking off the cuff about a note just handed to him can result in the whole country leaking out at the edges. --Amble (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (OR as a retired reporter) Very often, agencies will send out a notice of an upcoming news conference or statement, with only a few details, to entice the media to attend. Sometimes these notices will state that the information is embargoed until a certain time, meaning the media cannot use it until then. But occasionally, the embargo is omitted (either deliberately or accidentally), meaning the media can use the information immediately, even if the official announcement is still to come. ... Also, at least in the U.S., a news embargo has no force in law. It is totally legal to publish or broadcast something before the embargo time. However, good luck getting any cooperation from that agency regarding future news events.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I used to work for a newsagency (not the corner shop variety).  In the interests of good management information is supplied with a date and time for release.   There is good reason for this - in the case of financial information, for example, early release can cause havoc on the stock market.   We used to have D - notices in Britain - they were issued by the government saying what could be released and when, but I think this was an informal system although there was big trouble for a newspaper which didn't comply.
 * Recently, I've noticed important announcements being "trailed" - selected Budget proposals are in the papers on the morning or a few days before the Chancellor's speech.  There is an Official Secrets Act (although there is Freedom of Information as in America) and anonymous whistleblowers are hunted down.   Journalists can now be jailed if they do not reveal who they got their information from.   The Tory press will carry a lead story giving the text of a speech which the Prime Minister is going to make later in the day. 92.19.28.56 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, see embargo (journalism). μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for your considered and detailed responses. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)