Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 January 8

= January 8 =

When did "gay" gain a meaning of "lame" or "stupid"?
Did this happen in other languages? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * SMW, do you ever ask any serious, non-offensive, non-bullshit questions? If so, Can you link to them? μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ..
 * The usage exists. It doesn't have to make sense or be nice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soon both these links will be functional: Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 January 5; Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 1 —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One equivalent expression in the old days would have been, "That's so queer." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sense "weird, odd" of the word queer is centuries older than the sense "not conforming to heterosexual norms", unlike for the word gay where the pejorative sense is newer (the original sense was of course along the lines of "happy"). As a result I can't naturally think of the word gay without thinking of the meaning "homosexual", but I still think of the word queer primarily with the now somewhat dated meaning. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Amongst the many different meanings of the word "gay" over the centuries, the OED includes "Foolish, stupid, socially inappropriate or disapproved of; derogatory (frequently considered offensive)" claiming that it was introduced as American slang with a first rather questionable cite from 1978 and the first convincing cite from 1987. Perhaps someone can find earlier cites that clearly show this sense of the word?  From memory (possibly unreliable?), I think the sense quickly spread to the UK around the 1990s (or maybe later -- see Stephen's comment below).    D b f i r s   09:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When I first began to see "gay" used to mean "lame" or "stupid", it was around the year 2000 or soon thereafter, when the internet was beginning to take off. —Stephen (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This doesn't antecede anything above, but this 2008 essay from "Inside the Guardian" is apposite.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

to allow sb sth
Can I say: "he allowed her an ice cream"? If not, what would be the correct expression?--Hubon (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've heard or read that a few times. It sounds a bit Britishy. In my experience, North Americans are more likely to say "an ice cream cone" or "some ice cream". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In really formal BrE, "He allowed her to have an ice cream" would be more usual; in less formal BrE, "He let her have an ice cream".
 * Both of those might weakly imply that this occurred outside, where ice creams are often discrete products (with named varieties) sold from mobile vans or seaside stalls for outdoor consumption, while "some ice cream" might weakly imply a serving of the substance within the home or a restaurant. (Was the ice cream an essential element or just an example? The foregoing might not apply where both "an x" and "some x" are both valid constructions.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk)
 * Thanks to both of you! 2.122.62.241, the ice cream was just an example. My actual question is about wether "to allow" can be used with a direct object! But intuitively, you've already answered that question, too... ;-) So, if I got it right, then Americans do use it that way? Best--Hubon (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you do a search for something like "You're allowed three" you'll see a fair number of hits, and I made the search because I thought it sounded like something typically said. I think you are allowed three X is the same usage in passive voice. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the construction is fairly common in British English, but also occurs in American, for example "After their wedding vows, he allowed her a room to call her own and she dressed it as a den with brilliantly colorful furniture." from The Trophy Wives: A Novel - Page 49 by Charmaine R. Parker in 2003.
 * The verb "to allow" with both direct and indirect object has been so used since the 1400s according to the OED, and was used by Shakespeare in "As you like it": "Allow me such exercises as may become a gentleman."   D b f i r s   09:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank all of you very much for joining the discussion!--Hubon (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

quoted matter vs word-as-word
See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Words that stand for themselves (and titles of books or plays or movies or TV series) should be italicized, not put between quotation marks. Words quoted from some other speaker or writer (and titles of short stories or TV episodes) should be between quotation marks, not italicized. Even if you prefer to draw the line differently, why do both? —Tamfang (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Cymorth cyfieithu / Aide à traduction / Translation assistance.
Cob Cymreig

Helo, Dydw i ddim yn siarad Cymraeg. Ar gyfer y radd, beth yw'r cyfieithiad i'r Ffrangeg o Achau'r Ebol ? diolch i chi. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET) PS [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Welsh_cob#Cymorth_cyfieithu_.2F_Aide_.C3.A0_traduction_.2F_Translation_assistance. Ymateb posibl yma].

Welsh cob

Bonjour, je ne parle pas gallois.Pour avoir le label AdQ, quelle est la traduction vers le francais de Achau'r Ebol ? Merci. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET) PS [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Welsh_cob#Cymorth_cyfieithu_.2F_Aide_.C3.A0_traduction_.2F_Translation_assistance. Réponse possible ici].

Welsh Pony and Cob

Hi, I don’t speak Welsh. To get, what is the translation into French Achau'r Ebol ? Thanks. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET) PS [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Welsh_cob#Cymorth_cyfieithu_.2F_Aide_.C3.A0_traduction_.2F_Translation_assistance. Possible answer here].

Cymraeg. Mab i’r Du ym mhob erw deg O Brydyn, o bai redeg; Merch ei fam i’r march o Fôn Aeth i ddwyn wyth o ddynion; Mae wyrion i Ddu’r Moroedd, Gwn mai un onaddun oedd. Mae yngo nai Myngwyn Iâl Ym Mhowys, nis rhwym hual. Mae câr i farch Ffwg Gwarin, A’i gâr a fâl gwair â’i fin. Ucha’ march ei iachau ’m Môn, O baladr Talebolion. Dewis lwdn, nid oes ledach, A’i draed yw ei bedair iach. .Ffrangeg


 * That's really cool! There is a translation into English of this cywydd here. &#39;&#39;&#39;Defnyddiwr:John Jones&#39;&#39;&#39; (sgwrs) 07:35, 7 Ionawr 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi &#39;&#39;&#39;Defnyddiwr:John Jones&#39;&#39;&#39; and thank you very much for this URL that I know. The problem is that on a "quality article" I might include a translation of a translation ... I wish a translation from the original version . Sincerely. --6PO (sgwrs) 10:47, 7 Ionawr 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, here is the discussion already on Cymraeg Wikipedia. --6PO (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"to happen with sth"
"What is supposed to happen with that old car?" (meaning: "What do you want to do with it?") – Is that a correct question? (I'm asking because in all dictionaries I've consulted only the collocation "happen to" is mentioned.) Best regards--Hubon (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The construction happen with is much less common, but is occasionally used with a slight variant in meaning. The Independent used something similar in 1998 (July 29th): "The key phrase at the moment is ‘defensive investing’—basically, being as careful as possible because nobody can be sure what will happen with the markets", and the expression occurs in some recent blogs: "What will happen with house prices in 2017?" and "What will happen with the items I purchased ...".    D b f i r s   21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "to happen with X" doesn't necessarily involve action on the part of the hearer. For example, "Dad's taking it to the junkyard tomorrow" would be a reasonable answer to your original question, and if Dad's about to junk it, "I'd like to restore it" would be the wrong answer, even though it would be appropriate to say that if you were asked "What to you want to do with it?".  Also, "happen with" is broader than "happen to"; "What do you want to happen with the election?" would normally be answered with something like "I want Candidate A to beat Candidate B", while if something happens to the election, it's something like the vote getting cancelled.  "what is supposed to happen with X" is basically "what events are supposed to occur in connection with X", even if they don't directly affect X, while "what is supposed to happen to X" has X as the object of an action.  Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is correct, thank you very much for this differentiated answer!--Hubon (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)