Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 May 22

= May 22 =

Is there a term for intentionally wasting a person's time ?
For example, if we were discussing economics, and I said "Read Smith and you will see where your argument is flawed". The other person might figure that I meant either the original Adam Smith, or George Goodman, who also went under the name Adam Smith. They might then read the writings of both and come back and say that nothing either wrote contradicts what they said. I could then add "I was not referring to Adam Smith", to get them to waste even more time trying to figure out who I meant. Of course, with modern communications it's simple to ask a clarifying question, but, in the days when letters took weeks or perhaps months to be delivered around the world, this strategy would be more effective. So, is there a term for this ? StuRat (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Being an asshole? -- Jayron 32 15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised you would characterize it that way, since you use this tactic yourself, when you provide large numbers of low-quality sources, apparently unread by you, with no comment, seemingly daring the OP or whomever you are attacking at the moment to read them all, in the futile hope of finding something relevant. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've never said I wasn't an asshole. I also have never done that.  What I do is read sources, and provide ones that seem relevant.  As opposed to what you do, which is to pull answers out of your ass and refuse to make any attempt to back up any claim you make.  But, do remember, the important point is that I've never denied being an asshole.  -- Jayron 32 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to have forgotten your recent case where you provided something like 20 sources, all without comment, and only a few minutes after the post to which you were responding, not allowing time for you to have read them. Another editor then read through them all, finding only a small portion were relevant (presumably by chance).  When I do provide a ref, you can be more confident it's relevant, because I don't try to intentionally waste people's time. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I read those sources. I'm afraid that your ability to see what I am doing, even though you aren't in my house and watching me directly, is very limited, and every claim you make that you know what I have and have not read, is just you trying to deflect the undeniable fact that the vast majority of your posts here at the Reference Desk consists solely of you making shit up and providing no useful reading at all.  Of course, just like people hit the lottery sometimes, completely by chance your answers may (or may not) coincide with reliable sources have to say, but that isn't because you've provided any evidence thereof.  Even a blind dog can piss on the tree once in a while.  -- Jayron 32 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I know how quickly humans can read and that there wasn't enough time to read those sources. Also, had you read them you would have logically said something about which includes what, and discarded the useless ones, which you did not do.  As for randomly hitting the fence, this is what happens when you actually manage to find a useful source with your random searches. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The exact term is not coming to me, but nudnik is in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Another one is obstructionist, though probably not for your example. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with "time waster"? I've seen it used for both the subject and direct object (in your example, both the books and the person who suggested them). Matt Deres (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In fictional court cases, when one side is compelled to turn over certain documents to the other side, they may choose to interpret the order so that they also provide a huge quantity of irrelevant documents in the hope that the first side receiving them won't have time to read everything and find the relevant ones; and this is called "burying them in paper". Presumably both the tactic and the term reflect real life. --69.159.60.50 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Best answer so far. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In law, this is called Vexatious litigation, which is similar. -- Jayron 32 01:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, not if by "this" you were talking about my answer above. Similar idea, though. --69.159.60.50 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Giving the runaround"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Denial of productivity attack" is close. We don't have an article on it, but you can Google for some explanations, namely "any method employed that keeps a person, group, community or other set of humans busy in such a way as to prevent them from being productive in the tasks that they have prioritized for themselves." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is similar to the delaying tactics approach politicians will sometimes use, by forming a series of committees, say, rather than actually addressing the problem. Here the idea is that the public will lose interest, or a new scandal will come along and distract them, or they will just make it to the end of their term without having to act, then it's the next guy's problem.  StuRat (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The specific original example could be described as Obfuscation, although that refers to making things hard to understand rather than specifically wasting people's time. Iapetus (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The article cited by Jayron above could do with some work.  A suit is not declared vexatious "regardless of its merits".   It is so characterised because it is "frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court", i.e. the issue has been fully litigated and the case has no prospect of success.   While the people against whom lawsuits are directed frequently characterise them as "vexatious" the legal meaning of the term is rather more restrictive.   In politics, the descriptive term would be filibuster. 79.73.128.130 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A filibuster does delay action, but the onus is on you to do the work, rather than your opponent. StuRat (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the UK and some other Commonwealth countries, it's a criminal offence to waste police time, officially described as "wasting police time". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's the German evil word: "Tagedieb", translated: "Day thief", but plural "Days" is used, describing some who steals the days (or the time). It is a kind of name calling on a person, described as useless, lazy, unhelpful. Meaning the person somewhat like all life on holiday. It might strongly conflict in the point of view about the sabbatical. By language it might appears to fade out self organized tasks like art or education on purpose of personal interest. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You ever have someone play you a Hinder song you don't want to hear because you've heard a Hinder song before, but they insist it's not like the old stuff, so you give it a minute? And then the minute's up, but they insist the good part's coming. They don't mean soon, they mean in an another minute, so you wait through the next verse and chorus, and then it happens (that magic moment). Your friend looks for your reaction, you have none, so she says "Hold on, you'll like this next one" and then skips over to it before you can disagree, and the cycle continues.
 * That complex-valued generalization of resistance is called impedance. More about waves than people, but really, aren't all people waves? Think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstract-object-only transitive verbs and generative grammar
In the peer-reviewed linguistic literature, have any grammars been presented as the generative grammar for English, which don't distinguish transitive verbs whose direct objects can be concrete from those whose direct objects must be abstract? An obvious example would be one that accepted *"I think a fish" as a sentence. Neon Merlin  17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * About the only thing you can think (as noun object in English) are thoughts, a cognate accusative construction. Otherwise, the verb "to think" requires a subordinate clause (or an inanimate pronoun referring to a clausal idea)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a road safety campaign in Britain with the slogan "Think Bike", meaning watch out for motorcycles. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If used in connected text (instead of gnomic headlinese), the word bike would be put in quote marks according to usual punctuation conventions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is an example of the use-mention distinction, if I am not mistaken. -- Jayron 32 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)