Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 July 5

= July 5 =

Word meaning that the art (poem, song, book) is about itself
I used "self-referencing" for this, but I would like to know if there is a better word. I am referring to a poem or song or book (or even a movie - whatever the end product might be) that is about the creation of that work. A silly poem example:
 * I am trying to write a poem, but I cannot rhyme
 * My teacher just told me to keep trying and I will work it out in time

This is a poem that is about writing the poem itself. This happens in songs as well. Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" is about writing the specific song "25 or 6 to 4." Also, Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water" is about going to a hotel to record a new song, but it burns down, so they go to a studio, but get kicked out, so they find a house and set it up to record the new song which turns out to be "Smoke on the Water." Something like AC/DC's "It's a Long Way to the Top" or Nickelback's "Rockstar" are not part of this group because they are about the general concept of being in a band, making music, and touring around. They are not specifically about writing that specific song.

If this makes sense, is there a word that means the work of art is purely about creating that specific word of art? I feel that self-referencing is too vague. Deadpool comics (and movies) are often self-referencing, but they are not specifically about writing the comics.

Talking to coworkers here in the library, I realized that there is another clarification. The book "Outsiders" is self-referencing in that the story ends with the main character writing the story. So, the story is about writing the story in a sense. But, it is fiction. I am referring to non-fiction. The examples I gave of "25 or 6 to 4" and "Smoke on the Water" are not fiction. The events described in the lyrics are what actually happened while artists wrote those songs and refer to the process they went through to write those songs. The author of "Outsiders" was not a teen boy from Oklahoma in the 50s. So, it isn't about her actual process of writing the story. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Self-describing" might be a good start... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Meta- ? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Self referential. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Self-reflexive" is another option. Wikipedia has Category:Self-reflexive works, but no article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Self-referential, meta, breaking the fourth wall. Nardog (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Self-referential is just a different way of stating self-referencing which is where I began. Meta is transcendent. The examples described do not trancend anything. Breaking the fourth wall refers to methods in which the audience is directly addressed, which does not happen in any of the examples I gave. I feel that I have terribly failed to properly describe the question. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those may be the core definitions, but meta is used for anything that's about itself, and breaking the fourth wall for anything that brings attention to its own creation. Nardog (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was asked if I was sort of talking about an autobiography. I think that is closer than "self-referential." If you take it a bit further. What if I wrote an autobiography, but only included my work in writing the autobiography? Nothing before it. Just writing about writing the book. My goal is to exclude related things that fall under the larger umbrella of self-referencing or meta or breaking the fourth wall etc... 97.82.165.112 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're talking about something so specific that it is unlikely that you'll find a word that refers to that and nothing else. "Self-describing" and "self-reflexive" are probably your best options. I guess you could try to stretch the meaning of "autological", but think you're better served with one of the former. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're not liking "self-describing" or "self-reflexive", you could try a generous conceptual extension of Quine. Folly Mox (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Our computer guy suggested "recursive" because it is an act of describing the act that is being described. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I used to be a computer person, and to my mind while recursion can technically terminate after a single step, it implies a more ongoing process. It also feels a little more function oriented, like the act of writing a song about writing the song you're writing could be described as a recursive process (generously), but you don't really end up with a recursive song. Folly Mox (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 97.82.165.112 -- Self-describing is not necessarily the same as self-referential (my point at the beginning). AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought that You're So Vain might be in a category that would answer your question, but no such luck. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly, George Harrison's "This Song" has no obvious category to fit the OP's question. But it's fair to say that any song that contains the phrase "this song", qualifies as self-referential. Also the Carpenters' "A Song for You". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I asked the original question. There is a clear difference between a song that says something like "I wrote this song for you" and a song that says something like "I started strumming my guitar and I came up with this tune. Now, I am adding some words and I hope they are good. I need a bridge. How about this? Now, I am writing the end of the song while my cat starts begging for treats." They are both self-referencing. But, the second one is a song about writing the song itself in an auto-biographical way. I've discovered that attempting to describe the difference is very difficult and I hoped that there was some word that describes it. As an example, it may be difficult to describe the difference between a book about a person and a book about a person written by the person. But, we have biography with the subcategory autobiography to make it very easy to explain. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Two links that may be of interest:
 * https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/autoreferential-vs-autoreference
 * https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/17037/terminology-for-a-novel-about-writing-a-novel (hoping that you weren't the person asking that question then)
 * Andreas JN 466 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool! The term "metanarration" is a very close fit and doesn't have to be about the entire work. Example, Tom Petty's "You Don't Know How It Feels" is not entirely metanarration, but has one line for the listener about what he was doing when he wrote one lyric: "Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird Al's parody song (This Song's Just) Six Words Long seems to fit. CodeTalker (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good one. Andreas  JN 466 17:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

some vs little
Which of the following sentences are grammatical?

1. Last night, Nadia drank some coffee and no alcohol.

2. Last night, Nadia drank little coffee and no alcohol.

3. In her twenties, Nadia drank little coffee and no alcohol.

4. In her twenties, Nadia drank some coffee and no alcohol.

I'm absolutely sure that 1 and 3 are correct, and that 4 is incorrect. (Though I could be wrong on all of them. I'm happy to be corrected.)

I'm not sure about 2. I'm leaning towards correct for 2, but just barely. Mel Gervais (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * With suitable contexts, all of them could be perfectly grammatical. No. 4 is a little unidiomatic, but that doesn't make it ungrammatical. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on what the suitable contexts would be?
 * To clarify, I'm asking whether the sentences are grammatical or not, not that they are true of Nadia's actual behavior. I don't think any sentence preceding or succeeding these sentences would change whether they're grammatical or not (in my limited understanding). Mel Gervais (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For 4, I could imagine a context of medical detective work where someone is collating somone's dietary history to see what nutritional factor might have triggered a particular condition. So as part of a longer list 4 might sound natural. But you're basically right: it is harder to find plausible contexts for 4. Andreas JN 466 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jack, but we are both from the same part of the world, so more input would help. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. That is very interesting. To my ears, 4 sounds absolutely wrong, but I can't quite explain why. Mel Gervais (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 is grammatical, but would sound more natural as "drank coffee but no (or not) alcohol" or "occasionally drank coffee but never alcohol". (The "some" is weird [but grammatically so].) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They all look grammatical to me. Could you say what you think is wrong with 4 and borderline about 2? --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say they're all grammatical, but 4 is odd due to context (or lack of it): drinking coffee is common and unremarkable. Saying that someone drank some coffee in their 20s seems to be suggesting either that drinking coffee is an unusual occurrence, or that it was unusual for that person to drink it.  But it doesn't give enough information to say how or why this was unusual.  It would be better to say Nadia drank coffee "once" or "occasionally" or "rarely" (or "moderately" or "regularly", or "frequently") depending on how much she actual drank. Iapetus (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I take #4 to be in an implied context of her substance use in her twenties. No alcohol, but a certain amount of coffee.  This strikes me as a perfectly ordinary way of putting it.
 * On reflection, I think this usage of "some" would take a slight stress in spoken English. What liquid psychoactive substances do you consume? I drink no alcohol but some coffee. as opposed to What did you have for breakfast? Wasn't hungry; just some coffee. --Trovatore (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, a sentence might of course be perfectly grammatical, and still doesn't make an ounce of sense... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)