Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 May 7

Language desk
< May 6	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Is "refingerprint" a word?

My current job requires that a retake fingerprints of people whose initially taken fingerprints were determined unreadable. So, I am updating my resume. I say the word "refingerprint" at work quite often, but I am not seeing it in writing anywhere online. I am thinking it might be a bogus word like "irregardless". Thanks --Wonderley (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are 569 hits, many from apparently quite official sources. I think you're on safe ground, so Wonder no more. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have to wonder with it being part of my last name. Your Google search for "refingerprint" gave much better results than what I got from Google. Did you do anything different other than search for "refingerprint"? --Wonderley (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. I didn't know you could do that with the "-" in Google. Good to know. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also prepend a plus sign to the word you're googling, to tell google that you want the exact word, and not similar words such as those Jack excluded by using the minus sign. Just google for +refingerprint. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that different from putting the search term in quotation marks? +Angr 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it out for "refingerprinting", and it appears the results are identical (2390 ghits, as opposed to 62900 ghits without quotation marks or "+" before the search word). As I'm sure you know, a search in quotation marks only returns the the words in the exact order you typed them, ignoring punctuation. It seems it suppresses matching similar words as well. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

All good info. I read a lot about google searching years ago and it looks like there are a lot more options since I looked at it. I'll have to look into it and relearn. - Hey, is "relearn" a word ;-) --Wonderley (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason people complain about "irregardless" is that it appears to be a negation of "regardless" but nevertheless appears to mean the same thing. There is no such issue with "refingerprint". "To fingerprint" is a perfectly good verb, and "re-" is a productive affix, so "refingerprint" must be a word. Marnanel (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And "irregardless" is close enough to be synonymous with "irrespective", which is a word. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposites of 'well-to-do' and 'well off'

• Is there a recognised opposite of 'well-to-do' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill-to-do', 'poorly-to-do' ...? If not, why not?

• Is there a recognised opposite of 'well off' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill off', 'poorly off' ...? If not, why not?-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not too badly off" is kind of a fixed phrase; otherwise, I'm not sure "badly off" is very commonly used... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:well off lists badly off as an antonym.—msh210℠ 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What immediately sprang to mind is ne'er-do-well, so I checked to see if it ever had an equivalent opposite meaning, but apparently it has always meant a person who is good for nothing since arising about 1737. The only equivalent I have come up with with is bad off, which is a recognized expression.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why my post (immediately above; writing from a different computer now), which was the first post in response, was moved down by those above hours later? I suppose I am being somewhat petulant; that this is a minor thing, but I am offended when anyone takes credit for something I do, and far more so if it's on purpose. I always scrupulously avoid in my daily life acting in a manner that could give the impression that I am stealing another's credit. That's the way it feels with others posting bad off/badly off above, when I posted that idea earlier and first. I am not claiming that is a brilliant insight or anything, but I certainly would never have inserted my post above another's, were the roles reversed, to avoid giving even the appearance of taking credit for something someone already came up with before me.--173.68.14.136 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I slipped my answer in between the question and your answer, because my comments partially answered part 2 of his question in a direct and uncomplicated way, while your comments seemed to partially explore somewhat tangential issues. Anyone can still compare the timestamps, and I wasn't trying to steal your thunder -- I don't think that the expressions "badly off" and "bad off" are all that similar, since "bad off" seems to have a rather restricted freedom of occurrence (you can say "How bad off is he?", but "Is he bad off?" doesn't sound like a very idiomatic sentence to me, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Badly done by ? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the answer to both of Jack's questions is no. As for the reason, both expressions are idioms. Idioms often do not have parallel negations. For example, the opposite of "well-done meat" is not "badly done meat" but "rare meat". As for "well-to-do" or "well off", I think you can take your pick from "poor", "down at the heels", "down and out", etc. Marco polo (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.110.123 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

• @ 162.83.167.5: I can't see myself ever using "bad off", but others might like it. Badly off? Doesn't sound right to me, except perhaps in "not too badly off" (AnonMoos). Tripartite negatives of the "not too bad" form are triply anathematic to me, though, hence I never, never, never use them.
• Re your suggested opposites, Marco Polo: I'd use those if the person was at the extreme opposite end of well-to-do. But one can be "other than well-to-do" without being a pauper. Most normal people would be neither the one nor the other. I guess if one is struggling financially, or has few assets and limited income, but is not yet a candidate for the soup kitchen, a simple "not well off" would suffice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What about "hard done by"? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hard done by" and Kitty's "badly done by" suggest, to me at least, the person has been unfairly treated in some way, and not just by life in general but by some specific person or group. That doesn't necessarily lead to being impoverished, although it can in some cases. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hard up" is my preferred option for the opposite of "well off". "Well to do" sounds to me like the subject is privileged or a member of the privileged classes. In that case, "underprivileged" would be the antonym. (UK English speaker here) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Down and out" has some literary pretensions, being the beginning of the title of one of George Orwell's better books. Zoonoses (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Down in the dumps? Vranak (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct form

• "Finally, 21 years later She met us. This is what we were expecting for every days, months and years."
  
• "Finally, after 21 years later She met us. This is what we were expecting for every days, months and years."
  

Which one is correct form? Is there more standard way to write this sentence? Thank you--180.234.151.121 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of them have serious problems. You provide 2 sentences in both examples, but seem to be asking only about the first sentence in each case; yet the second sentence needs major reconstruction work, too.

• "Finally, 21 years later, She met us" is better than the later version. You can't say "after 21 years later".
• I'd recast the 2nd sentence as "This is what we were expecting every day for years". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have the second sentence in the perfect tense: "...what we had been expecting..." --Slashme (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Both of these sentences are non-standard English for a number of reasons. Let me just note a few things. "She" should not be capitalized. "Every" means each one, so plurals cannot follow it ("every day, month and year" would be correct, but it is an odd construction to use here). The syntax is also non-standard. It's difficult to rewrite this without knowing the context—especially what preceded it that informs the reader why the meeting was anticipated or so long in coming. Can you please provide that context. Is this a reunion of old friends? A confrontation between old enemies? Have they ever met? Please advise.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a reunion of a cousin. --180.234.141.123 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you the non-standard, but you can legitimately capitalize "She". Maybe She's some sort of goddess, or someone who's name is never mentioned (on purpose), and thus the pronoun has to stand out when referring to Her. Rimush (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As in "She who must be obeyed" She:_A_History_of_Adventure by H Rider Haggard. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Rimush (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a guess that the meeting was something pleasurable the writer had long waited for, you could have:

Finally, 21 years later, she met us. This is what we had looked forward to every day, every week, every year.

That assumes the writer had wanted to meet the woman, but that the meeting had been delayed. Since "we" had looked forward, I'd actually lean toward "Finally, 21 years later, we met her..." But I'm reading a lot into the samples. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help me out with my German

I’m writing an article on Weber's piano rondo Invitation to the Dance. The original German title of the piece is most often recorded as Aufforderung zum Tanz, but the last word Tanz is often spelt Tanze. (I even found a few examples of the umlauted Tänze, but I believe this is the plural "dances" and it would therefore be a misprint, so I discount it.)

My knowledge of German is such that I do not know whether Aufforderung zum Tanze is bad German, or whether it means something different from Aufforderung zum Tanz, or both, or neither. Help required, bitte schön. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see the declension of the word at de:wikt:Tanz. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What you can see there is the declension according to modern Standard German where "zum Tanz" is the correct form. "Tanze" is an old dative form. These days it would sound antiquated, but it isn't "bad" German, nor does it change the meaning. "zum Tänze" is simply wrong, even it were indefinite plural, the correct form would be "Aufforderung zu Tänzen" which doesn't really make sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "zum" is a contraction of "zu dem" ("to the"), where the preposition "zu" governs the dative case.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent and quick replies. I've used this information in the article. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually see the "e" added in the dative case for nouns such as "Hund" (Warnung vor dem Hunde) or "Staat" (dem Staate). These two incidentally seem to have the form with "e" added in their wiktionary entries, so I guess that the antiquated versions for Hund and Staat are still considered good grammar, whereas the one for Tanz is not. Rimush (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. The datives dem Hunde and dem Staate sound to me (as a nonnative but fluent speaker) just as antiquated as dem Tanze. But the -e dative (which incidentally appears only on strong masculine and neuter nouns that are one syllable long before the -e is added) does appear in a few stock phrases such as im Sinne von "in the sense of", where it would be unusual to say im Sinn von - or rather, im Sinn von would mean "in the mind of" and wouldn't be a stock phrase anymore. +Angr 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)