Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 4

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.

December 4

question (Word for someone who believes in equal opportunity)

what do you call one who believes in equal opportunity to women in all spheres ? (one word) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olemrac (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feminist? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly more specifically gender egalitarianism... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sensible? --- OtherDave (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an asshole? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Naive? Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the OP asked about equal opportunity to women, not for women, he may be looking for the term masculist or men's rights proponent. —Angr 14:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How about an ERAer ? StuRat (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Literal meaning and ethymology of "douchebag"

Hi, could somebody please explain the literal meaning of a douchebag or a douche bag (other than just somebody plain stupid)and where the expression comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.231 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See: Douche. Fribbler (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Having found that page rather indirect on this usage, here's a literal explanation of the insult directed at a male (usually) = a syringe apparatus consisting of a tube and bulb, used for vaginal irrigation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Untenability"

I'm looking for a word that basically means "untenability", which, of course, isn't a word. Any ideas? 86.128.143.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

"indefensibility"? Fribbler (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Who told you 'untenability' isn't a word? It's formed by standard rules for English word formation, and has (according to the OED) been used since the 17th century at least. Algebraist 19:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubiousness (but yeah, it is a word) Wrad (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, a stickler - OK, a 19th century stickler - might insist that dubiousness should be dubeity. I'd guess that "untenability" has a longer history of being considered a word than "dubiousness".

All of this depends on what shade of meaning "untenability" had in the context. In some cases "unsustainability" might come closer. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Implausibility" might work in some contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Syllabic sonorants

The widow/widower question above has me wondering something. We have a number of word pairs between words with a final syllabic sonorant and those that, upon adding a morpheme, turn the syllabic liquid into an onset consonant. Some examples include:

waiter/waitress

actor/actress

rhythm/rhythmic

burgle/burglar

wiggle/wiggler

...

Of course, there are also instances where this does not occur

grocer/grocery (at least, for some peopel)

bottle/bottler (at least, for me)

silver/silvery

...

These are the examples I can think of at the top of my head. Is there enough of this non-syllabic to syllabic (or vice versa) variation to consider it a morphological/phonological process of English or are these just a few anectdotal remnants of a historical process? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you can include rhythm & rhythmic in that list. Nor, indeed, actor and actress, which come to us almost ready-formed from Latin, via French. Elision of the kind you mean seems to happen in all languages, and the reasons for it are not very hard to see. Language is essentially a verbal medium, and words wear at the edges rather as stones do. Strawless (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I add it to the list? Rhythm is pronounced /ˈrɪðəm/ and rhythmic /ˈrɪðmɪk/. One has a syllabic sonorant and the other has the same sonorant in non-syllabic form (and an additional suffix), right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm can be rɪðəm or rɪðm, rather like logarithm. My meaning is that rhythm and rhythmic haven't formed themselves in English, which is what your question is about. Strawless (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you're not understanding my question. I'm not asking whether such words belong to a class of word pairs that involve such an alternation but whether such an alternation is at all part of English phonology/morphology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that an alteration? Strawless (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, an alternation. —Angr 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that "burgle" is a back-formation of "burglar" (note spelling). Not sure how that fits into the premise, 'cause you lost me at "syllabic liquid." --LarryMac | Talk 13:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, for me "bottler" has only 2 syllables. As a native speaker I have no sense of how common all this is throughout the language. It's one of those things that it's more likely someone would know who has fluent but non-native English, because they had to learn in consciously. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Which kanji for Ryko?

Rykodisc says the word ryko means approximately "sound from a flash of light" in Japanese. Does anyone know the kanji for it? Thanks Louis Waweru  Talk  23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a nonsense, made-up word, just as flashes of light do dot emit sound waves. I can imagine the second part '-ko' is meant to represent 「光」 but I have no idea what the first part is trying to say.--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That explains why when I was trying a bunch of different spellings and couldn't find anything. Thank you, KageTora. Louis Waweru  Talk  04:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryko is not even a legitimate Japanese syllable, assuming the y represents the glide /j/. If it’s worth anything, there’s the highly literary Sino-Japanese word ryūkō (流光) meaning "flickering light" or metaphorically "flying time". But it remains a mystery how light emits sound waves, perhaps a Superstring expert is needed.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryko might be Raiko/雷光, meaning a lightning bolt. "A clap of thunder" in Japanese is Raimei/雷鳴. Oda Mari (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, this makes sense. Thanks, Oda Mari! Louis Waweru  Talk  05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Literally, 雷光 is 雷/thunder + 光/lightning and 雷鳴 is 雷/thunder + 鳴/sound or roar. They are different in Japanese. The general word is just 雷/kaminari. Oda Mari (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On what date does a murder "occur"?

I was about to make some edits to an article (Murder of Anne Pressly) ... which is what prompted this question. In certain cases (such as that of Anne Pressly), a murder victim gets assaulted on one day and subsequently dies several days (or even weeks) later. In the end, a defendant gets convicted of this murder. Let us say that the victim gets assaulted on January 1 and dies on January 22. Can we say that "the victim was murdered on January 1"? Can we say that "the victim was murdered on January 22"? Neither one really seems to be correct or accurate. Nonetheless, a murder did occur ... but when? In the article about Anne Pressly, I was about to change the introductory sentence to read that "The murder of Anne Pressly occurred on XXX date." This is what caused my confusion and led to this general question. We can all agree that a murder occurred. Thus, it would have to "occur" on some date. What would be considered the date of murder, then ... the date of the attack or the date of the death? This seems rather bizarre, as a language question, but I do wonder which date is (technically) proper? I certainly understand that we can fashion a statement that resolves the dilemma (e.g., "She was attacked on January 1, resulting in her death on January 22.") ... but that avoids, rather than answers, my question. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Also ... this can lead to a bizarre statement such as: "The criminal committed the murder on January 1. The victim was murdered on January 22." Is this technically a correct statement? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I suspect the answer to your question as a matter of law may depend on the law which applies wherever the events take place, but as a matter of language and common sense murder is surely an act and must be committed when the act itself (the shooting, poisoning, garotting, or whatever) takes place. Consider this: if a death is protracted, it might be several days or weeks after the death of the murderer that the victim dies. The murder (unless in some way supernatural) must surely be committed during the murderer's life-time? Strawless (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

... of course, to complicate my thought above, a murderer can set events in motion which are likely (or certain) to cause a death at some time in the future, then die himself or herself, perhaps years before the victim eventually dies: for instance, the murderer might add poison to a bottle of something which the victim intends to drink one day. And the victim might then have a very lingering death. So a murder can be committed long before it occurs and can occur long before the victim's death and long after the murderer's. And, again, a murder can be incremental and can result from actions over a period, even a long period: for instance, by some carcinogen being given in small doses on many occasions. Even as a matter of common sense, there may be more than one day on which the "victim was murdered". There isn't a simple answer to your question, except that in complicated circumstances a more elaborate statement will be needed than "the victim was murdered on..." Strawless (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Which also leads to a bizarre (but technically true?) statement such as: "John Smith was murdered on January 1 and died on January 22." (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

To be practical, one could simply avoid the issue of the date of the murder and simply say that the person was murdered in the month of January. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That is only "practical", of course, if the assault and the murder occur within the same month ... as opposed to, say, the assault occurring on January 30 and the death occurring on February 8. Also, it seems quite unnatural to say "John Smith was murdered during the month of January". One would normally expect to see an actual date. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

True. Imagine if someone was assaulted in late December of 1 BC and died a few months later! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Joseph, I've often thought about this very issue. Let's take a real case, the assassination of William McKinley. He was shot on 6 September 1901 and died on 14 September as a direct result of his wounds, as a consequence of which his assassin Czolgosz was executed for murder. We can say "he was shot on 6 September and died on 14 September", and we can say "he was murdered/assassinated", but I don't think it's useful to try to pin it down to "he was murdered/assassinated on 6 September", because without a further explanation, a reasonable reader would infer that the shooting and the death occurred within a short time of each other, on the same day, 6 September, which was not the case. Even where the assault and the death do occur within a very short space of time, but midnight intervenes, it becomes problematical - "she was stabbed at 11:55 pm on 11 June, and died at 12:05 am on 12 June" cannot simply be rendered as "she was murdered on 11 June" because it doesn't give the complete picture, and the picture it does give is misleading. It all stems from the fact the attack that leads to the death, and the death itself, do not necessarily occur on the same date, whereas "he was murdered on <date>" assumes they do, and can only be used in cases where they do in fact occur on the same date. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just it. Strawless (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, I do agree. This is just one more of those fascinating (to me, at least) examples of where the reality of life intersects with the limitations of language ... in a rather awkward meeting. (I think.) Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Right up there with Douglas Adams on time travel and verb tenses.

I'm basically with JackofOz. An unproblematic way to put it is "Czolgosz shot McKinley on 6 September 1901; McKinley died eight days later and Czolgosz was convicted of murder". Insofar as one can say that he "was murdered" on a day it would be the day of the shooting: "Czolgosz murdered McKinley on 6 September 1901, though it was eight days until his victim expired of his wounds (or of resulting complications)." - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know in England a death due to murder can occur up to a year and a day after committing the act of murder. Dmcq (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This was the "Year and a day rule, which was abolished in 1996. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the statue of limitations in Germany, but here is a long-distance example: Rudi Dutschke continued living a political life after being shot in the head in an attempted assassination in 1968. Over 11 years later, on Christmas Eve, 1979, he drowned in his bathtub while suffering an eplieptic seizure, a direct consequence from the brain damage done by two of the three bullets fired. (The third had hit his shoulderblade). The assassin had committed suicide in 1970, so there was no additional trial anyway. The shooting is characterized as an attempted assassination. --Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input ... much appreciated! Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC))