Language desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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.

July 27 edit

Meaning and use of the word 'accuse' edit

Can someone be accused of something after they are dead?

Is there a better word or phrase than 'accuse' to use in a case where someone is 'accused' after they are dead?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "accuse" couldn't be used of a dead person. If necessary, you can clarify by saying "posthumously accused". —An gr 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated homographs edit

I recently made an edit in which I hyphenated a word that up till then had been spelled "coproduction" - the context was film, and it was about a co-production. I noted (semi-jocularly) in the edit summary that the original spelling could have been mistaken for copro+duction, rather than co+production. (Well, it’s not that bizarre. Copro- forms various words, as does –duction. But I won’t hazard a guess at this meaning, if you don’t mind.).

So, let’s assume some weird circumstance arose which required one to coin a new word, and the best candidate you could think of was copro+duction. I suppose if you really couldn’t come up with anything better, you’d be obliged to hyphenate it copro-duction to avoid the ambiguity with co-production. Given that the hyphens appear in different places in these words that are otherwise identically spelled, would they still be classified as homographs? Are there other examples of word pairs that are distinguished in their spelling only by the placement of a hyphen? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: unionized/un-ionized. Algebraist 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several examples where one word is hyphenated and the other isn't (re-creation vs. recreation, pro-verb vs. proverb), but I'm not thinking of any where both words are hyphenated but in different places like *co-production (which really shouldn't be hyphenated) vs. *copro-duction. —An gr 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different people are rarely consistent about these things. I would have said that "unionized" rather than "un-ionized", "recreation" rather than "re-creation", "proverb" rather than "pro-verb", and "co-production" rather than "coproduction" were the more common forms -- exactly the opposite of what the previous reply suggests. (In support of the first of these, I'll note that Isaac Asimov once suggested that a test to tell whether someone was a chemist was to ask them how "unionized" is pronounced.) But the real point is just that usage varies.

I would say that the answer to Jack's question "do they count as homographs" is simply that the purpose of using the hyphens is precisely to keep them from being homographs. So "resent" (present tense) and "resent" (past tense) are homographs, but if you use the alternate spelling "re-sent" for the second one, then they aren't. --Anonymous, 22:33 UTC, July 27, 2008.

Thanks. I've just thought of another example: "resign", to quit a job, vs. "re-sign", to renew a contract (often in a sporting context), but the latter is sometimes spelled without the hyphen.

Anon's answer is interesting, in the light of Ishwar's comments in a previous thread about alternative spellings such as "governor-general" vs. "governor general".

If you use the linguistically-oriented definition of “word”, then these are considered the same word. Because one has a hyphen and the other doesn’t, they would not be homographs. But they are still homophones. Or are they? Homophones differ in meaning, whereas these refer to the same general type of office. The only differentiation is that the hyphenated version refers to the office in Australia (and some other countries), whereas the unhyphenated version refers to the office in Canada (and some other countries).
But if you use the orthographic definition of “word”, “governor-general” is a one-word title and “governor general” is a two-word title. They fit the definition of homograph even less than under the previous definition, mainly because we’re no longer even comparing 2 single words. But they’re still homophones, assuming one can use this term when comparing expressions that are not necessarily restricted to one word each. Is this a valid conclusion? I'm a little confused because we're told that a homophone is "a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning". Nothing about multiple-word expressions. Until we read about "oronyms", which are said to be a sub-set of homophones, except that all the examples given use more than one word. So, is the definition of homophone lacking something, or is the word "word" being used in its linguistically-oriented definition rather than its orthographic definition? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the examples listed above count as homophones; I don't pronounce "un-ionized" the same as "unionized", for example. I would say that the hyphenation exists specifically to assist readers in recognizing where the stresses/syllables should go, thereby identifying whether the word used is "re-creation" or "recreation". Matt Deres (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC) D'oh! Never mind; I thought you were still talking about the earlier examples when you're clearly just talking about governor general. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Eugène Ysaÿe" edit

How is Eugène Ysaÿe's name pronounced? I would guess [yoo-ZHEN] for the first name, but I have no idea for the surname. --bdesham ★ 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In IPA, [øʒɛn iza.i] (the last name is three syllables). A non-IPA approximation is something like "ur-ZHEN ee-zah-EE", using a non-rhotic pronunciation of "ur" as in "nurse". —An gr 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for non-IPA for the "rest-of-us". -hydnjo talk 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! --bdesham ★ 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

selling and definition edit

My team in a spelling bee misspelled a word that I would like to learn more about. The word is supposed to be in the Webseter's Third New Internationa Dicstionary but I can't find it. I believe the correct spelling is recumbintebous.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.91.232 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recumbentibus? It is to be found in the unabridged Webster. Knocked you out, it seems... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Recumbentibus is the ablative plural of recumbens, which is the present active participle of recumbere, to recline. That´s in Latin, BTW. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st Grade Question edit

I feel really stupid asking this question, but what is the name for two or more words the sound the same but are spelled different with different meanings. Two, to,too. Raze and raise. Also, are their any other of this type of word that (like raze and raise) and opposites. thanks.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 is homophone. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you call a phallus-shaped telephone used by gay men ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 There is the term contronym, but it refers to a single word which - dependending on the context - can have opposite meaning. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 We got a list on -onym, which you may peruse for some delectable linguistic musings. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2nd question, would "cleave" apply? Spelled the same, but with two opposing definitions - to split apart, to stick together. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thats a perfect answer. --Xtothe3rd (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually used a homophone in your question - "are their any other uses ...". The spelling in this case is "there". Homophones are often at the root of mistaken spellings. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loath and loathe --Endless Dan 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly in your accent :) 79.66.32.107 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Better The Devil You Know" edit

I was thinking about the English phrase, "better the devil you know", meaning, essentially, that its better to stick with a situation that you know about rather than risking a new unknown situation. But in such a situation where you have to chose between the devil you know and the one you don't, the decision, ultimately, is subjective - but in an English speaking culture, such a decision would be completely biased by the presence of this phrase.

However, in another language, the equivilant phrase could be more along the lines of "better the devil you haven't met yet", and in that culture, such a decision would be biased in the completely different direction. So basically, what I'd like to ask is whether people know whether common phrases in other languages favour the devil you know, or the devil you don't, a quick straw-poll if you will.

Thanks. Ninebucks (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised in English doesn't have some sayings that mean the opposite thing. For example, "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" (or my variation, "I'll burn that bridge when I get to it"), could mean you will solve the immediate problem, even though that may lead to more serious problems "down the road". StuRat (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase is based on a common human tendency to prefer the status quo in case of uncertainty, so I would estimate that opposing proverbs are probably few-to-none. I would be interested to see a counterexample if anybody knows one, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answers.com and Google translate offers these, not all terribly close approximations:

language	original	mostly-machine translation
Danish	man ved hvad man har	we know what we have
French	un homme averti en vaut deux (Prov) / mieux vaut un danger que l'on connaît (qu'un danger que l'on ne connaît pas)	forewarned is forearmed / better a danger that we know (than a danger that we don't know)
German	lieber das bekannte Übel	prefer the known evil
Greek	καλύτερα αντιμετωπίζεις τον εχθρό που γνωρίζεις	Selling antimetopizeis the enemy you know better face the danger you know
Italian	mai lasciare il certo per l'incerto	never leave the certain for the uncertain
Portuguese	antes o mal conhecido	before the evil known
Russian	кабы знать где упасть	Cape know where tumbling **
Spanish	más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer	better known evil than good (that is) yet to know
Chinese	你完蛋了	You finished the

jnestorius^(talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Better the devil you know" isn't just about preserving the status quo, 'though that can be the effect. It's about facing a problem you know more about rather than leaping, without looking, into a something that could be just as bad or worse, but which you are not equipped to deal with. Forewarned is forearmed. If you can't be forewarned, and there's no indication that the devil you don't know is better than the devil you do, you're probably better off staying in a situation you can manipulate. I could draw you a grid of potential outcomes :D Of course, Fortune favours the brave so we should seize the day because the early bird catches the worm. And a change is as good as a rest, so maybe you should just go with that worse devil after all. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

** I don't know the expression кабы знать где упасть, but I can make some comments on the machine translation. кабы does not mean "cape", but it's an old word meaning "if". упасть is the verb "to fall". It's more like "[You'll be better off] if you know where you're falling", or "Watch your step". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why "Ni wan dan le," the Chinese above, is included in this context. It does, in fact, mean "you're finished" (in the sense of "done for" or "up the creek without a paddle and sinking fast"), but how does that relate to the topic at hand? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 27

Contents