Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 26

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.

February 26

Surnames that indicate ancestor was an abandoned child

We have this article about André Vingt-Trois here, whose surname means "23" and indicates that the ancestor from whom he inherited his name was the 23rd abandoned child to be marked on a list (23rd whether of the day, month or year I don't know). What are those kind of surnames called ? Do we have an article about them and are there surnames in English that show your ancestor was an abandoned child ? Rosenknospe (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit of research tells me that foundlings have been given the surnames:

• Winters (from the season in which they were found – see Victoria Winters) – and I imagine Summers and Spring might have the same origin in some cases; I’ve never heard of anyone with the surnames Autumn or Fall
• Cree (after the church where they were found)
• Temple – regularly so named if found abandoned at a temple [1] – and I imagine some people named Church and Chapel (variant spellings) were also named for similar reasons
• Esposito (Italy)
• Expósito (Spain).

I haven't found any instance of a person with the surname Foundling, but I imagine there are some out there. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of (in fiction) a medieval foundling being given a surname "Orbus", Latin for foundling. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a word for it in English (or most languages). Because I haven't heard of it being the case that foundlings were ever routinely given a (particular) name because of their status, in any culture. --Pykk (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A previous partner of mine was a mental nurse and told me of a case where an adult "foundling" – in other words a person who was picked up with amnesia, and didn't know his real name – was given the name "Leslie Cherry", becuase he was found on the corner of Leslie Grove and Cherry Orchard Road, in Croydon, South London. --rossb (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much everyone, and sorry I forgot to sign (Note to self: Don't edit when you should be sleeping). Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You could email the curators of the Foundling Museum; I bet they's be interested. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could put a new twist on things. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The father of Major Barbara was one of a dynasty of foundlings (each had adopted and renamed his successor) named Andrew Undershaft. Apparently a church in London was called St Andrew Undershaft because a maypole was kept there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently no Dutch people on this forum, otherwise someone would certainly have reported that 30 years ago we had a well known politician called Anne Vondeling (which means foundling), his grandfather was reportedly an abandoned child. Dutch page at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Vondeling . Another interesting aspect of these kind of names is that they potentially start a new line of surnames, whereas most surname system are destined to have less and less surnames, pls see http://www.bokke.com/vestzak/surnames.htm Bokkeveltkamp (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

comma after or before "and"

which would be correct: "The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design and, according to Glock, each key is unique. " or The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design, and according to Glock, each key is unique. " thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion all five of these should be considered correct and the choice is a matter of style:

• 1. It is cylindrical and according to Glock each key is unique.
• 2. It is cylindrical and, according to Glock, each key is unique.
• 3. It is cylindrical, and according to Glock each key is unique.
• 4. It is cylindrical, and, according to Glock, each key is unique.
• 5. It is cylindrical, and according to Glock, each key is unique.

A comma is optional before a coordinating conjunction introducing a second main clause, as in versions 3 and 4. A prepositional phrase serving as an adverb, like "according to Glock", can also be optionally set off by commas, as in versions 2 and 4. And version 5, an illogical combination of 3 and 4, is too widely used and accepted to be considered wrong; in fact, it's the one I'd most likely write myself.

Of course, we aren't supposed to be answering with opinions here. But the trouble is that the other way to find an answer to this sort of thing is to look in a style guide, and those tend to recommend a style (that's their job) without declaring whether some alternative style is also correct. --Anonymous, 10:12 UTC, February 26, 2009.

Why would they recommend alternatives? By minimizing the number of acceptable choices, they maximize the nervousness of the insecure kind of person who consumes books such as these, and thereby maximize their own sales. Perhaps the best known among them is The Elements of Style, a spectacularly silly book that is treated with entirely undue reverence. Hoary (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would write, "It is cylindrical and according to Glock, each key is unique." NeonMerlin 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that one I'd call erroneous. --Anon, 23:21 UTC, February 26, 2009.

You will find a supporter for every combination of commas there is. The only chance you have of resolving the issue is to study and understand a style guide and apply its dictates judiciously, or find somebody you can trust to do that and stick with him. I'm surprised to hear that "a comma is optional before a coordinating conjunction introducing a second main clause". I've always considered that comma to be one of the very few things in English that is invariable. Look at any reputably edited publication and you will find that comma throughout. (OK, that's a counter-example, but it's a special case of "and" where it makes the first phrase act as though it started with "if" and therefore properly belongs to it.) But in your sentence, the comma is called for and indispensable. As for the other commas, it depends on what you want. If "according to Glock" is bracketed with commas (option 4), the phrase becomes parenthetical—read aloud it would be sotto voce—it becomes divorced from the writer's opinion and stands outside the sentence. In option 3 or option 5, "according to Glock" is not parenthetical and serves simply to inform the reader where the information came from. The second comma in option 5 is a judgment call, because a short introductory phrase can do without its comma. This one is pretty short, and it stands among other short stuff—the sentence would look all chopped up. The trend seems to be toward fewer commas, and I personally try to lose as many as I can (that "personally" was properly parenthetical, but I trust the reader to twig to that without help). So, the choice is between option 3 and option 4 and depends on how strong you want "according to Glock" to be. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Elements of Style? Hey, I've got that book! I don't have a clue where it is. I didn't read my copy of The Elements of Organization. Can't find that one either. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I read 'according to Glock' as parenthetical, so I'd go with alternative #2. --Pykk (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. #5 grates. —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage for discussion of punctuation. He treats this very subject, contrasting between rhetorical/elocutionary punctuation, which would have

Q's attempt to do justice to the old, and to his generation lost, liberator is thrilling.

and the strict constructionist approach to punctuation, which would have

Q's attempt to do justice to the old and, to his generation, lost liberator is thrilling.

Nukes4Tots's preferred punctuation is of the strict constructionist style. Theserialcomma's preferred punctuation is of the rhetorical style, with the sentence punctuated "according to voice" — i.e. as it would be read aloud. It is a style that Follet observes to have fallen out of fashion in "the past three or four hundred years", in favour of the strict constructionist approach which "has long been gaining authority and seems likely to retain it". I've seen no evidence that, in the 4 decades since Follett wrote that, he was wrong about the continuation of the trend. (My immediately preceding sentence is strict constructionist punctuated, note. I suspect that many if not most people nowadays would correct it for being wrong if it were punctuated in the rhetorical style.) Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Longest string of letters shared by non-cognates

What's the longest string of letters shared by two English words that aren't etymologically related? (The longest example I can think of is ravenous and intravenous.) NeonMerlin 10:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what you define as etymologically related, I think the trick is to find something with multiple suffixes. That way, two words with entirely different roots may have a whole string of identical letters at the end. consciousness and rapaciousness share 9, for example. One more than yours! =P --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "ontological" and "gerontological" - 11! But that would also depend on how you define it, since the -logical parts are obviously the same. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're going down that route, then the OP's original example is disbarred. Algebraist 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the -ous endings make them etymologically related? How so? -- JackofOz (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are both the English-from-Latin suffix -ous, aren't they? Algebraist 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know enough about the origin of -ous to comment. But isn't that a bit like saying sitting is etymologically related to googling and hypothesising, merely because of their common -ing ending? Maybe the -ous endings of ravenous and intravenous have a common origin, but the primary parts of the words, and the words as as whole, don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My point was that the OP's pair is in the same boat as Adam's pair in this sense. I suppose -logical is more substantive than -ous, so that pair could be said to be more related. Algebraist 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

-ous comes from French, through Latin -osus, but of course the OP's point is that "raven" is not related to "intra" and "ven-" (and neither are onto- and geronto-). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

guarantee

why is guarantee spelled with u? it's garantie in french, and there shouldn't be a u before a, or am i getting something wrong? --84.191.224.82 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it came from a Germanic word beginning with a "w". During a certain period, such Germanic words were borrowed into Old French with a "gu" spelling (not sure about the pronunciation at that time). Cf. the doublets "guarantee" and "warranty", "guard" and "ward", etc. 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The etymology for "guarantee" in the Oxford English Dictionary shows it entering English around 1600 as "garanté". They are a little coy about its ultimate source, suggesting it came in by analogy with the Spanish word garante, which had an equivalent forms in French, spelled garant, and Old French, spelled guarant or warant depending on the dialect. They don't explain the "u" in English, but I guess we can assume it came from the Old French word. French underwent an overhaul around the time "guarantee" entered English, and the Académie française (French Academy) was established in 1634. I imagine it was they who turned all the "w"s and "gu"s into "g"s. Noetica, where are you? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Noetica#Away for a couple of days, because of sickness.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the 'u' was inserted by mistaken analogy with the examples mentioned in the first response. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

German/English Beamte/Functionary

How to you say someone is a "corporate functionary" in German? I have the impression that they only use the word Beamte for Government functionaries. --Mr.K. (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Functionary not only translates to "Beamter" (Which (in the true sense of the word is in fact any state Employee that has gone through the Process of "Verbeamtung" being called on the state for a life time, other employees of State Agencies are called "Beschäftigte") translates as "Funktionär", so a corporate functionary would be a "Firmenfunktionär"--217.84.56.241 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I had never seen "corporate functionary" before, but you learn something new every day. Apparently there are two types of CFs, depending on the writer's intent.

1. A catchall term for, as one legal document that I found on the Web put it, "a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation". (This could be translated as "Vertreter [this covers both "directors" and "officers"], Mitarbeiter oder Erfüllungsgehilfen des Unternehmens.") If you choose a literal translation, e.g., "Funktionsträger", Google finds many hits, but most of the top hits come from political parties, educational institutions, or association such as sports clubs, but not the corporate world. Probably best to resolve it to a multi-part enumeration such as the one I gave above, at least on first occurrence.
2. The other, very different usage is "corporate functionary" as in "cubicle dweller", "drudge" or "low-level manager". Here you need to have a good ear to pick an apt equivalent. If the entire paragraph surrounding "corporate functionary" exudes an air of irony then make sure that it does in German, too. "Funktionsträger" could work, but so could at least a dozen other terms, some of them fairly colloquial, others more formal-sounding (possibly as a rhetorical device to communicate irony).

In no case should you use "Beamter". A Beamter is a civil servant.

Cheers,--Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How to disambiguate following sentence

Alliterations are series of words that begin with the same letter or sound alike.--Mr.K. (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the second assonances etc.? AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that aside, just switch the complement phrases: Alliterations are series of words that sound alike or begin with the same letter. Indeterminate (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alliterations are series of words that either begin with the same letter or sound alike. Livewireo (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rewrite it to either of the following, depending on what you meant: "... that either sound alike, or begin with the same letter" or "...that either sound alike, or begin with the same sound or letter". Bunthorne (talk) just answering the question as asked, not commenting on the correctness of either assertion 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Semester

Does semester mean "half year" or "six months"? The dictionary [2] seems to say both. Black Carrot (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the distinction in your mind between "half year" and "six months"? If we are speaking of a calendar year which comprises twelve months, then half of that is six months. If you want to think of a year as 365 days, then half of that is 182.5, which isn't any convenient number of months. As can be seen from your link, "semester" can have various meanings, including half an academic year. Many words have multiple definitions; usually context is sufficient to distinguish between them. --LarryMac | Talk 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Black Carrot is asking about the etymology. From www.etymonline.com: 1827, from Ger. Semester, from L. semestris, in cursus semestris "course of six months," from semestris "of six months," from sex "six" + mensis "month." --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One may be forgiven for supposing that it's related to semi. —Tamfang (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Disappearance Of J.Thomson

Imagine you are head,express your feelings and also the help given to you by Mr.Merevale to get some clues regarding the disappearance of J.Thomson. VALUE POINTS: 1.Message received by the Head. 2.Information given by Mr.Merevale. 3.The guilty feeling of the Head. 4.Mr.Merevales opinion about Thomson. 5.The meeting with Welch. 6.Welchs description of his last meeting with Thomson. 7.Perfects were sent in search for Thomson. 8.Express your feelings.18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Shehkhan (talk).

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to ask a homework question, at least disguise it. This looks like you just copy and pasted directly from the assignment. Livewireo (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you just read it you can cover all your own points there. Our article The Pothunters by P.G. Wodehouse doesn't have much, least of all on Chapter 16. It does have links. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not meant for airing opinions, so it is inappropriate to ask for our "feelings" here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the OP kknow you're being ironic? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What irony, earthling? —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fear of Computers in Latin

Irritated with an editor who created Logicophobia as supposedly a phobia/fear of computers I did a quick google and left a slightly snarky comment that he'd used the wrong word root and that it should have been Ordinatraphobia (see User_talk:Ilovemassachusetts84#Logicophobia). Not being any kind of latin expert was I actually correct? If not what would the correct term be? What would Logicophobia and Ordinatraphobia actually translate to? Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the school that thinks Latin roots have no place in -phobia (from Greek phobos) words. But if you have no such squeamishness, the Neo-Latin for a computer, used by the Vatican (source: [3]), is instrumentum computatorium, so I guess you could go with computatoriphobia. Deor (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek for computer is el:Ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής, so if you insist on a Greek root, you could call it "hypologistophobia". —Angr 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To judge by the Google hits, most folk just call it "computer phobia." Deor (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given enough angst I could develop a fear of multiple or any computers in Latin.;-) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A strict classicist wouldn't like "ordinatraphobia" because it combines a Greek stem and a Latin stem into a single compound word, and appears to use a connecting vowel between the two stems which is not appropriate to either Greek or Latin patterns of morphology. Anyway, Latin Ordinator literally means "arranger", while Computator would be understood in Classical Latin as meaning "person who calculates". Latin Wikipedia uses the word la:Computatrum, which is a conscious neologism (some strict classicists don't like it for that reason). AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conscious neologism? I'd say that any so-called Latin word created in the last few hundred years is a conscious neologism. They may conform to what scholars believe the Romans would have said, but they never got an opportunity to, so we'll never know for sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but some fairly obvious minor analogous extensions are not very controversial among modern Latinists. However, computatrum uses a suffix which has been claimed not to have been morphologically productive within Latin after the period of the Punic wars, roughly, as was covered in a radio piece on Latin Wikipedia which I heard maybe a year ago... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Earliest attestation for singular "United States"

What's the earliest known instance of the use of "United States" as a singular? I don't care when it became predominant, just when was the first time anyone used it. Would it have been familiar to the Founders at all? I've seen an alleged George Washington quote, "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine," but I don't know if that's apocryphal or not. --140.232.11.217 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, some web sites give that one as "The government of the United States is...", so you're right to be suspicious. Unfortunately, I have no idea where it comes from.

• Interrupting myself: I've found it. It's not Washington at all, but it is from his era: It's Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, written by consul-general John Barlow and endorsed by President John Adams. The actual wording does not quite match either of the above versions, but it does use "of the United States", so "United States" cannot be distinguished as singular or plural from this (or anything else in the treaty). The passage actually goes "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Follow the first link for a scan of a printed copy of the treaty and this link for the original, almost identical handwritten text of tihs article. --Anonymous, 10:06 UTC, February 27, 2009.

All the presidents' inaugural addresses except Obama's are available under www.bartleby.com, and I figured that these would be good-quality transcripts. I decided to look through them to see which presidents used "United States" as a plural and which as a singular. It turns out that a lot of the addresses either did not use term at all, or used it only in ways such that you couldn't distinguish singular from plural, e.g. in phrases like "people of the United States". Two 20th-century presidents used the phrase "these United States", which is certainly plural but might be considered a set expression. Other than that, the only president whose address(es) used as a plural was Monroe.

Plural:

• Monroe:
  • (1817) "...the United States have flourished beyond example. Their individually have been happy and the nation prosperous."
  • (1821) "The great interests which the United States have in the Pacific...."
• Harding (1921): "The unselfishness of these United States..."
• Reagan (1981): "These United States are confronted..."

Singular:

• McKinley:
  • (1897) "The United States has progressed with marvelous rapidity..."
  • (1901) "...the United States in its relation to Cuba."
• Taft (1909): "...upon the mainland of the United States and in its dependencies."
• Hoover (1929): "The United States fully accepts ..."
• Franklin Roosevelt (1937): "I see a United States which ..."
• Truman (1949): "...the United States has invested its substance and its energy..."

This is not intended to answer the question; I just thought it was interesting. --Anonymous, 00:42 UTC, February 27, 2009.

I did a Google Book search for the exact phrase"the United States is" and looked for cases where they are not saying something like "the President of the United States is..." In the results from 1775-1800, the only singular uses of "United States" were cases where the year of publication was grossly in error, like the South Dakota legislature report from 1890 being reported as being from 1800 , or the Rand Corporation publishing something in 1789. Google Book Search is full of gross errors of publication date. In the results from 1801-1825, I found [4] "The American law journal and miscellaneous repertory" (January 1809)page 194, which says "To this contract the United States is one party, and an individual the other." But it goes on to say "...if the United States cannot appear in a State Court to prosecute a suit in their own behalf..." so it was not cut and dried singular. Then in [5] Niles' National Register (1815), page 60 "The United States is bound to provide for its common defence." From 1824 I found" "A New System of Geography, Ancient and Modern" whicih says "The United States is the great middle division of North America." (page 48). From 1825 I found [http://books.google.com/books?id=ONsUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180&dq=%22the+united+states+is%22+date:1801-1825&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES "Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania" page 180: "The state is represented in congress, and has authorized the tax: and the United States is a government for the respective states, sovereign in imposing constitutional taxes." So until a proven usage before 1809 is found, that is it. Edison (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

need a word that starts with the letter D and means pattern

I need a word that starts with the letter D and means pattern. Such as a pattern that may be used on a table or woven or used in heraldry. TIA for any help to remind me what this word is. This is not homework I just can't remember the new English word I learned today. NoClutter (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Design? Device? Decoration? --LarryMac | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Skimmed through the Heraldry article, the only possible candidate I found was Division of the field. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, its a single word like Desma or Damesk ... aggggh I was hoping this would be easy! NoClutter (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be "dobbles" - "Probably molds or patterns on which armor was made (Old English)" Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "damask" is sometimes used in heraldry in connection with roses, but it's not a pattern. Could it be "dancetté" or "dancetty" or "dantelly", which is a zigzag pattern, or "dovetailed"? - Nunh-huh 03:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dovetail? Dancetty? Dentilly? Diagonal, diamantine, diamond, diaper, dog-tooth. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be damascening - inlaying different metals to produce intricate patterns. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dither? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pattern. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Were it not for the heraldy reference, I'd suggest "doily". It's not a pattern as such, but they always incorporate a woven pattern, and they're used on tables. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably "diapering", believe it or not... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So a knight might pay a professional to do this, if he felt in need of a bit of pampering ? StuRat (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I said it first! --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think LarryMac hit it with "device". F'rinstance, this poem from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "...A banner with the strange device, Excelsior!" Bunthorne (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)