Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 August 18

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.

August 18

Asterisks after a word

I'm familiar with the use of an asterisk at the start of the word to convey the sense of "we think this is what the word was, but it's not attested in print" (e.g. anything of Proto-Indo-European roots), but what does it mean at the end of a word? You can see it following "knight" and "ooievaar" at Germanic substrate hypothesis. I've checked the rest of the page, and I don't believe them to be failed attempts at generating footnotes. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

i am fairly certain those were meant to point to non-existing footnotes. Knight has a different meaning in English than it does in its cognate tongues. Presumably the meaning of ooievaar (sailing ewe?!?) was to be given. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I simply meant that there weren't currently any attempted footnotes for them; I didn't think of formerly attempted ones. We probably don't need a special note for those ones any more than we do for ones like "wife" (given OE "wíf" = modern "woman"). Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Being an inclusionist, I prefer explanatory notes. Being lazy, I prefer others who note their lack add them. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Asterisks before a word or phrase can also indicate "this is wrong", i.e. ungrammatical for whatever reason. Parentheses can be used to indicate that something *(is wrong if you leave it out), or that something (*is wrong if you include it), depending on the position of the asterisk. Perhaps the usage in the article arose from someone mistakenly thinking that one of the two linguistic uses of asterisks required an asterisk at the end?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, either ungrammatical or unattested, but no, those two cases are unambiguously meant to be explanatory footnotes which at some point have been accidentally omitted or ignorantly deleted. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The table (a self-made table?) was included in 2010 from the talk page, where the asterisks in the table are explained in footnotes. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Joke Name

The question a few sections above about a type of joke got me thinking. Do we have a name for the type of joke where we start with "What's the difference between....", then the punchline describes one, and expects the listener to mentally supply the description of the other by exchanging the first letter(s) of two of the words? Such as Q: "What's the difference between a seagull and a naughty dog?" A: "One flits across the shore, and...". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it a type of spoonerism. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that, and certainly, spoonerisms are used in comedy, but generally to show the person's absent-mindedness and they are therefore accidental, whereas in this type of joke they are deliberate. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Comic Encyclopedia by Evan Ecar (Doubleday, NY 1978) describes this form as a 'Spooner Riddle'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Newly invented spellings for children's names

I teach in high school in Australia. In one of my classes of 15 year olds, containing only 16 students, I have Caitlyn, Katelin, Kaytlen and Caitlin. I know that in my school there are at least three other spellings of the same name. The same kind of thing seems to happen to many other names. This development of parents taking an established name and deliberately spelling it in a new way seems to have only happened in the past thirty years or so. (I'm much older than that.) Is this practice common in other countries? Does it have a name? HiLo48 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the name they're misspelling was originally pronounced Catch-leen, not Kate-lin anyway. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Michaela" is another such name here in Canada, at least. I know of "Mycayla", Micaylaa" "Mikaylah", "Michayla" and "Macaylah". (And I have seen some, but not all, of your list of "Caitlins".) I used to think it was a matter of ignorance choosing pretentious names. There may be some of that, and a lot of influence from American celebrities starting with Frank Zappa. Bielle (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, 20 years ago I taught a Machel. It was her father's rendition of "Michelle" when he went to register the birth. Not really deliberate, more ignorant. A related story: 35 years ago in my A level history there were 5 people all with the same name (unisex name too). At least 2 of them changed the spelling to reduce the chance of getting the wrong homework back. (UK here) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the 18th-19th century spelling standardizations in the English language, it was not entirely unusual for the same person to have their name spelled multiple ways. For example, when researching for some articles a few years back, I came across multiple contemporary documents that spelled Myles Standish's name as Miles Standish; there doesn't even appear to have been an agreement on how he spelled his own name during his own lifetime. Check out the variations at, say, Catherine Parr. Also, I don't know that its peculiar to this age. I was in high school decades ago, and I've known Jon and John, Jayson and Jason, Carrie and Kerry, Geoffrey and Jeffrey in my own classes. I have an uncle named Maurice, while my wife has one named Morris, but both pronounce it the same. The specific forms and spellings today may be different from what was used in the past, and they may be more varied today than in the past, but I am not sure that prior to 1990 there was an agreed list of name spellings everyone used all the time, and then magically everyone just decided to spell names however. There has always been variation. --Jayron32 18:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There was only one spelling of Jason where and when I was a kid. Carrie and Kerry are pronounced differently. I agree about Jon and John, and Geoffrey and Jeffrey. But my question is about what to me has been the massive increase in deliberately invented new spellings in the past couple of decades. I have a name that is spelt only one way (although I can imagine one or two variations) and I wonder what it's like to always have to spell one's name when telling someone else what it is in a formal situation, and frequently having one's name spelt incorrectly. Being a teacher, and caring, it's quite time consuming trying to get all the new inventions correct. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Having a name with two common spellings (Stuart and Stewart), yes, it is annoying. Although many of the people who write my name down I don't much care about (salesmen and such), so I let them spell it however they like. My last name also requires spelling, so when I call a business to ask how late they are open, and they ask my name, I usually say "that's none of your concern" (I also don't appreciate the invasion of privacy and not asking my permission before trying to collect personal data). However, if I get a certificate with my name misspelled, that is annoying. Incidentally, that's the source of my screen name here, as my name was spelled "Sturat" on a certificate I received from school (which also listed me as female): "We would like to congratulate your daughter, Sturat, for her excellent academic performance". Rather than get angry, I decided to laugh about it. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See "Spelling of Shakespeare's name".—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See Kayli, meet Wylliem: creative spelling, part 2 | The Baby Name Wizard.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This chart [1] also shows the large increase in Jayden, Hayden, Brayden, etc. baby names since the early 1990's. It seems to me parents want to have a "unique" take on the same thing everyone else is naming their kids. Perhaps the larger trend is towards people becoming less conformist - to a degree. - 69.210.137.252 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are unique: exactly like everyone else. --Jayron32 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think historical ignorance and parental vanity have a lot to do with it. If you live in the world since the last commercial break, the world of 30 minutes of fame, a connection to the past isn't even something you can conceive of. What is wanted is flash! See how much effort I put into devising this brilliant new spelling! I mean, ceey haugh mutsch effert aiye pooht yntu thysse noo spehlyng! If you wouldn't make up your own spelling on something so trivial as a job application or a letter to the editor, why would you burden your daughter with the fastfood promo name McKayla? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in seeing the Baby Names 2011 release from the British Office of National Statistics - lots of interesting takes on spelling here - http://ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-266770 doktorb _words^deeds 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's not just Australia... HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that Charlie, Alfie and Jack, instead of Charles, Alfred and John, are listed at 3, 4 & 5. It seems many people don't imagine their kids will ever become adults. μηδείς (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Harry (Harold or Henry) at number one, and Maisie (Mary), Ellie (Eleanor), Molly (Mary again) and Katie (Katherine) on the girls' list. I don't think it's not imagining their kids will become adults - I know a lot of people, going back to my grandfather (Jack)'s generation and no doubt further, who used the pet form of their name all their lives, although they might have used the full form in formal contexts. I think parents probably feel they're saving their child from a more cumbersome, old-fashioned or boring full name. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, what's un-adult about the name Jack? In "my day", it only ever applied to adults. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd sure rather be named Jude than Judas. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather obscure comment, young lady. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And, if I were named Judas, I'd at least expect to be paid 30 pieces of silver, to compensate me for being named after a betrayer. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Judy Patching never objected to HIS name when I knew him. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It was that or Julius. On balance .... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you put that girls list into alphabetical order, just to give some examples, I've spotted:

• ALEESA

ALEESHA ALISA ALISCIA ALISE ALISHA ALISHAH ALISHIA ALISIA ELYSHA ELYSIA ELYSSA ELYSSE ELYSSIA ELYZA

If in doubt, go for a spelling that sounds right, even if it doesn't look right doktorb _words^deeds 08:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to call my son Æþelred, because I am sure he'd never be ready in time for school if he took after his mother :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal twins I knew had the same spelling for their first names, Dana, pronounced Dan-a and Day-na. Dru of Id (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, that is just asking for trouble. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I used to work for my U.S. state's Center for Health Statistics. Our hypothesis, after talking to various new parents in our own lives and examining the date flowing in, is that there is a desire among some parts of present-day Western culture to give your child a name which is unique and unprecedented. To achieve this end, parents resort to what I (as a historian) think of as misspellings; to camelCase; and to the random and unlearnéd use of diacritical marks. (They are then extremely unhappy to see that official birth certificates are in ALL CAPS and have no diacritical marks whatsoever.) it appears to me to be most prevalent in working-class or poor households, with a smaller peak in the allegedly creative professions. It's not just an Oz thing, HiLo. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)