Language desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

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.

January 21[edit]

Looking for a word [where a winch cable is secured][edit]

I recently got a tree saver. It's a strap that goes around a tree so that you can attach a winch cable to the strap and winch your vehicle out of a stuck situation. It keeps the cable from having to be wrapped around the tree and cutting through the bark as well as not damaging the cable. What would the tree be called in this case? I thought there was a word for it but I can't think of it right now. "Tie down point" doesn't sound right and I thought there was a single word for such a "device". Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think winch point is what you're after. See pages like this; and especially this:

The pulley block is attached to a winch point (e.g., a tree) which is in front of both the stuck vehicle as well as the recovery vehicle.

(A pity about that construction with "both ... as well as", though.)

See also here, which has talk of both the tree strap in addition to a winch anchor point. Other sites uses simply anchor point or anchor.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Anchor is the word that just wouldn't come to mind. I kept thinking ballast but knew that was wrong. One of those brain fart sort of situations. Dismas|^(talk) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mink", "minky" and "minker" meaning disgusting or dirty in various forms of British English[edit]

thumb|right|"Do you have a licence for that minky?" This is quite interesting from an etymological perspective. I have noticed, that where I live, people have used 'minky' or 'minker' to describe something or someone as dirty, disgusting, unclean, unpleasant, etcetera. I notice that both minky and minker have been deleted from Wikipedia, although the deleted version of the latter contains some explanation. It's not patent nonsense, whatever it was - it's definitely a real term.

It seems to be unrelated to the word mink, and Wiktionary has nothing for this meaning of the word, same with answers.com. Urban Dictionary however has got minker. I agree that tinker and manky (Urban Dictionary) must certainly be etymologically related.

I primarily have found the use of the word 'minky' or 'mink' to mean unclean or disgusting when the word is actually used, though. Could anyone confirm this and perhaps these could be added to Wiktionary?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For 'mink', Urban Dictionary also has "cross between minging and rank". I never thought of that one... none of these terms would occur in Estuary English, but nonetheless these terms do seem to be in use.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe, when the Pokemon called Mankey was given its name, the creators didn't take into account the slang 'manky' or 'minky' as they probably weren't aware of it.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page on the French word Manqué discusses the etymology of the slang term manky=dirty, inferior; possibly from manqué and/or through Scottish slang or Polari, probably going back to the Latin mancus=crippled, maimed; a BBC page[1] says manky is from Scotland and north of England, etymology uncertain but possibly from French; another source of uncertain validity says the Polari word manky comes from Italian mancare[2] (while Michael Quinion says it may come via Cockney[3]). However, I can't find hard evidence linking minky and manky. As mentioned, minky might also be derived from, or influenced by, minging, which Wictionary says was originally Scots without any further information; minging is in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English without an etymology. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Latin "mingere", to urinate. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was a localised corruption of the word 'minger' (see above) which is a common word in the UK for a person with some undefined inferior, social, quality. "He never buys his round (of beer), what a minger" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.182.202 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merkel[edit]

I need a translation in English for the Dutch word "Merkel". Part of a barge. A subschribtion can be found on the Dutch Wikipedia under Merkel (schip). --Stunteltje (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might that be Coaming? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple root languages[edit]

I noticed that the word Australopithecus (Latin australis "of the south", Greek πίθηκος pithekos "ape") has multiple root languages. Does this happen in other instances? Is there a name for this kind of thing? I take it this is frowned upon by linguists? Thanks. Anythingapplied (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:television is a standard example. I don't know of a general term. Algebraist 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Television is another that springs to mind - and C. P. Scott's comment on it "Television? The word is half Latin and half Greek. No good can come of it." DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess at a general term struck gold: we have a list at hybrid word. No source is given for the term, and I don't know how common it is. Algebraist 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great responses, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks all. Anythingapplied (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also have the example of bialgebra. Actually, this is funny because the word was coined in French as bigèbre instead of bialgèbre, on the basis that the al- in algebra was an article in Arabic, and so needed to be removed before the prefix bi- was added! I think the pedantry was only facetious, but the word did end up sticking in French. Bigebra is unusual in English, though. In any case, we're lucky they didn't decide to use whatever the Arabic element for "two" is. Joeldl (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two is ithnan in Arabic. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be used as a prefix? Joeldl (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't a clue! DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, if an Arabic-speaking mathematician happens to come along, maybe they can tell us what the Arabic word for "bialgebra" is. And "coalgebra," for that matter. Joeldl (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, two of something is shown as a suffix, so "algebrān" (although I somehow doubt that is a real word...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the early Semitic languages were extremely sparing of combining two stems into a single word (except in proper names, oddly enough). This means that there were few or none of the prepositional prefixes, numerical prefixes, negative prefixes, etc. which are so common in early Indo-European languages, and few or no real lexical compounds (though there was the "construct state" or idafa construction, which had similar semantic effect to a true noun-noun compound). Modern Israeli Hebrew has changed this by borrowing some prefixes of "international" vocabulary (such as anti-), and having a series of numerical prefixes -- but the numerical prefixes are based on Aramaic number words, which are quite different from native Hebrew number words (so the prefix meaning "tri-" in modern Hebrew is usually tlat-, while the corresponding Hebrew word for "three" is shlosh). Modern Hebrew also has a few lexical compounds (such as kaduregel, "soccer") which unequivocally do not involve the construct state.

Arabic is a little more conservative than modern Hebrew. In any case, the Arabic -an/-ain suffix is a dual form, and not a numeral affix (i.e. if you added the -an/-ain suffix to the Arabic word for "languages", you would get a word meaning "two languages" -- and not meaning "bilingual!). AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Concise Oxford English-Arabic dictionary gives "dhu-l-lughatain" as a possible translation of bilingual. I guess that construction can be used for other bi- words too? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a true compound in the linguistic sense, and dhu is not a prefix. It's an idafa construction, and dhu is a semantically rather vague form which means something like "the one who possesses" or "the person characterized by" (e.g. the famous name Dhu'l-Qarnain, "the one with two horns"). So this provides little guidance on how to translate "bialgebra" into Arabic, as far as I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last question, Anythingapplied, it's not frowned upon by linguists, because linguists know better than to try to prescribe how native speakers are "supposed" to user their language. But it is often frowned upon by pedants who have nothing better to do than gripe about how people use and adapt language. (I've just added my favorite example to hybrid word: Minneapolis, which is half Dakota Sioux, half Greek.) —An gr 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say, if that one counts, how about Indianapolis? The first part is named after the state, which is named after the "Indians" of North America, which are after the real Indians of India, whose English name comes ultimately from the Sanskrit name of the Indus River. So the city's name is part Sanskrit and part Greek.

I notice that the list of hybrid words contains not one example of a word with ultimate roots in three languages. Do we really not have any of those in English? --Anonymous, 01:43 UTC, January 22, 2009.

If one counts prefixes, hemidemisemiquaver has immediate roots in four (though hemi- and semi- are cognate, of course, and demi-, though French, is derived from Vulgar Latin dimedius). "Ultimate roots" is a tricky concept when dealing with words that, like television, are made up of parts from Indo-European languages. If proper names such as "Minneapolis" qualify for the list, one wonders why "Wikipedia" isn't included as well. Deor (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder no more, Deor. Nobody's been bold enough yet, or even smart enough to think of it. Till now. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are place names with roots from three languages. My favorite is the little village of Applebachsville, Pensylvania. Unfortunately it is too small to have a wikipedia page. As for a single word for words with mixed roots, a quick google search makes it seem unlikely such a word exists. Pfly (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite on topic, but it has been pointed out (I don't remember where) that 'remacadamized' contains elements (affixes and roots) from five languages. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French version of findtheword.info[edit]

Is there a French-language version of this tool?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing us that. After a Google search, how about this: [4] ? Joeldl (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Joeldl. To be honest I had discounted Googling as I had no idea what the search terms should be. Anyway, very useful - cheers.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new dictionary search engine, where you can search in a lots of different languages. WordMine.info EmilS (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Eckscape" versus "Escape"[edit]

Why do people insist on mispronouncing the word escape as eckscape? Also especially as eckspecially. Just curious how that might happen. Buffered Input Output 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you axed... StuRat (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy to words with the prefix ex-. —An gr 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the only sensible explanation, but are exp- words really that much more common than esp- words? I've never heard the mispronunciations Buffered refers to, and I'm surprised to hear they're common. Joeldl (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "excape" a lot, and I think its semantics make it particularly prone to association with "ex-" (and indeed its ultimate etymology does involve that prefix). As for "expecially", I haven't heard it as often as "excape", but glancing through the dictionary suggests there are a lot more words that start "exp-" than start "esp-", though an absolute number of words doesn't say as much as comparative frequency and familiarity of the two groups would. —An gr 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen at the end of the word too: some people pronounce Asterisk as Asterix. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Et cetera says the following.

A common misspelling of the abbreviation is "ect."; a common mispronunciation is "ex cetera," and another common misspelling is "et cetra."

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metathesis of consonants is more easily understood. The difference is that exp is probably harder to pronounce than esp. Joeldl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[edit conflict: I was reacting to asterix.][reply]

All right, on second thought I'm willing to accept that esp- words are infrequent enough for this to happen. Especially seems to be the only really common one. I wonder if you get expionage, expouse and Experanto.Joeldl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expresso, anyone? :) --Kjoonlee 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cheating! Express is a native cognate word. Joeldl (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I was answering your second question, about Esperanto turning into Experanto. Espresso crops up as expresso from time to time. --Kjoonlee 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, my dictionary shows a lot more exp words than esp words: expand, expatiate, expatriate, expect, expectorate, expedient, expedite, expel, expend, experience, expert, expiate, expire, explain, expletive, explicate, explicit, explode, exploit, explore, export, expostulate, expound, express, expropriate, expunge, expurgate versus espadrille, espalier, esparto, especial, esperance, Esperanto, espial, espionage, esplanade, espouse, espresso, esprit, espy. Exc words are not much more numerous than esc words, but they are more familiar: Excalibur, excaudate, excavate, exclaim, exclave, exclude, excogitate, excommunicate, excoriate, excrescent, excrete, excruciate, exculpate, excursus, excuse versus escalate, escallop, escape, escargot, escarole, escarp, eschar, eschatology, escolar, escort, escritoire, escrow, escudo, esculent, escutcheon. (I've omitted some related words, as well as words in which c is not /k/.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be hypercorrection by Italians accustomed to speaking Italian words.

esatto = "exact"; esistere = "to exist"; espandere = "to expand"; estendere = "to extend"

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in my experience ever says "riks", "tahks" or "mahks" (for risk, task and mask), but I often hear "ask" pronounced "ahks". I wonder what makes that particular word so troublesome for some people. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That word became fixed as aks in many dialects of English centuries ago. The first person to say it that way had no more reason to do it than they would have had to say riks. Joeldl (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even in Old English the word for "ask" is attested as both āscian and ācsian. —An gr 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Pronunciation . -- Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also these: [5] [6]. Apparently, though the Germanic root word would have had -sk, the verbs acsian and ascian coexisted 1000 years ago, and the first was standard until about 1600. It's survived in some dialects. Joeldl (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Black English. The intricacies of the use of metathesised forms like aks for "ask" or graps for "grasp" almost put me to sleep in a lecture, but lo, they are in the article along with a reference: "See Baugh (2000:92-94) on 'aks' and metathesis, on the frequency with which 'aks' is brought up by those who ridicule AAVE (e.g.Cosby (1997)), and on the linguistic or cognitive abilities of a speaker of standard English who would take 'aks' to mean 'axe' in a context that in standard English calls for 'ask'." Julia Rossi (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Wasp' is another word that has metathesised cheerfully over the centuries. "OE. wæfs, wæps, wæsp" (OED s.v. 'wasp'). --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That happens in German, too: In Bavaria, (or at least Franconia), I heard "Wepse" instead of "Wespe". — Sebastian 07:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia? ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary commas?[edit]

Am I correct in thinking that in the following sentence, the commas in the part where it says "...Lennon's remarks, in his 1980 Playboy interview, where..." are unnessary and should be removed?

However, the notion that Lennon is responsible for the song's melody, as opposed to McCartney alone, or Lennon in collaboration with McCartney, is highly questionable in light of Lennon's remarks, in his 1980 Playboy interview, where he refers to 'With a Little Help from My Friends'" by stating: "This is Paul, with a little help from me. 'What do you see when you turn out the light/ I can't tell you, but I know it's mine...' is mine."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine either way. Joeldl (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1980 Playboy interview has been mentioned previously, I would take the first comma out, though. Joeldl (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Myself, I'd delete the comma after remarks but retain the one after interview, since the "where …" clause is nonrestrictive. Deor (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if it hadn't been mentioned before, the comma could go, with no loss of meaning. Hence it's unnecessary, hence it should go. The sentence is over-long as it is, and every little bit of mini-pruning would help. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that things that are unnecessary are always bad. It's good to have choices. Joeldl (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on interpretation. It could be that in his 1980 Playboy interview is nonrestrictive and where he... is restrictive. That's how I read it as it is.Joeldl (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "where …" clause would be restrictive only if Lennon had more than one interview in Playboy in 1980, in which case the clause would be specifying the one containing the reference to "With a Little Help from My Friends." Deor (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to see the context, the sentence is here. It's in the second paragraph.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and rewritten it (the where clause is unnecessary in context) but, for the record, I agree with Deor. —Tamfang (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]