Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 17

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 17

other lists for poetry and pleasure

[Note: this section is headed "other lists" by way of contrast with a section on unique rhyming pairs, which is now archived, but is still added to.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]

---

Consider the following:

paddle, peddle (and pedal), piddle, poodle, puddle

Same sound and same spelling, bar the first vowel. Notice any similarities? All these words are for little things, or things not taken seriously:

paddle -- to walk in shallow water. "I'm not going swimming, not deep; I'm just paddling."

peddle -- to sell items either door-to-door or in an underhanded way

(pedal -- a mode of transport trivialised in most of the Anglosphere)

piddle -- a childish euphemism for urination

poodle -- a dog to laugh at (I mean, topiary fur, how weird is that?)

puddle -- not enough water to get worked up about

Are there any similar sequences of words that are minimal pairs, sharing a chain of connected meaning or connotation? And, if none spring to mind, how could one go about researching this idea? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a term for this sort of thing, but it's not coming to me.See sound symbolism. A similar phenomenon is found in German, where nouns beginning with Kno- all refer to sort of compact, rounded things (except Knochen "bone", but even then many bones like femurs are sort of rounded on the ends). Examples include Knoten "knot", Knoblauch "garlic", Knopf "button", etc. —Angr 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See Sound_symbolism#Relationship with poetry, Phonestheme, and Ideophone... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I contributed to that section of sound symbolism a year ago, and then forgot that I had, and forgot the term. But now the hunt is on, to cmoe up with similar lists. (An almost-addition to mine above is "pootle": to do nothing in particular, to waste time pleasantly). BrainyBabe (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I refute your premise. The specific meanings you have assigned to each word may imply triviality, but there are other meanings as well. e.g.

paddle -- v. to strike somebody with a paddle; n. a long wooden board used in the previous; v. to use an oar-propelled watercraft; n. an oar

pedal -- n. one of several foot-operated controls on an automobile, hardly a trivial item in this neck of the Anglosphere

poodle -- n. once, a noble hunting dog --LarryMac | Talk 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

LarryMac, do you mean refute in its traditional "correct" sense of disprove? It looks as if you mean it in its more modern "incorrect" sense, of deny: You deny the premise.

There are at least two related mechanisms in play with puddle, piddle, dabble, and the like. The first has already been identified as sound symbolism. The second is the use of diminutive suffixes.

SOED has three entries for suffixed -le, each with its own etymology (though these intertwine a little), each unproductive (that is, not making new words), and each originally having diminutive effect. The first entry, lightly paraphrased and expanded for clarity:

-le¹: From OE (-el, -ela, -(e)le in ns. and -ol, -ul, -el in adjs), cognate with many IE variants.

• Forming nouns from nouns and originally making diminutives, like bramble; or denoting an appliance, like thimble, handle.
• Forming nouns from verbs, denoting an agent, like beadle, or an instrument, like bridle, girdle.
• Forming adjectives from verbs, with the sense "apt or liable (to do)", like brittle, fickle, nimble.
• In some nouns, like riddle, representing a back-formation from -els, taken as plural.

Here are -le² and -le³, in their raw forms:

-le²: Forming ns. w. (orig.) dim. sense, and repr. OFr. -el f. L -ellum dim. suff., as castle, mantle, OFr. -el f. L -ale neut. sing. of - alis adj. suff., as cattle, OFr. -aille f. L -alia neut. pl. of -alis adj. suff., as battle, and OFr. -eille f. L -icula dim. suff., as bottle. Cf. -EL2.

-le³: Forming vbs w. frequent. or dim. sense, as babble, crumple, dazzle, giggle, nestle, twinkle, wrestle.

In specific cases the unsuffixed word can usually be retrieved. For example, here is SOED's etymology for puddle:

[Dim. of OE pudd ditch, furrow: see -LE1. Cf. G dial. P(f)udel pool.]

So a puddle is a small ditch. Cute, or what? Compare the suffixed dirndl, recently on this page.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lederer's Crazy English should have a chapter on this. A few examples I remember: glisten, glitter, glamo(u)r all start with <gl> and have something to do shining or goodness. Bump and hump sound rotund, like in Humpty Dumpty. Crash, bash, mash all sound violent. --Kjoonlee 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See this thread for a similar discussion: [[1]] Steewi (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on "refute"

Noetica, I also noticed "refute", and immediately went to Fowler, who gives the example:

• He sharply refuted the suggestion and said he could produce ample evidence that it was wholly without foundation,

and comments:

• He could refute the suggestion only by producing the evidence; till then he could only deny it.

Seems to me that LarryMac did produce evidence, and has thus refuted Brainy Babe's premise. So I let it lie. Or maybe you're saying that, up till the time he produced the evidence, he was still denying it, but once the evidence was given (in the same post), it then became a refutation. In other words, he could have said, at the end of his post, "I have refuted your evidence", but could not claim to have done so at the start of his post. Is that your reasoning? I think that, if the evidence is provided at the same time as the announcement that the original claim is about to be refuted, then the whole announcement can count as a refutation, regardless of where the evidence actually appears in the sequence of words within the announcement. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! With respect, I anticipated all of that, and framed my sentences carefully. I did not say that LarryMac made any sort of a mistake; I merely wondered which he was claiming to be doing: denying, or disproving. As you point out, his assertion could reasonably be interpreted either way, though on the balance of probabilities I suspected he meant that he was denying the premise (and then, of course, he gave his reason for doing so). I did not assert that one usage is correct and the other incorrect, but used scare quotes in characterising the two usages. For the record, though, I only ever use refute to mean "disprove", since that is the traditional sense, as it still is among logicians, rhetoricians, and others who might be considered authorities on the matter. And I advise others to do the same, even if only for prudential reasons.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean (I think). I could claim to have refuted something by having both denied it and provided evidence to disprove it. If it turns out that my evidence does not actually disprove it, then I haven't refuted it; all I've succeeded in doing is deny it. But if the evidence is worth what I thought it was, then I have refuted it. Since LarryMac's evidence did in fact (at least to me) disprove Brainy Babe's assertion, then he has in fact succeeded in refuting it. No?

I suspected he meant that he was denying the premise (and then, of course, he gave his reason for doing so) - does this not amount to a refutation, as long as his reason is sound? Perhaps you think his evidence doesn't do what he claims it does. If so, can you explain why it doesn't work? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To simplify, assume a single premise P, and ignore any argument of which it is thought to be a component – so that P is in effect simply an isolated proposition. Now, there are two relations of interest in which some person S and proposition P might stand:

D1. S denies P.

D2. S disproves P.

Whether these verbs are stative (like "knows") or dynamic (like "writes down") is relevant to any full clarification in the present case, but set that aside. D2 might be taken as strictly entailing D1, but I say that neither entails the other. It is possible to disprove something without the insight that one is doing so, so S might disprove P inadvertently, but still not deny P. That said, normally this assumption is safe:

If S disproves P then S denies P.

The verb refute is ambiguous in what LarryMac wrote above, which I now divide into two parts:

LM1. I refute your premise.

LM2. The specific meanings you have assigned to each word may imply triviality, but there are other meanings as well.

LM2 is an attempted disproof of a proposition (call it LMP). But LM1? It concerns that same proposition LMP, and surely LarryMac at least claims to deny LMP. (Despite my earlier caution, we think that if LarryMac says of himself that he disproves LMP, he purports also to deny LMP.) But what is asserted in LM1? It could be either LarryMac denies LMP, or LarryMac disproves LMP.

My question about what LarryMac wrote directly concerned only LM1 ("I refute your premise"):

LarryMac, do you mean refute in its traditional "correct" sense of disprove? It looks as if you mean it in its more modern "incorrect" sense, of deny: You deny the premise.

My evidence for the interpretation after my question is from LarryMac's assertion of LM2 ("The specific meanings you have assigned..."). It is not from LM2 as content. I did not make any judgement as to whether LM2 furnishes a successful argument against LMP. I still don't, because the reasoning is too elliptical for me to reconstruct conveniently, and I am more interested in other features of the section. If we were to interpret LM1 as LarryMac disproves LMP, we would have to take LM1 as announcing the purported disproof in LM2, rather than giving its result (a purportedly well-supported denial).

Now I respond directly to your questions, JoO:

Since LarryMac's evidence did in fact (at least to me) disprove Brainy Babe's assertion, then he has in fact succeeded in refuting it. No?

I don't know, because the reasoning is too elliptical.

I suspected he meant that he was denying the premise (and then, of course, he gave his reason for doing so) - does this not amount to a refutation, as long as his reason is sound?

By the traditional meaning of refutation as disproof, then yes: LarryMac's offering of a sound argument against LMP would amount to a refutation of LMP. But LarryMac's denying LMP would not amount to a refutation of anything.

Perhaps you think his evidence doesn't do what he claims it does. If so, can you explain why it doesn't work?

Sorry, not interested! But I can affirm this: I do not assert that LarryMac's evidence fails to support LMP.

If anything further needs to be said, we might use the apparatus I provide above.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote myself, I see what you mean (I think). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As interesting as all this is, if you go back and read my contribution (or at least the first part) as if it were voiced by the character of the Frenchman in the castle near the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you'll have much more fun. --LarryMac | Talk 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A worthy exercise, LM. But we have fun in many ways here, even as we press forward to the very frontiers of knowledge. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Brainybabe, do you mean the poodle clip? POV, but a poodle without that particular topiary looks cool. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The photo at the top of the poodle article is scary enough! BrainyBabe (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ye godz! Julia Rossi (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know people who dress like that (only, they're not as attractive as that dog). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct grammar/punctuation for length of time

I want to write that an event lasts for one hour and fourty-five minutes. Would it be more correct to say 1:45 hours or 1.75 hours? Thanks in advance for your help!

Dimblethum (talk)

I think I'd be thrown by a decimalised figure (e.g. 1.75 hours); 1 hours 45 minutes, 1 and 3/4 hours, anything but decimalised my brain likes. 1.75 hours would be incorrect as far as I know; it might be better to use the French-style 1h45m or 105 minutes to be clear. As long as you kept the colon, I can see no reason why 1:45 is incorrect (although depending on context it may be mistaken for a start/end time) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say 1.75 hours is not incorrect. As long as it was clear from the context that the time period was expressed as a decimalised figure, it would be OK. It's not usual to do it that way, but it might apply in some contexts. 1:45 hours - that's not usually right, because it looks like a specific clock time, a quarter to 2, rather than a period of time. Again, a special context might do it that way, but in general, no. Other options would be:

• 1/one/an hour (and) 45/forty-five minutes (note: it's forty, not fourty)
• one and three-quarter hours
• an hour and three-quarters. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It might help to show us a bit of context. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I should say it can only cause confusion to begin decimalizing hours in the way Dimblethum has suggested. The meaning of 1.75 hours can hardly be mistaken, but anything under 1.61 hours seems sure to be misunderstood by many readers, if not most. So most such decimal time periods are at best ambiguous. Strawless ^(talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say: Never, EVER, decimalize an hour time like that. (except in a context of a scientific time measurement). Quite a few countries use the period as an hour-minute separator in clock times. So '1.75' can in fact be quite confusing. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Decimalization is also used in legal-services billing. --Nricardo (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Never, EVER ... except ... - can you see a problem with that, 130.237? Maybe the questioner is interested in just such a context. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking stopwatch times, I think the following would be standard minutes : seconds (upto 60) . hundredth of a second (decimal) Compare List of New Zealand records in swimming. {Not the biggest place, but they sure know how to link their wikipedia seearch items :-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is written in the last paragraph of ISO 8601#Times. Oda Mari (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the 1.75 hours notation, contrary to a few above me. However, you could avoid the issue entirely by saying that it lasts for 105 minutes. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or 6.3·10³ seconds. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"The event will last around 2 hours"...I believe we have a winner! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So in actual conclusion, I think it depends a lot on the context, and it's probably best to make it clear whatever system you use, but neither of them is grammatically wrong. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See Date and time notation by country. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I still get my 0.25 hours of fame, right? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, only 0.15. Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What, only 9 minutes of fame? Even Warhol would have begrudged that. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)