April 14 Information

I'm in need of a word or words that encapsulates the idea of a qualitative judgment or measurement that has both subjective and objective cases.

For example, describing an object as "feels a little too hot to hold" is subjective, and describing another as "it's hot enough to melt skin" is objective. In other words, a qualitative measurement that at the lower end (or middle, depending on what's measured) of the spectrum, is subjective, but as you get further out, becomes more and more objective. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In the film Lord Jim, Jim is called twan (lord) by one of the natives he rescues. Is this a real word in Southeast Asia? Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

tuan in Malay, i believe. — Tamfang ( talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, tuan is correct. Conrad, the novelist, had some other catchphrases as well, like inchi (sir), mem putih (white lady), tuan putih (white man), ada (yes), etc. -- Omidinist ( talk) 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Resolved

Okay, as far as I know, the Swedish word for card, "kort", can also mean "photograph" (at least colloquially). What puzzles (and amuses) me, is that in contemporary usage it may refer to any type of photo, not just paper photographs, even in the context of taking photos ("ta kort"). Is my understanding correct?

For instance, would these sentences be okay in formal or semi-formal Swedish, or are they considered colloquialisms?

• "Jag ska ta kort med min digitalkamera" (I am going to take photos with my digital camera)
• "Hon laddade ner korten från Commons" (She downloaded the images from Commons)

decltype ( talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In my opinion (and my swedish friend's), this can be called polite swedish (with appropriate words before and after). Yes, "kort" is not only a verb, but also a noun. Regarding formality, in my honest opinion this is neither formal nor colloquialism. Gsmgm ( talk) 09:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

PS This would be ok everywhere DS Gsmgm ( talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your answer. To clarify: What I meant by "formal" was something like: Would it be appropriate to write "kort" in a (serious) newspaper article or textbook, as opposed to "fotografi / bild". Are you sure it is a verb? "att korta"? I know you can say "fota" (which I would consider rather informal).

Finally, what did you mean by DS? Thanks in advance. decltype ( talk) 10:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

DS ends a PS, usually it is omitted. Personal habit. Gsmgm ( talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

PS stands for ' Postscript; what does DS stand for? AlexTiefling ( talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

"dictus", is my uneducated guess. decltype ( talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

PS is " Post scriptum". Per this DS is ""dĕindĕ scrīptum" ("in place of a signature"), however per this DS is a Swedish usage meaning "densamme" - [signed by] the same [person who signed the main letter]". 86.151.150.202 ( talk) 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's probably right, except that it's "densamma" (ending with an a). decltype ( talk) 10:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

"Jag ska ta kort med min digitalkamera" is correct ("Jag ska ta bilder med min digitalkamera" would not be correct imo). Though "Hon laddade ner korten från Commons" I would say that is not used. If you said that, I would think of it as cards, like it was a ID card, so that phrase might cause confusion, "att korta" is not used. chan dler ··· 10:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Exactly! That's what I would think too, but I am almost 100% sure I have seen examples of the second usage, or very similar. What about: "Jag såg ett fint kort av David Villa på Flickr"? decltype ( talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, if you describe the card like that, you know its a photograph of Villa. But if you'd leave out "fint" and "av David Villa" there might be some confusion (not as much as "Hon laddade ner korten från Commons") chan dler ··· 11:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but if you know what Commons is, you could probably deduce the meaning. I still think it's strange to call a .jpg image a "kort", though. Thanks for the clarifications. It's issues like these that preventkeep me from putting myself in the "user sv-3" category. decltype ( talk) 11:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

np, my guess is it comes from digital cameras, because you treat those photos exactly the same as in a "real" camera. Now you can say "kort" for .jpg's etc and get understood, but I'm guessing most people would still say "bild". chan dler ··· 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

How does Boutros Boutros-Ghali pronounce his name? Does he normally use French or Arabic or what language? Which part of his name is used by his friends when calling him? Why is Boutros-Ghali hyphenated?-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

His first name is Boutros (which is the Arabic equivalent of Peter), thus it is natural to assume that that's how friends call him. —  Emil  J. 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

His name works on the same principle as Monier Monier-Williams. — An gr 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

and what is that principle?-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is what the article says "... he adopted his Christian name of Monier as an additional surname." Why someone would want to have a name as both the first name and last name is not clear. Jay ( talk) 10:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, "Williams" is pretty common. If he wanted to always be referred to as "Monier Williams", one way would to include Monier in his surname. And it was pretty common in those days for people to be referred to and even addressed by surname only ("I say, Carstairs, jolly good game of cricket, what"). The same thing happens sometimes when the George Browns of the world are raised to the peerage and decide to become " Lord George-Brown" rather than plain "Lord Brown". -- JackofOz ( talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Or Lord Brown of Climthorpe, if there's already a Lord Brown. — Tamfang ( talk) 03:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Is swordsmistress an acceptable spelling for the feminine form of swordmaster? So far, I've had no luck with dictionaries or other authoritative sources. 60.48.212.154 ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know about "swordmaster" but the OED offers swordsman/swordswoman for someone who is skilled with a sword. Is that the meaning you're looking for? 163.1.176.253 ( talk) 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would consider "swordmistress" to be better. But I also think that you could call a woman a swordmaster. It would depend on the context of use. In a fantasy novel, I'd expect swordmistress, but in a modern context, swordmaster is better. Steewi ( talk) 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for both your responses. The intended usage is as a title, so sadly, none of the alternatives will do. However, that's not the point of my original (and badly-worded!) question, which is: is swordsmistress (with an 's') an acceptable, alternative spelling for swordmistress (no 's')? For various reasons, I need to use the former spelling, unless it is incorrect. I've seen both variants in use, but I still have lingering doubts. 118.100.96.183 ( talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I was just idly idling over my daily newspaper word challenge, and it occurred to me that certain words can be constructed by combining two other words and rearranging the letters. But often, more than one pair of words will combine to make the same word. The two words in each pair, generally speaking, would be completely unrelated, either to the large word or to each other.

For example, "glandular" could be derived by adding:

• Allan + drug
• dual + gnarl
• garda + null
• glad + lunar
• gland + Ural
• land + Lugar
• lug + Randal
• and probably others.

Does this sort of thing have a particular name? Which word would have the greatest number of different component pairs? -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See Category:Word games and Category:Word play. -- Wavelength ( talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems like a special case of anagrams. -- Kjoon lee 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sort of. The closest thing I could find in the cats Wavelength suggested was Alternade (an article I wrote myself, coincidentally), but that uses letters in the same order as the parent word, chosen at regular intervals, and no general mixing is permitted. Glandular is not an example of an alternade, because there are no such words as GADLR or LNUA; or, for that matter, GNL, LDA or AUR. -- JackofOz ( talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, A_T_R_A_E + _L_E_N_D_ = ALTERNADE. See wikt:atrae. -- Wavelength ( talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

How fascinating! I must add that in to the article. Thanks. -- JackofOz ( talk) 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You are welcome. See into/in to. -- Wavelength ( talk) 06:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Anyone got any vague ideas about my second question? I suppose the longer the main word, the better chance it will have different pairs of component words, but that hardly narrows it down very much. The fewer odd consonants like x, q and z etc, the better chance it will have any pairs at all, but again that doesn't help very much. Anyone with kick-ass word skills and kick-ass computing skills and interest enough in doing some kind of search? I'm not bothered about foreign words or proper nouns, but there can't be any letters left over. And I'm only interested in pairs, not triples etc. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See http://wordsmith.org/anagram/. -- Wavelength ( talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See this list for disestablishment. -- Wavelength ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This list shows 12 pairs for preternatural. -- Wavelength ( talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The word "preposterous" just came into my mind out of nowhere. I tried it and found 88 (!) pairs. -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

But that's nothing. There are 113 in degarnishment. -- JackofOz ( talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Impersonate yields 262 (ignoring the top two results). I particularly like pirate omens. Surely there must be some with more than this, though. Deor ( talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Impersonated = 494 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.108.62 ( talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

predominates just pips that, at 495. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Now that is odd, since predominates and impersonated are perfect anagrams of one another. --- Sluzzelin talk 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So much for infallible technology. -- JackofOz ( talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Probably, like me, the anon was excluding one-letter words in the results (see the third result in your search, Jack), and that accounts for the difference. Deor ( talk) 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, that's it. It's 495 for each when 1-letter words are not arbitrarily excluded. My apologies to technology for my outrageous slur. Rest easy, you're infallible after all. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I do not know how many results this would display using the wordsmith search, but running a search on a (probably smaller) dictionary I have, 'resectional' beat out predominates and impersonated. I limited searches to two-word anagrams, as I thought this was what the original poster was asking.-- 216.165.132.252 ( talk) 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's exactly the idea. Wordsmith produced only 369 results for resectional. If you're getting more than 495 in your dictionary, then it would probably produce more than 495 for predominates/impersonated. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is my gentle suggestion to the original poster that the heading of this section could be changed from "Glandular" to "Letters of word rearranged to form 2 words: (Q1) name of word play, (Q2) word with most pairs" or just "Letters of word shuffled to form two words" or something else more meaningful than "Glandular", which sounds like a heading for a topic on the Science Reference Desk. An improved heading can facilitate searches in the Archives. -- Wavelength ( talk) 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Point taken. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply