Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 November 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.

November 26

the meaning of "give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile"

Would you please teach me the meaning of "give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile" in the following passage?

  "Jesus Christ, will you stop nagging at me?  I've agreed to stay away 
  from the jar until after they've been and gone, which is a fine imposition
  to put on a man who's going to lash out for a fancy society wedding.  
  But still, give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile..."---
  Maeve Binchy, p.667.

122.19.123.34 (talk)dengen —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The speaker is a man given to indulgence in alcohol ("the jar"). Others ("you lot") are concerned about that. He has already apparently agreed that he will not drink until after "they" (likely the bride and groom) have come to the reception and left again (the bride and groom tend to leave before the other guests). That's the "inch" he has given them, this promise to stay away from the jar during a specific time period. Obviously, "you lot" want more than that, and that's the "mile" they want to take. (If you have grown up with the metric system, substitute a centimetre for the inch, and a kilometre for the mile. The sense will be right.) There is an overtone of "you lot are never satisfied" that goes along with the saying. Bielle (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See also give someone an inch and they'll take a mile. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Give someone an inch, and she'll run a mile laughing. :) Sorry, someone had to say it.KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a well-known nautical expression - "Give a winch an inch, and it'll take a foot." Tevildo (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Another phrase for this is the slippery slope. In either case, a small compromise on your part leads to expectations of greater compromise later. StuRat (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• It means, "give you lot 2.54 centimeters and you take a bloody kilometer and 61 hundredths." μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  (Fiddles with μηδείς's sigfig settings)

  It means, "give you lot a little and you take a bloody lot too much."

  Everyone always forgets that bit and it's one of the more important parts. Anyway, since I'm here....

  (Fiddles with μηδείς's sp setting)

  It means, "give you guys a little and you take waaay too $#@%ing much."

   — LlywelynII 15:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

and btw, "bloody" is an intensifying expletive, not literal and not necessarily a profanity.

Dear Madams?

In an email to an organization where the recipient or recipients are more likely to be female than male, what would be the appropriate salutation? "Dear sirs" doesn't quite fit, "Dear madams" sounds even worse. The recipient(s) are in the UK. And what would be the appropriate valediction? Yours sincerely/Best regards/Kind regards? In case it matters, the recipient is an external quality control agency. Thanks, --91.186.78.4 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

According to books of etiquette, the proper plural of "Dear Sir:" is "Gentlemen:". So the proper address to a group known to be largely female should perhaps be "Gentlewomen:" DES ^(talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, "Ladies and Gentlemen" has largely replaced "Gentlemen" in business use. John M Baker (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are sending the email to a single recipient whose name you don't know, then 'Dear Madam' would be fine. If you are sending it to multiple recipients within the same organization, then it would be considered spam. It's better to find out who the point of contact is, and contact her personally. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The old generic greeting is "Dear Sir or Madam". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The traditional plural of Madam was Mesdames, but Dear Mesdames doesn't sound right. As for the valediction, again tradition said that 'Dear Mr Smith' was followed by 'Yours sincerely', but 'Dear Sir' (or other generic salutation) was followed by 'Yours faithfully'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're writing a formal letter to an organisation, then "Dear Sir" is the salutation and "Yours faithfully" is what you end with. If you're writing a formal letter to someone whose name you know, then "Dear Mr X/Ms Y" is the salutation and "Yours sincerely" is the signoff. The plural form of address is not nowadays used in the UK. It is possible to use "Dear Madam" if you know your letter will be received by a woman. However, my suggestion is to telephone the organisation in advance and find out the name of the exact person whom you wish to see your letter: standard practice in all the offices I've ever worked in was to file the "Dear Sir" letters in a circular file, as the person couldn't be arsed to do their homework. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OP: Thanks everyone for speedy replies! It is quite possible, even probable, that I know the name of the person who will receive the email. This is an organization that we buy services from. When writing an email to a group of recipients, I believe (can't check, home now) that they start their emails with "Dear participant" and end with "Kind Regards". The problem is that I am writing to a no-name inbox, but don't want to make it excessively formal. "Dear inbox@company.co.uk" is just weird, no? They are expecting emails from the participants about a certain issue, so there is no risk of my email being mistaken for spam. --109.189.65.217 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I (living and working in the States) tend to start that sort of email "Dear colleague," or in your case maybe "Dear quality controller," or whatever their title is likely to be. I tend not to end business emails with anything but "Thanks." (assuming there is anything to express thanks for), and then my name on a separate line. I've seen colleagues in the UK use "Cheers" instead of "Thanks." Marco polo (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you have no name then Dear Sir or Madam. Yours faithfully to close. Dear colleague only for people in your own organisation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam is fine, for example when contacting a bank about PPI and you have no idea who it goes to. When I write to a company about software problems, I would generally use 'Dear Support Team', until I get a reply, and then I use the person's name for all further correspondance. "To whom it may concern" is also a valid option. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The plural form of address is not nowadays used in the UK. I'm in the UK and my organisation (a firm of solicitors, if that makes a difference) sends and receives letters and emails addressed "Dear Sirs" all the time. In fact, we'd only not use it when writing to a specific named individual (in which case "Dear Mr X", etc.). Proteus (Talk) 14:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - it was still widely used in the City a decade ago. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A letter in the simplified letter style does not require a salutation.

• Simplified Format Letter

—Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Spanish ll and Italian gl

Both Spanish (Castilian) "ll" and Italian "gl" are defined as [ʎ] in IPA However, I think there are differences. In my opinion, Spanish ll sounds more [j] and Italian gl more [lj]. I know that in southern Spain is affected by Yeísmo and I don't know if I've been exposed to the right pronunciation in recordings. What do you think?--2.245.183.124 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For several generations yeísmo has been expanding, to the point where it is now the dominant, and arguably standard, pronunciation in most of the Spanish-speaking world. As our article indicates, yeísmo is dominant in Madrid and much of urban Spain and in most of Latin America, aside from some Andean regions. The IPA definition of "ll" as [ʎ] probably reflects an older standard, since that pronunciation used to prevail in Madrid and much of Spain. I don't have any expertise in Italian, but I believe "gl" really is pronounced [ʎ], though this can sound like [lj] to native speakers of English, since [ʎ] doesn't occur in English (at least not phonemically). Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At school, Italians are taught that Spanish "ll" sounds exactly as "gl" and they are both [ʎ]. But when an Italian goes to Spain (even Barcellona), he/she often notice a little difference, but I am not sure which language is this difference up to. Also, beware that there are a little group of italian words deriving from Ancient Greek in which "gl" is read as in English "glucose", as "glicine" (that is wisteria) and in most scientific words of Greek origin as "glucosio" (glucose), "glicogeno", "glicolisi". Source: I am Italian.--Nickanc (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cooling candle wax

What would be the right work to describe what happens to liquid candle wax when it cools? "Congeal" sounds a bit too much like the fatty top layer in chicken broth. --76.169.84.42 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Candle wax "hardens" as it cools, is what comes to mind. Another possibility, less likely in common parlance (due to its length?) would be "solidifies." -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I too would use harden or solidify over congeal for candle wax. Dismas|^(talk) 07:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are television reporters cliche magnets?

I'm not sure if there are references for this, but I'll ask anyway.

Any half-decent writing course will advise aspiring writers and professional communicators to avoid cliches like the plague (pun). I imagine a person who had undertaken writing courses would be at an advantage for a job as a TV reporter, over someone with no such training; if this is true, then that suggests the TV stations support the sorts of principles that writing courses teach. Yet, TV reporters seem to use as many cliches as they can possibly fit in: "spiralling out of control", "in lockdown", "a tight-knit community", "in a moving ceremony", "horror smash", etc, the whole sad litany. This is the exact opposite of what they were taught to do.

Are they given their writing instructions by the stations, and have to choose between their principles and their pay packets? Or is it up to individual reporters how they frame their reports, and do they all try to sound like each other? Why would they all aim for the lowest possible common standard, rather than something higher? (I'm obviously generalising here; there are some reporters who have very individual styles, but they're the all-too-uncommon exceptions.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

They have to say something recognizable, with cachet, of profundity, under pressure. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack, don't you remember Frontline? That's one of the many things they satirised. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I managed to miss virtually all of that series; but doesn't that just confirm what I'm saying about the massive overuse of cliches, rather than explain why they do it, contrary to all good advice? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You try being original, day in and day out, in front of the camera while you're just trying to remember the particulars of the story you're reporting. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, Clarity. At the end of the day, they have to think on their feet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the reporters in the studio reading off tele-prompters? That would eliminate the need to think on their feet. As for the puns and word play, I think they do it in the more light-hearted stories in order to appear human in order to form a bond with the audience and not appear as automatons just reading copy. Dismas|^(talk) 07:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily so out in the field. In the studio, okay, but then the burden shifts to the writers, plus even when the talking heads read the text, it's probably more comforting for them to see familiar phrasing rather than something entirely new and unexpected. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To me it indicates plagiarism. I see one news show refer to a particular person as "the man in question", and then every other news show also refers to him with the same phrase. Clearly they are copying each other. StuRat (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was getting at with my reference above to them all trying to sound like each other. A case in point: Back in about 2002, a footballer named James Hird suffered serious damage to his eye socket and skull during a football match, as a result of an on-field collision with another player. Every single news report I read or watched (print, radio, TV, online) called it "a sickening collision" (here's proof). Some of them could have called it "horrifying" (as Wikipedia does) or "shocking" or "devastating" or various other things, but they all chose "sickening". That expression had never had any particular currency before then, and this was far from the first serious collision in the history of the game, so clearly there was some copying of whichever news outlet used it first. But suddenly it was born, and ever since then, it gets trotted out regularly, whenever 2 guys smash into each other. However, I have yet to be sickened when observing such incidents. Maybe I'm more robust than the average spectator. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ever noticed how disabled athletes in the Paralympics or similar, and very sick children, are so very often brave? HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In the US, they go farther and call them "heroes". StuRat (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always objected to kids with cancer being called "special children". It's not that they're not, but the message is that those who have the tragic misfortune to have perfect health are not special. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the ones with good health would feel better about themselves if they instead referred to those "special children" as "the soon-to-be dead". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've concluded that there is a severe lack of writers employed by news agencies any more, and they are using every trick in the book to cover this up. Plagiarism is one method. Another I've found quite annoying seems to infect print journalism. For example, they will have an article titled "In-depth analysis of Iran's nuclear weapons program". The first paragraph is about something new, like the recent negotiations between the US and Iran. The remaining paragraphs are just former articles about Iran's nuclear program, all concatenated together, as if that makes for an in-depth analysis. And much of the old material is outdated/superceded, like they might list the wrong names for the current leaders of Iran. StuRat (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason that so many news sources use the same wording is that they're copying from the same press releases or reporting from the same off-the-record press briefings. I remember the day Hamid Karzai's government was sworn in in Afghanistan, every UK news source I consulted called it "the first peaceful transition of power in Afghanistan in 30 years", despite the obvious fact that it took a war to oust the previous government. I have no doubt that phrase was used in an off-the-record briefing by a government spokesman, and everybody followed it. In the (Aussie Rules) football example Jack mentions, there was probably a briefing by his club or the sport's governing body that used the phrase "sickening collision", and everybody followed that. Otherwise, the reason why they fall back on clichés is the same reason that sports commentators are such a goldmine of malapropisms and mixed metaphors - they have to produce a lot of words at short notice, and naturally fall back on shortcuts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your thoughts, people. If anyone ever comes upon a reference to this issue, please drop in for a cuppa. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ph vs F in terms of root source.

Is the following statement true? If a word has a ph pronounced as an f then the root word for that part of the word comes from Greek and if it has an f pronounced as f then it doesn't come from Greek. I guess the possible answers are 'yes', 'no' and 'in almost all cases'

Some words did not come from Greek like nephew (< OFr neveu < Lat nepos). Hence the answer is "in almost all cases".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See also the entry on "ph" on a list of digraphs. On the other hand there are English words using the letter f that entered the language via French, but the root word might still be considered Greek, such as "fantasy from Old French fantaisie (14c.) "vision, imagination," from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasia "appearance, image, perception, imagination," from phantazesthai "picture to oneself," from phantos "visible," from phainesthai "appear," in late Greek "to imagine, have visions," related to phaos, phos "light," phainein "to show, to bring to light"" (from the Online Etymology Dictionary, see link). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• AS Lyuboslov has shown, the answer is "not in all cases" but the rule is pretty good in the positive case that ph > Greek (φ). The presence of ph, hard ch (χ), and y as an internal vowel are good hints a word is Greek. The presence of a v implies it is not (ancient) Greek and a w that it is neither Greek nor Latin. A th implies a word is not latinate, but probably either native English (þ,ð) or Greek (θ). None of these is hard and fast. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the exceptions prove the existence of the rule. And let's not forget rh < Greek ρ. --Theurgist (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)