Language desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

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.

April 15[edit]

Is there a word that means...this...?[edit]

I'm wondering if there's a word to describe a particular emotion/situation that I keep wanting to describe. Imagine that someone is annoyed because another person is engaged in a behaviour or activity that the first person isn't allowed to do, or has been specifically told that they're not allowed to do. So the reason the first person is annoyed is SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they are abstaining from the taboo activity and the second person has chosen to disregard the ruling, rather than being annoyed because the activity is inherently immoral or wrong. Example: Whilst I might regularly break the speed limit in my car, believing that it doesn't really matter that much all of the time, there may be a time when I've decided to strictly obey the speed limit, then whilst out driving, I see another driver openly breaking the speed limit and this annoys me because I think people should obey the speed limit...when in reality my anger is BECUASE I've taken the moral high ground of being the obedient driver. Is there a word that reflects this form of anger? When there is an injustice felt specifically due to a rule being obeyed, as opposed to the act in question being undeniably wrong? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.221.37 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word, but a phrase. The term for your exact emotion is "righteous indignation". The Wikipedia article focuses too much on the Christian aspect, but you'll see many uses which match your need.--Jayron 32 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like "reaction formation". - Nunh-huh 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous indignation is not quite correct, because it is not self-referential. It means that the person is fully justified in his indignation, with his own standard of behavior not a factor. A better expression would be "self-righteous indignation". Also "sanctimonious [indignation]", "holier than thou [indignation]". Akld guy (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No hay salida" and "No exit"[edit]

"No exit" is the English form to express that something is not an exit. The message informs the reader that the reader cannot use that way to exit the place. In Spanish, it is "No hay salida". But in Spanish, there is "hay", which translates to "there is". "Hay muchas cosas" translates to "There are many things." So, "No hay salida" should translate to "There is no exit", which means exactly as "No exit". But my question is, why doesn't Spanish allow the removal of "hay" while English does? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps English is a bit sloppier than Spanish? Though come to think of it, both versions are iffy. It should really says "this is not an exit" or esto no es una salida. "No exit" and no hay salida could sound like there is no exit anywhere in the building. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'no' can be an adjective in English. I suppose people use 'no' as adjective only when talking in Mock Spanish like no problemo. Hofhof (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why in English no is an adjective but in Spanish no is not an adjective? Does it have to do with the construction of Latin and Germanic languages? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear "no salida", to me it sounds like a bad literal translation of the English. It sounds barbaric, like "no go out!" I think it would be more appropriate to ask why English does not use "there is no" as the Spanish does. Literal translations are sometimes (rarely) used to compare a text in two languages, but normally literal translations are not professional and not acceptable. Taking another example, if you translate "help wanted" into Spanish, you must not say "ayuda querida" ... that sounds like "help, dear". Also not "necesito ayuda", which means "I need help". You have to say "se busca ayudante" (searching for assistant). We do not translate words, we translate meanings. —Stephen (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "no" in English is more from Germanic roots.[1] The adjective form in Spanish appears to be ninguno/a which is from Latin nec unus, per the Real Academia website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish for "do not exit" would be no salga, an imperative form of salir, "to exit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo is a corruption of... wait for it... No hay problema. Notice a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is no exact equivalent of haber or conjugate forms of haber in English. As a result, the meaning is more important than a literal translation. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- English and Spanish "no" are spelled the same and pronounced similarly (in some dialects), and are both negative words, but they actually have different origins and functions. Spanish "no" comes from an early Indo-European phrase something like ne oinom and is mainly used to negate verbs (or sentences, depending on how you look at it). English "no" comes from an early Indo-European phrase something like ne aiwom and is mainly used to negate nouns. There's no particular expectation that "no" would have the same detailed patterns of usage between the two languages... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think the same can be said of all of life. Cultural evolution . . . is fascinating. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these expressions right and common?[edit]

Open 12 hours Open from 11 to 23 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.99.127 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is clear, and I've never seen either of them here in the UK. It is much clearer and much more common to state the opening and closing times, for example: "Open 12 hours per day, from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m." Dbfirs 19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the ' per day' bit in always necessary. If I see it on the entry of a shop, I'd assume it's per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.96.242 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most places I go to have a sign that shows a table of opening and closing times on all days of the week. That way, I know when the business opens. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it may seem unnecessary, it isn't. One of my favorite signs is "Open 7 Days a Week including Sunday." Why did he add the note about Sunday? Because so many people kept asking if the 7 days included Sunday, so he added it to the sign. Since I saw that sign, I've seen many similar ones, such as "Open 7 Days a Week and Weekends." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(US English):

1) 24 hour clocks are not used for hour of operation of a business.

2) "Open 12 hours" could mean per day or total in a week. Just listing the opening and closing hours is best.

3) I wouldn't assume the hours are the same for all 7 days. M-Th often have the same hours, perhaps open a bit later on F. As for Saturday and Sunday, those hours are normally quite different. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the OP's examples are useful to the consumer. The only one of that type that does would be "Open 24 hours". Although that leads to Steven Wright's joke about going to a store with such a sign, and they were locking up. He said, "Aren't you open 24 hours?" and the shopowneer said, "Not in a row, man!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, hot off the press, here is xkcd's take on the matter. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]