Language desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 6[edit]

How do I say the Nth root of a number?[edit]

How do I say:

${\sqrt[{n}]{a}}$

when n equals to -3, -2, -1, 1.5, or 2.5? - Toytoy (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a math than a language question. Since

{\sqrt[{n}]{a}}

is just another way of writing a^1/n, I would suggest pronunciations such as "a to the power minus one-third", "a to the power minus one-half", and so on. --174.94.31.124 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a language question, since I doubt there isn't a way to say out loud in English that

{\sqrt[{-3}]{a}}

is equal to a^1/-3 or whatever is the right conversion. Nevertheless, if you don't get a good answer here soon, the math reference desk seems a good place for finding one. Personuser (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this is not a math thing. But I will ask the same question in the math section. It really is weird. -- Toytoy (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can get weird in other languages too, especially when ordinal numerals are involved (getting rid of them with some locution seems a common approach). For higher math possibly they rely a lot more on written symbols, but this seems something that is spoken in schools quite a lot. Personuser (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When vocalized in English (see Language of mathematics § The grammar of mathematics), the expression

{\sqrt[{n}]{x}}

is conventionally pronounced as "the

n

th root of

x

", or, if you wish, "the enth root of eks". So, while many will pronounce

{\sqrt[{3}]{x}}

as "the cube root of

x

", you will also find "the third root of

x

".^[1][2][3] Similarly, people ask about "the

i

th root of

i

" (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2007 March 28#ith root of i). Analogously,

{\sqrt[{\pi }]{\pi }}

becomes "the pith root of pi" (see also pith#Adjective on Wiktionary). Generalizing this even further, you'd get "the minus third root of a", ..., "the two-and-a-halfth root of a". For "minus third", compare "four times ten to the minus third" (for

4 \times 10 -3

).^[4] --Lambiam 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That last comparison would be "four times ten to the minus three" in some parts of the world (at least).Page 5 Bazza (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would express that as "four times ten to the power of negative three". --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: Thanks. That seems to be a US–British (and maybe others) difference, but we seem to agree that for "powers" cardinal numerals are spoken, whereas "roots" use ordinals. Bazza (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ordinals for powers is pretty common, though. I'm not sure if the "ten to the third" or "ten to the power of three" is more common where I'm from. And it may vary a bit between more or less popular and more or less technical usage. Ordinals for roots is pretty much standard 'round here, though. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the notation

{\sqrt[{n}]{a}}

is actually not very commonly used except for a few low-integer values of n. When n is a fraction or a negative number, most people will switch to the notation

a^{1/n}

, which is much more convenient for most purposes. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We say 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and assume all ordinal numbers are integers. However, if you are asked to use it mathematically, it's now demanded to have non-integer ordinal numbers. What is the ordinal form for numbers 1.5 and 2.5? Do we say 1.5st or 1.5nd? Or we just say 1.5th? I think it's seriously funny question. -- Toytoy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I had to read

{\sqrt[{1.5}]{a}}

and

{\sqrt[{2.5}]{a}}

aloud, I would say "one point fifth root of a" and "two point fifth root of a" respectively. But (in agreement with previous answers) I wouldn't be likely to put it that way in my own words, either written or spoken. And I don't know that others would read them in the same way. --Amble (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few older books that do use the form "1.5th root": [5], [6], [7]. But it seems more natural to call it a "two-thirds power", and for example in the study of human motion there's a "two-thirds power law" [8], not a "one point fifth root law". --Amble (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. One way or another, you'll encounter a situation that you're asked to say

{\sqrt[{-1.2675675}]{x}}

or something like that. I probably won't be petrified when someone asked me to do so. Ha! Thank you all! -- Toytoy (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that "one point fifth" could easily be misunderstood as "1.2". --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin for "honey-eating"[edit]

Is there an existing Latin word, or can anyone propose a Latin neologism, for "honey-eating"? Ideally a cognate of "medved". Thanks! Lantzy : Lantzy 14:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"mellivorous" (or "mellivorus/mellivora/mellivorum" in Latin)? The honey badger's binomial is actually Mellivora capensis, and that of the white-necked jacobin is Florisuga mellivora. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(though neither part appears to be a cognate of medved. See médʰu and mélit, as well as h₁édti and gʷerh₃-). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma form of the Latin adjective is the masculine singular nominative, mellivorus. It will decline just like omnivorus. The Latin word for "badger", meles, is feminine, which is probably why Storr proposed a feminine form for the genus name of the honey badger. If you apply the adjective in Latin to a noun, it should agree in gender, number and case. --Lambiam 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's called meles? Is that a coincidence or something? Temerarius (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical bloody integrity?[edit]

Does tmesis in English violate the "Lexical Integrity Hypothesis"? The example mentioned at the very bottom of the latter article looks like substantially the same thing - but if so, it seems a bit strange to look as far afield as an Australian Aboriginal language when English would have served as well. Maybe it's about formal versus informal usages, or some such?

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:1472:5365:194D:3DFD (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH) is about productive transformations. One doesn't hear people say, ^✽That's im-fucking-possible!. And, I assume, it is also not about transformations that are generally considered irregular – otherwise, stuttering and (unintentional) spoonerisms violate the LIH. Intentional spoonerisms, tmeses à la Ned Flanders, or other humorous word games, are also outside the scope of the LIH. --Lambiam 23:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that tmesis is, and is considered, a somewhat productive technique, notwithstanding the fact that a handful of well-worn coinages account for a large majority of occurrences. This paper, for example, refers to it as an "active [...] derivational process" and to its output as an "open set of lexemes" in the abstract. But the rest of your reply stands, and thinking of it is as a form of, or at least in the vicinity of, a "word game", makes a lot of sense. And one of the google hits for "im-fucking-possible" is a textbook titled "Extra-grammatical Morphology in English", which does too. Thanks!

- (OP) 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't hear people say, ^✽That's im-fucking-possible!. Not sure about that: see here; also wikt:unfuckingbelievable. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure (p. 175) also has im-BLOODY-possible, which also has a number of Google results in less exalted media, including #Imbloodypossible on Twitter. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance (p. 209) has "un-bloody-believable", a phrase which seems to be particularly popular with Australian sports writers [9]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One doesn't hear people say, ✽That's im-fucking-possible!." Really? You don't know people who say that (or equivalents)? Really? Do you only know very boring prissy people? Because that sort of phrasing is quite familiar to me. --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]