Jump to content

Talk:Enzyte: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Googleyed (talk | contribs)
added new thoughts
No edit summary
Line 198: Line 198:
I think that one reason that the enzyte commercials seem to be so successful is that the commercials often follow the same formula as those for legitimate drug commercials. This way they are able to imply that Enzyte is a legitimate drug without specifically making those claims. Maybe someone with a background in studying advertising can explore this issue.
I think that one reason that the enzyte commercials seem to be so successful is that the commercials often follow the same formula as those for legitimate drug commercials. This way they are able to imply that Enzyte is a legitimate drug without specifically making those claims. Maybe someone with a background in studying advertising can explore this issue.
--[[User:Googleyed|Googleyed]] 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:Googleyed|Googleyed]] 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


== Wikipedia inadvertantly makes a funny! ==

By catagorizing the article as a "Stub."

--[[User:24.205.55.219|24.205.55.219]] 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 21 July 2006


Is anyone else as creeped out as I am by "Bob?" This guy always has that big stupid grin on his face. And Bob's wife, what's with her?

JesseG 19:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ingredients

Can we cite a source? Or is this a product of the rumor mill? "Psst, Enzyte contains Tribulus terrestris. Pass it on!"

I like Bob. Apparently so does Mrs. Bob. -- Beland 06:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The ingredients seem to listed in a sidebar on the UsaToday article.

-- Nsfmc 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some medical professionals...

Is there a cite for Some medical professionals in fact advise against taking Enzyte, saying that it can lead to damage? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found a source for that, but there is lawsuit news:
I will keep looking for Dr's advice, meanwhile, I'm removing the "damage" part of the sentence.
KillerChihuahua?!? 09:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling Bob

Does anyone have any clue as to who the actor who plays Smiling Bob is? I have searched the net ever since he first appeared and it is like only the character exists and not the actor.

Diedrich Bader

While I do see the similarities between the two, I do not believe Diedrich plays him.

Translation Issue

suffragium n. -i  : 1. a voting tablet, a vote; the right to vote, franchise; in gen. judgment; approval, support.

suffragor dep. -ari : 1. to vote for; to favor, approve, support.

suffugium n. -i : 1. a shelter, place of refuge.

..

I pulled these from a latin dictionary after searching for the suff- stem. "Suffragium," the first part of "suffragium asotas," according to this, does not refer to a place of shelter or refuge, but rather the idea of the vote, the ability or offering of support to something.

As for "asotas," it doesn't translate into anything remotely close to dissipated. Rather, "asotas" refers to the "sensualist" or the "libertine."

So, that being said, a more proper translation would seem to be "support for the sensualist," or, in simpler English, "yay for people who like sex."

I'm not so much saying Harvard-Guy is wrong so much as I think Harvard-Guy was making a joke at the expense of people who buy into Enzyte BS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studio Ghibli (talkcontribs) .

Wait... Are you saying it's correct Latin? What grammatical case is asotas? —Keenan Pepper 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellifiknow. I haven't taken Latin in ages. All I know is that Harvard-Guy is wrong to say it translates as "refuge for the dissipated." I'd be willing to guess that whoever constructed the phrase had an awful grasp of latin as well though. --Studio Ghibli 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a textbook example of Wikipedia's preference for verifiability over truth. It doesn't matter if the given translation is wrong, the important thing is that it comes from a published, verifiable source. If you disagree, you need to find another source to back up your interpretation. —Keenan Pepper 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that I need to find a published source that lists not only the current published translation as wrong, but also the correct translation? It's not so much an issue of interpretation. It's verifiabile through any Latin dictionary. Because I was unsure of whether or not -I- was correct, I ran the two words past some friends of mine, and the three of them all came up with what I had.

... suppose I can do just that, then. Cite an online dictionary as my source...

All right.

It took some digging--and a little confusion, as there were some translation issues..

First, according to this website-

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe

-which is linked off of-

http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm

-which is hosted at the University of Notre Dame, the two words in question translate as follow:

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?suffragium

suffragium, suffragi(i) N N [XXXCX] vote; judgement; applause;

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?asotus

asotus, asoti N M [XXXEO] uncommon debaucher, dissolute man;

asotus, asota, asotum ADJ [XXXDO] lesser debauched, dissipated, profligate;

Now, with the first word, there's no problem. The second word, though--'asotus.'

To the average English-speaker, the idea of something being dissipated is, like, a sort of evaporation or something, that it breaks up and scatters and becomes nothing. So, technically, it -probably- translates straight as 'vote dissolute,' as there's no conjugation attempted.

It is, however, not "refuge."

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?suffugium

suffugium, suffugi(i) N N [XXXCX] shelter; place of refuge;

Obviously, 'suffugium' and 'suffragium' are different words.

Next, there was my issue with the word "dissipated." My original reading of dissipated was what I described earlier--the idea of something breaking up and scattering and becoming nothing. However, this is only one of its definitions. According to Webster's Online Dictionary (http://webster.com/dictionary/dissipated), it also translates as-

2 : to be extravagant or dissolute in the pursuit of pleasure;

I never realized this the first time because I was using a different dictionary. My original dictionary translated it straight to 'libertine' or 'sensualist.' So, looking up the word 'dissoulute'-

Main Entry: dis·so·lute Pronunciation: 'di-s&-"lüt, -l&t Function: adjective Etymology: Latin dissolutus, from past participle of dissolvere to loosen, dissolve

lacking restraint; especially : marked by indulgence in things (as drink or promiscuous sex) deemed vices <the dissolute and degrading aspects of human nature -- Wallace Fowlie>

- dis·so·lute·ly adverb - dis·so·lute·ness noun

-which is kind of a 'sensualist' or 'libertine,' so the difference in the two dictionaries is probably just a manner of interpretation.

Regardless, though.

It does not say 'refuge for the dissipated.' We knew that from the beginning, as the Harvard-type made allowances for poor grammar (a lack of conjugation, probably). However, moving a step forward from that, I've also verified through a Notre Dame latin dictionary that the word 'refuge' is not even present. Instead, it's 'suffragium,' which refers to a vote or support for something.

As for 'dissipated,' having taken the time to understand its true meaning, I still feel another word should be used in its place, if only because most people (I think) don't read 'dissipated' as 'lacking restraint.'

'Suffragium asotas' probably does not translate as 'support for the dissolute/sensualist/libertine/sex fiend,' as both words are still in their.. I believe it's nominative?.. form. However, being that I've verified 'suffragium' means 'vote/support' and 'asotas' means 'dissolute/sensualist,' I can make a conjecture--the same conjecture Harvard-type made--that it's a poorly constructed phrase that tries to say 'support for the sensualist.'

So, moving back to the veeeeery beginning-

If the issue is verifiability over truth, I've provided the links to verify the translation. It can be verified. The current translation can be verified as incorrect. The translation I've provided can be provided as correct (taking into account the poor grammar of the original phrase).

.. it's ten minutes later. I want to point out something I missed the first time over.

Harvard-type doesn't refer to 'suffragium asotas' as 'refuge for the dissipated.' Rather, he suggests that the Enzyte-makers -probably- meant 'suffugium asotis,' which is conjugated, which means 'refuge for the dissipated.' That phrase, however, is not what's on the bottle. 'Suffragium asotas' is--and 'suffragium' means 'support/vote' and 'asotas' means 'dissipate/dissolute/libertine.'

No hard feelings, either. Had fun doing this. :p

On a different note, I found another wacky translation.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/p/patent_medicine

The fellow of this website claims the phrase refers to "the lecher's helper," and he cites the same USA Today article. I'd go out on a limb he noticed the same thing I did about the translation issue--and when he discovered their meaning, simply embellished it a little bit. Lecher, sensualist. Helper, support. Tomato, tomahto!

Well, that, or he took the first definition of asotus, the noun-form-

asotus, asoti N M [XXXEO] uncommon debaucher, dissolute man;

-and used that for his translation. ;D

We could always cite that one as well. Both what Harvard-type says and what this fellow says.

Also, thanks for clarifying the rules for me. I'm looking over them again right now--though it is one in the morning, so it'll probably be more of a browse. "No original research" rule also.. maybe.. being violated as well. I'm not sure if me plugging a word into a dictionary at Notre Dame constitutes research.

I read that Wiki doesn't mind contributions like I originally did as long as it's from "experts" and the information is "verifiable." While I'm not an expert (only two years of latin, and I'm rusty), the information still is verifiable. I certainly won't press for an update of the entry saying that it translates as "support for the libertine," as that would be my personal theory--and Wiki's down on that. I still would like to see some clarification provided on the original phrase though.

Anyway, talk to you soon.

--Studio Ghibli 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ergh. I was supposed to go to bed, but curiosity caught me and I decided to look up your information.

Congratulations! You're a few hours drive from me!

That having been announced, I wanted to say I noticed that you're listed as a latin-user, and I feel a little.. not so much foolish but.. some kind of word which describes this blanket-over-a-duck-over-my-head feeling.

I also noticed the big star. Congrats.

All that having been noticed, this'll probably either be my second-to-last or last post on the matter, as it's readily apparent that, while I might think a certain way, I'm pretty sure you have things under control. --Studio Ghibli 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read all that now, but I'll try to later (you can remind me on my talk page). Let me just say that the main problem is that asotas can only be feminine accusative plural, which makes no sense. In order to get it to make sense you have to assume that asotas is an error for something like asotis. Asotus, the masculine nominative singular, doesn't make sense either: it can't modify suffragium because that's neuter. —Keenan Pepper 15:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, see, that's one of the things--in order for it to make sense, changes have to be made. For me, rather than assume that the wrong word was used, I instead assume that whoever made the phrase had a -very- basic understanding of latin, saw the word for 'vote' and saw the word for 'libertine' and simply threw them together. For me, being that I was never good at latin grammar, this makes sense--as whenever I was translating, I looked more for context clues to understand which words were related to what as opposed to actually taking note of which declension they were in.. which, ultimately, is why I see 'support' and 'libertine' and assume someone probably wanted to say 'support for the libertine' but had no idea how to conjugate properly.

--Studio Ghibli 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we can safely assume asotis is meant, because dative plural makes perfect sense. It's a suffragium (vote of support, approval) for those who are asotus. Now the question is what asotus means. I'm an etymology nut, so I looked it up and found that the Latin asotus comes from the Greek ἄσωτος, which literally means "without" (α-) "saving" (σώζειν). Liddell and Scott says "having no hope of safety, abandoned, profligate" and gives the Latin word perditus (lost) as a synonym. I'm not sure if libertine captures that sense.
I have no idea where the USA Today article gets suffragor as "refuge", though. Maybe they misquoted the Harvard guy? —Keenan Pepper 05:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the 'asotus' question ultimately comes down to which source is being cited. When I look it up with the Notre Dame dictionary, the possible meanings for the word are much more varied. As for where 'suffragor' comes from, Harvard-type comes to the same conclusion we did, that the original latin provided was wrong--and, in an effort to try and make sense of it all, suggested that maybe Enzyte meant "suffragor asotis," which is properly declined.

At this point, it's anybody's guess. :p --Studio Ghibli 17:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But suffragor asotis is not correct. The only thing suffragor could be is the first person singular present indicative of the deponent verb suffragari, so it means "I support". Nothing like "refuge". —Keenan Pepper 18:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The music in the commercials?

What's that tune in the enzyte commercials. The whistled one. It's catchy. I like it. It's also used on a heineken radio commercial.

Imitation of legitimate drug commercials

I think that one reason that the enzyte commercials seem to be so successful is that the commercials often follow the same formula as those for legitimate drug commercials. This way they are able to imply that Enzyte is a legitimate drug without specifically making those claims. Maybe someone with a background in studying advertising can explore this issue. --Googleyed 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia inadvertantly makes a funny!

By catagorizing the article as a "Stub."

--24.205.55.219 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]