Talk:Cup

FYI

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py?page=cup&citeweb=checked was a dream. Red Slash 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [1] now Red Slash 18:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Grapes of a man

"the cup is used to protect the grapes of a man" - Suggest removing this sentence fragment. I can only guess this is a reference to male groin protection, see Jockstrap. Perhaps this should be added to a disambiguation page.71.165.73.218 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Problematic illustration

Below is the illustration in the opening section. I don't see any cups. Maybe the object second from left in the top row is a cup, but even if it is, the illustration just isn't suitable; and what's the point of the illustration without the key that would give us the names of the vessels? I will therefore remove it.Wordwright (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wood engraving of 22 ancient drinking vessels, c. 1873

I'm fine with removing it, but about a dozen of the objects are actually cups (including beakers, mugs, covered cups etc) in the usual terminology. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's so exciting

It's so exciting to see this actually look like a real article! Thanks to everyone who's participated. Red Slash 23:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Is a citation really necessary?

In the history section on cups, it states that "Cups are an obvious improvement on using cupped hands or feet to hold liquids". For some reason, the article considers that it needs a citation.

The statement that cups are superior to hands and feet seems so obvious that I doubt a legitimate citation for it even exists. There might be articles on the history of cups and how they came to be, but why would we need an external source just to support the statement alone that cups work better than hands or feet? SWeinblatt (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say this is obvious enough to not warrant inclusion in the article. WP:BOLDly removing. Bremps... 04:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Lotiform cup illustration

The definition of "cup" has to be really stretched for the lotiform vessel from the Metropolitan museum to be considered a "cup". The museum itself uses chalice as the first definition. This might not be a good illustration of a cup, so I suggest to delete it. Викидим (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A chalice is a cup: our article begins "A chalice (from Latin calix 'mug', borrowed from Ancient Greek κύλιξ (kylix) 'cup') or goblet is a footed cup intended to hold a drink." Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No cup will be called a glass

In the third paragraph of the introductory section I found these statements:

Names for different types of cups vary regionally and may overlap. Any transparent cup, regardless of actual composition, is likely to be called a "glass"; therefore, while a cup made of paper is a "paper cup", a transparent one for drinking shots is called a "shot glass", instead.

First, if names vary regionally, they cannot overlap: if two different regions have the same name for a thing, there is no regional variation. If it is the case that in the same region some people use one name, and others another, that is not an overlap, and the situation is best described so: "Names for different types of cups vary regionally, though in some places both a standard name and a regional variant may be used."

Second, it is not clear to me what "actual composition" means—the material of which the cup is made? Why in the world would the fact that a cup is made of glass or plastic or some other synthetic make a difference with respect to its transparency?

Third, a cup differs from a glass in shape–a cup, as stated in the opening line of this section, is a flattened hemisphere, and the more its shape approaches the cylindrical, the presence of a lip indicates that it is a cup; nobody is going to look at a transparent, manipulable flattened hemispherical vessel and, because it is transparent, call it a glass—nobody, for instance, calls a transparent measuring cup a glass.

Since shot glasses are cylindrical, nobody seeing a transparent one for the first time is going to think that it is really a cup but that, because it is transparent, people are likely to call it a glass.

Finally, a transparent cup is not a "type of cup," and so its name would not "vary regionally" unless different regions have different words for "transparent." And nothing in the sentence after this opening one indicates a regional variation—it is simply a report about the likelihood, implied to be universal after all, that people will see a transparent cup and, because of its transparency, call it a glass.

To bring this point home, here are some real regional variations:

• in the Midwest, beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi are called "pop";
• in the South, all soft drinks are called "Cokes";
• in Boston, they are called "tonics."

So if there were regional names for cups, you would be able to say this:

• in Chicago, cups are called "sippers";
• in the South, cups are called "dainties";
• in Boston, cups are called "handlers."

In all my sixty-seven years I have never heard of any "regional variation" of the word cup. I am not saying that there are none—but if there are, not one will consist in anybody calling a cup a glass.

Now, if what is meant is that in some regions people think that to be a cup, a vessel must not be transparent, and that where elsewhere people call a measuring cup a measuring cup whether it is transparent or not, but that in the South, say, if it is transparent, they call it a measuring glass, then one should say so.

For the vessel you take shots from to be relevant, it would have to be the case that, almost everywhere, whether it was transparent or not, people called it a "shot cup," but that in the South, say, when it is transparent, they call it a "shot glass." But that's not so; and because it is not so, the case is irrelevant.

I think these observations call for one conclusion: the passage I have quoted really cannot withstand scrutiny because it is confused about what a regional variant is and shows that underlying it is no clear idea of what would make people call a thing a cup or a glass. Its author may, of course, use my criticisms to re-think what he was trying to say and re-write it, but as it stands now, the passage should banished into cyber-oblivion.

Oh, and by the way, should it be re-written, this sentence:

Metal and glass cups can use a double wall construction with a vacuum-sealed space in-between to reduce the loss of heat and keep otside [sic] surfaces cooler.

should have its own paragraph. Meanwhile, I will relieve the world of the pain that misspelling causes. Wordwright (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

US-only! If you take a more global perspective, there is a great deal of variation, overlap and indeed confusion between the highly similar concepts of "cup" and "glass", which the article tries to cope with, without vanishing down rabbit-holes. For example, are paper cups flattened hemispheres? Re your bewilderment at "Second, it is not clear to me what "actual composition" means—the material of which the cup is made? Why in the world would the fact that a cup is made of glass or plastic or some other synthetic make a difference with respect to its transparency?", this covers the fact that the word "glass" for a vessel has become divorced from its original sense of a vessel made of actual glass to be used for ones made of other materials, especially plastic. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I have placed some attempts to define an English "cup" into a separate section. It also contains ways to distinguish cups from mugs. I would expect that similar-quality writings by the linguists with interest in semantics exist for cups vs. glasses, too (do not know any at this point). Per Anna Wierzbicka, definitions in this area tend to be "fluid", not just changing with geography, but rapidly evolving with time. Викидим (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Lexicographers seem to love to use cup as an example. A useful discussion about cup, mugs, and glasses can be found in P. Stock (1984) [2], added to the Sources section. Stock's work, quoted by later researchers and reprinted in 2008, states that these three are "near-synonyms" an proceeds with some comments that I would try to add to definitions. Викидим (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)