Language desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21

Expression

In some older books one will find the expression "[name1] and [name2] both of them" or "we all of us" or something similar but in modern times we generally prefer to cut it in half (removing either the first or second part). Is this still considered correct English? 76.230.213.76 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is incorrect, but it sounds old-fashioned. (It makes me think of "we happy few, we band of brothers".) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By hook or by crook

What does the expression "by hook or by crook" mean ... literally? And figuratively? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

We have an article called ... By hook or by crook. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

distraction

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

and it should be deleted, because it is not a concept but a dictionary definition, and can never be more than a dictionary definitino. (You can tell because it wouldn't be linked to any other language's wiki, since you're talking about an English word/expression and not about an encyclopedic concept). 92.230.70.110 (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... for your valuable input. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, irony, I love irony. Richard Avery (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP didn't spend much time reading that cited article. It's worded like an article, not like a Webster's. Of course, he could also work on improving it, but that would take actual effort on his part. Also, check the IP's other "contributions" when you can make room in your busy schedule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem quite decent. Stop being rude to IPs, Bugs! /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input can join the IP's and Mr. Avery's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to the point. I've always understood that it relates to the ancient right of pollarding - commoners were allowed to cut any branch they could reach with a hook or a crook. All I've got to do now is find a reference... watch this space.... Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha... see this page[1] (para 4), or this [2] (para 7), or this[3] (section 5 "What's in a name?") and finally, from St John's College, Oxford [4] (scroll down to "Common of estovers"). I'll add this to the WP page when I have a moment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and figuratively it means to achieve something by any any possible means; one way or another. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... by any means necessary" is what the article says. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I guess I should clarify my question. I know that, in essence, the saying means to accomplish some objective by whatever means are necessary. I guess my question, then, is this. Does the saying refer to solving a problem (achieving an objective) by any means necessary (generically)? Or, is it specifically saying, by either a good/honorable/proper method ... or, if needed, a bad/dishonorable/improper method? In other words, is the saying creating a dichotomy that indicates "If I can't achieve my objectives by legal/proper/honest means, then I will resort to something illegal/immoral/dishonest" ...? Is that the dichotomy of the hook and the crook? Or no? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. An extreme construction might be: "If I can't achieve what I want by fair, legal and moral methods, I am prepared to resort to other methods". A more conventional one might be: "If I can't achieve what I want by the usual methods, I am prepared to resort to non-standard, unorthodox, creative, outside-the-box, outside-my-comfort-zone methods - but without ever abandoning decency, integrity, legality etc". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check billhook and shepherd's crook - I'd say the simplest rendering in modern English would be "If I can't chop my way through, I'll beat my way through" with the implied "but I will get through". --Ludwigs2 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caïus

How do you pronounce the French name "Caïus"? Is it similar to "caillou"? --151.51.6.65 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Latin names ending in -us are pronounced <-ys>; the final consonant "s" is spoken, and the "u" befor it is a close front rounded vowel. The same way Uranus is pronounced in French. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diaeresis over the "i" means that you pronounce the two vowels separately rather than running them together. (You may know this already; sorry if I'm stating the obvious.) Marnanel (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not very fluent in IPA, but I'd say something like [kajys] ---Sluzzelin talk 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, using 151.51 's phonology: The way you would intuitively pronounce "caillusse". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to your original question, but in ancient Latin "Caius" was a mere mistake for "Gaius", while in Gonville and Caius College it's a fancy pseudo-classical spelling of "Keyes"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was a mistake exactly. In early Latin, C did double duty for /k/ and /g/ (it does after all descend from Γ which is /g/), but later a new letter, G, was created by adding a little vertical stroke to the lower righthand corner of C. After that, Gaius was spelled with a G, but "C." was still used as the abbreviation for the name. (And "Cn." was still the abbreviation for Gnaeus.) —Angr (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Man, how do you know shit like that :-) ?) DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Writing "C" for "Gaius" was a standard ancient Roman praenomen abbreviation, and so of course correct in that context. However, if the abbreviation "C" is expanded back out to "Caius" instead of "Gaius", that's rather bogus... AnonMoos (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't say it was a "fancy pseudo-classical spelling of 'Keyes' ". More like, it was always spelt Caius but the pronunciation changed to what we/they say today. Similarly, Magdalene College is now pronounced like "maudlin". For those in the know, that is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caius College is named for John Keys who (according to our article) "fashionably latinised the spelling of his name after studying in Italy." —Angr (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy

Is there a French term that corresponds to the English word "Brandy"? Google Translate returns "Brandy" as the French, but I find it difficult to believe that they would use the English term for something so quintessentially Gallic. I sometimes see "Cognac" used, but that's a specific type.

Is "eau de vie" the term I'm looking for? Rojomoke (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Collins French College Dictionary gives "cognac m", and "fine f". Alansplodge (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fr-wiki says brandy is English for eau de vie, so I believe Rojomoke is right. - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]