Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 April 29

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 29

Etymology of the brand name "Brazzers"

I was wondering what the name of popular online porno company Brazzers means. Is it slang for something? some kind of pun? just made-up nonsense?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are some possibilities:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And the term for breasts probably came from brassieres. (A kid who never heard the full name of a bra might interpret "You could see those ladies brassieres and everything !" to mean breasts.) StuRat (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines brazzer (also brasser) as Irish slang for "a female of dubious sexual morals", which matches up with the top definition on Urban Dictionary (that dates to Oct 2005; around the time the website started). The other definitions on Urban Dictionary referring to breasts post-date the website and are likely derived from its name and content. Abecedare (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Any connexion with brass, slang for prostitute? DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't familiar with that one, and the slang dictionary doesn't have an entry with that meaning. But OED does, and has an interesting derivation chain starting from tail (posterior) -> a piece of tail (approx. prostitute) -> tail -> brass nail (rhyming slang) -> brass. Given that rhyming slang is so closely associated with London, we are at least on the right side of the Atlantic. And the listed examples for brass nail (1930s) are several decades older than the ones for brazzer (1990s). So the connection you suggest is certainly possible. Abecedare (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

See Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 3 for a (fairly) contemporary example. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Brassy" is an adjective sometimes used in London and elsewhere to mean a vulgar or promiscuously dressed woman, although I'm not sure that users are often aware of its exact meaning; for example Is It Really Okay for Women to Be Brassy? and Your inner brassy lady. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I interpret the term "brassy" in the articles you linked to mean loud, assertive, uncouth, and generally un-"lady"-like rather than "vulgar or promiscuously dressed" (that may in some cases be a co-feature of a woman described as brassy, but not the defining characteristic for brassiness.) And the term's etymology is likely to be completely different from the slang for prostitute discussed above. This sense of brassy probably derives from either:

• how brass instruments sound; an entry in OED defines it as "Harsh and feelingless in tone, like a brass instrument; having a strident artificial tone".
• or the hardness of brass; OED: "Hard as brass, pitiless, unfeeling.", "Having a ‘face of brass’, unblushing, impudently confident, or forward."

The term brassy has been used in these senses going back to Shakespeare and long predates the association with prostitution, which is <100 years old. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe, but see urbandictionary "A woman without class. Slutty. Unladylike. Usually sits with legs open." Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

no longer ... nor

Is it correct to say "He could no longer read nor write"? It looks to me as though it should be "read or write".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The first is correct, the second is often acceptable, basically due to the steady decline of usage of "nor" [2], though the second would probably be seen as incorrect or inadvisable for many publications. See e.g. here [3], [4],[5]. A lot of attention goes to the "neither...nor" construction, but "No [this] nor [that]" is a fine and correct usage. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

At the publishing company where I work on publications for a U.S. market, we would not use nor in that construction. Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly correct in English. Don't know about American. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the Grammar Girl reference provided above actually contradicts SemanticMantis' advice, according to my reading. On the second page, it says:

However, when the second negative item is a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase (4), you should use “or” to continue the negative thought because according to Bryan Garner [in Garner's Modern American Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003] “the initial negative carries through to all the enumerated elements” (5). For example, when you use the word “not,” the structure “not A or B” is correct. You’d have to say, “He is not interested in math or science”; “He is not interested in math nor science” won’t work. Likewise, “She didn’t speak slowly or clearly” has a better ring to it than “She didn’t speak slowly nor clearly.”

While read and write are verbs, I think the same principle applies; the negative is expressed in "no longer able," and therefore carries through to both read and write. If the sentence were rewritten to "he was now able to..." then the neither...nor construction would come into play, because the verb phrase was able is still expressed positively within the sentence. I've looked a little, and can't find a reliable source for any difference in British usage, but my understanding is in American English at the very least, the correct choice in the original question would be "could no longer read or write." some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Same in Australian English. I regard the use of "nor" there as a hypercorrection, and a particularly clunky and clumsy and artless one favoured by those apparently with tin ears for euphony, but one that's become very common, maybe approaching grammaticality. But in the case of "He could no longer read; nor could he write", it has to be "nor" (or "neither").

Another related error is the negation of a compound object. The negation of "We had rain and snow today" is not "We didn't have rain and snow today", and certainly not "We didn't have rain nor snow today", but "We did't have rain OR snow today". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some jerk on the Internet, I thought the example fit into this form, from the same link, saying that both are acceptable.

“ Santa will not permit naughty behavior or even consider bringing presents." "Santa will not permit naughty behavior nor even consider bringing presents. ”

There's not much grammatical difference between "Not permit" and "can no longer". Also, you correctly point out that OPs example doesn't fit the strict form of the guideline you quote, and I think the other examples in the links above indicate that the negation is not always transitively carried across the My general sense was that the first would be generally preferred in more formal writing, but I may have been incorrect in that assessment. I think Jack is wrong here, the use of "nor" in these constructions is not hypercorrection. (Which is odd, because Jack is so often right :) After re-reading my refs and this discussion, I now think "both are acceptable" is the best answer, unless we have more context on the type of writing, publisher, etc. This also seems consistent with the summary at the end of the Grammar Girl piece. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. After reading your explanation, I took another look at the OP's sentence, and both or and nor seem grammatically acceptable to me per your references, with a possible slight difference in meaning (which I may be inferring entirely, and not substantiated by any rule of usage): "read or write" suggesting equal weight given to the two actions, and "read nor write" placing an emphasis on the added loss of ability to write. I think nor might work better in a sentence where the two negated verbs are less closely related, such as "he no longer wanted to eat nor receive visitors." But then I'm straying a bit afield from the original question, I suppose. Anyhow, good discussion. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectful address in language

In the Anglophone world, is it okay to address people older than you with more respect even though they explicitly say they prefer you to call them by their first name? Should you take their request seriously? Is it more respectful to listen to their request, or is it more respectful to take into account of their age and profession? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be disrespectful to ignore their request. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Anglophone" is a very large world, with widely varying cultural norms. Even the US and her recent parent, England, have significant differences. Within a country there are regional and even individual differences. So your question is far too broadly stated to answer meaningfully. I personally would respect their stated wishes; if a person considers me disrespectful because I did what they requested, that's their problem. I'm a life-long US resident. Now you need a few hundred more data points from throughout the Anglophone world; that might begin to answer your question. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DuncanHill. A person of any age, in the United States and I would venture to say in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand, would be offended if you persisted in addressing him or her by title or surname after he or she had asked you to use a personal name. (I do not know enough about cultural norms in postcolonial countries where English is used, such as India, to say whether the same is true there.) Marco polo (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Over here in the UK it would be considered very odd if you ignored their request the use first name etc. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In the UK, if someone says 'Call me Dave', then you call him Dave, not Mr. Jenkinson Trotter, regardless of his age (or whether his name is even, in fact, 'Dave'). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

or Rodney -- Rojomoke (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

However, if someone begins a sentence with, "Call me stupid, but...", they don't mean that literally, and it would be considered rude to then call them "stupid". It's idiomatic. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's nothing offensive about saying, "I'd really be more comfortable calling you Mr. Johnson, if you don't mind." Especially if it is a business relationship, or you get the feeling the person is being inappropriately intimate. Then, unless they insist, you are fine. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis that saying as she suggests would not be offensive. And I think she is right that there are situations where using first names may be inappropriate, for example where a nurse or doctor is examining a patient and the use of personal names turns a professional interaction into an intimate one. In general, though, asking to stick to a person's surname after that person has asked you to use a personal name amounts to a kind of rebuff or rejection in most cases, including business transactions. It is a distancing move, and you are likely to hurt that person's feelings. Of course, as long as you are polite, you are entitled to reject another person's attempt to be friendly and casual, but the other person is then likely to be less friendly and cooperative in response. Marco polo (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, in some cases the offer may have been made to be rejected because the older/senior person felt obligated to make that offer. Think, prospective father in law. Or, a US president telling an interviewer "Call me Barack", which IMO no professional reporter would take up. But such cases, and the circumstances Medeis describes, are exceptions to the general rule that it is best to respect the person's explicit wishes. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The case I was thinking of was one where a party with a potential amorous interest (Like Our Rose and the Dishy Vicar) might be better off not on a first name basis. This has happened to me very rarely, but often enough to know it can be an issue. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hope my post above is not being read as "disregard Medeis" since I agree with your analysis (and basically with everyone else's too). The OP's question and the responses illustrate what makes social interactions such a potential minefield - the need for a finely calibrated theory of mind that accounts for not just the spoken words, but also the context, tone, history and status of relation, gender politics, office politics, cultural background etc. It's a wonder communication is possible at all. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember some journos addressing our then Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) as "John" (*). He never seemed to mind, but equally I never heard him invite such informality (on the other hand, PMs always call journos by their first names, so maybe what's good for the goose .... And behind closed doors, I'm sure all formality goes by the board). But then, Australia has become a place where first names are the norm. But there are exceptions. One of the reasons I legally changed my name from John to Jack was that whenever I was pulled over for a random breath test or whatever, the cop would ask to see my licence and then immediately start to address me by the given name inscribed thereupon, "John". Since I had long ago dropped using that name in all but the most formal of contexts, it would irritate me to the max that someone who'd never met me before and was engaging with me in a formal interaction with possible legal implications, would just assume that whatever given name was on my licence was the way I preferred to be addressed. If the boot had been on the other foot, I'd have been much more inclined to say "Mr XXX" and not get into first names at all. And that would be regardless of the driver's age relative to mine (although I don't recall ever being engaged in such an interaction by a police officer who was obviously older than me. The young people of today .. I just don't know anymore). But that's just me. The things I hear coming out of police officers' mouths these days regularly astonish me (and not in a good way), so it must have something to do with their training, I guess. (* PS. In case you were wondering, the name "John" was one of the few things I ever had in common with John Howard, until I fixed that little problem.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I cringe when I hear news reporters speaking to Chesley Sullenberger address him as "Sully". I assume the news reporter is speaking with him for the first time. A nickname implies chumminess over a long period of time. It seems to me the news reporter should maintain the distance which is implied by "Mr. Sullenberger". Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding JohnofOz's point, the proper form of address for John Howard would have been "Prime Minister" or "Mr Howard".[6] Hack (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

GRRrrrrr ...... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Asking someone out to a restaurant

What is the best way to ask someone out to a restaurant in a non-dating situation in order to discuss professional topics or get to know each other outside of the workplace? Will this do?

• "Hi, Jane, I am inviting you to come to our group meeting at [whatever restaurant] to celebrate our team's success. Would you like to come? It's my treat."

What about on a date? Will this do?

• "Hi, Jane, I am inviting you to come to [whatever restaurant] with me. Are you available? It's my treat." 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Native English speakers usually try to avoid explaining if their sentence is an invitation, question, or explanation, since it may imply the listener does not understand what should be obvious. For example, if my manager said to me "Ian, please clean up the store's parking lot," I would gladly leave my register. If my manager said to me "Ian, I am telling you to clean up the parking lot," I would think that the manager thought I was stupid.

"Our group is meeting at [restaurant], are you available?" is professional but possibly distant. "Our group" does not make the invitation appear especially personal, and the question does not concern how the person feels about it, only whether they can come. There is nothing wrong with using this with people you do not intend to know outside of work, and it can still be friendly with the right tone of voice and facial expression. A smile and a happy tone tells the person that you're asking them this because they are part of the group as well. A frown and a low tone may seem like you don't want them to come.

"Our group is meeting at [restaurant], would you like to come?" is professional, but friendly.

"Would you like to have [lunch or dinner] with me at [restaurant]?" is friendly and may carry the sense that you want to get to know the person outside of work. Still, it is possible for a native speaker to ask this question and be professional and impersonal about it. For example, a boss might want use the lunch as a relaxed interview to decide if he wants to promote or transfer someone. Since this question avoids the word "date," it is more likely to get a "yes" from someone who isn't sure they want to date you (but that's also not necessarily the best person to date).

"Would you like to go on a date to [restaurant]?" is generally fine to ask, so long as you can date that person. Please do not ask your boss this question. This question is more likely to get a "no" from someone who isn't sure about dating you (which may be a good thing in the long run), but you can get a better sense of how well the date is going to go from their response. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How NOT to ask a woman out to eat: "I have a half hour to spare, care for a little In and Out ?" StuRat (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I got a better one (or worse): I said to her "Whaddaya say we grab a pizza, and go back to my place and f**k", and she slapped my face. I retorted "Whatsa matter, don't you like pizza?" -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ME: Do you wanna have a f**k? HER: No. ME: Well, do you mind lying down while I have one? Works every time. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No Means No. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a written question as opposed to a spoken question. If this invitation is taking place face-to-face with the omnipresent vocal intonations common to speech, I would think that the communication would appear as one intended it to appear. One could give some thought to one's intentions before popping the question concerning the business lunch but I doubt that one would rehearse it or commit it to memory. I think perfection would be an unrealistic goal in this endeavor. It may be better to just blurt it out and hope for the best. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There's some good stuff above. With regard to the non-date question, it's important to make the group and the purpose clear, especially in a work environment. You do not want to accidentally run afoul of any sexual harassment laws/rules, for example. Even ignoring any legal/professional ramifications, you could well make someone uncomfortable without meaning to. Matt Deres (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)