Language desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

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.

March 4

Is there a noun...

...in English which specifically denotes a person who has committed criminal negligence and/or manslaughter/negligent homicide? 2601:646:8E01:515D:15DD:AC77:F3E0:633D (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that "manslaughterer" is a word? See here: wikt:manslaughterer. Just to clarify, the word ends with "er" followed by another "er". In other words, it is the word "manslaughter" with an "er" added to the end. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, you can also use the more generic word "killer" which, of course, means "one who killed". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, "homicide" is a noun with more than one definition (see no. 2). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never in my life heard a killer (the person himself) referred to as a "homicide". To me, that makes no sense. I have heard of the incident (the killing) referred to as a "homicide". And I have also heard of the victim referred to as a "homicide". But never the actual killer. I wonder if someone can give me a sentence with that in it. Thanks. "The homicide was sent to prison for 20 years." That seems odd, to say the very least. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've actually heard the term used in that sense either, but it makes sense. "Regicide" and "deicide" are frequently used to refer to the agent of the action the word describes. I'm sure there's some kind of fancy word for this kind of noun. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't either, but apparently it can be used that way.[1] Though I think the better term would be "perpetrator". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "perpetrator" is that it is generic for any crime, not manslaughter or homicide. So, if we wanted generic terms (for any crime), we could say "criminal", "felon", "outlaw", etc., etc., etc. "Perpetrator" falls in line with those other generic terms. But does not indicate precisely what crime was perpetrated (i.e., manslaughter or homicide). And I think that was the OP's whole point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, was surprised to see the word used to mean the perpetrator of a homicide, but it is in the OED. The latest cite of such usage, however, is by Byron in 1821. Dbfirs 12:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] Thanks! So, "manslaughterer" (which, BTW, my spell-checker doesn't recognize) or "negligent killer" is the word for someone who commits manslaughter? Now, what about someone who commits criminal negligence but without homicide -- is there a word for that, too? 2601:646:8E01:515D:487E:CBCD:3592:AEF7 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be part of Tort law. See tortfeasor in the Tort article. Akld guy (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Criminal negligence is different than "regular" negligence. The first is a crime; the second is a tort. In the first case, the actor would be called a "criminal"; in the second case (only), the actor is a "tortfeasor". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also manslayer. "Slaughter" as a part of "manslaughter" seems to be a noun, and etymologically related to the verb "slay", so if you need a verb to add -er to, it seems more efficient to use that verb, rather than verbifying the noun and then re-nominalizing it with -er. --Trovatore (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a sentence itself ends with a period, do you use a second period for closing punctuation?

When a sentence itself ends with a period, do you use a second period for punctuation? Or just keep one period at the end? For example, let's use the following sentence. The person who won the award was Martin Luther King, Jr. Does the sentence end with only one period or with two? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is sufficient. I don't think I've ever seen two in such an example.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found one in a Wikipedia article, which is what made me ask. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly incorrect. You could fix it, or you could tell us where it is. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the extra period. Now, I can't for the life of me remember what article it was. I think it was similar to my Martin Luther King, Jr., example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went and found it. It was in the article for 88th Academy Awards. It stated as follows. Following is the annual In Memoriam segment, dedicated to recognize members of the film industry who passed away in the previous year, was presented by actor Louis Gossett, Jr.. So there was a period after the Junior for Gossett; and then there was another period. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the example quoted, there should be no full stop after Jr - see http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/punctuation-in-abbreviations. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ENGVAR issue though. In the US it is common to add periods to abbreviations, even "Mr" or "Mrs". "U.K." is also common in the US. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "U.S." also common in the US/U.S.? If not, why not? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S." is the usual usage in the US. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this USian is not so sure. Any refs for usage frequency of "U.S." vs. "US"? It's perhaps more clear with "USA" vs. "U.S.A.", the latter of which looks very odd an uncommon to my eye. I can't think of how to search at the moment, since google doesn't distinguish these forms. All the Olympic media for "Team USA" does not use periods [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, not being a USian I should not have been so absolute in that pronouncement. What I said above is anecdotal, based mostly on US legal drafting. By contrast, the Chicago Manual of Style agrees with you, and says "Use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals, whether two letters or more and even if lowercase letters appear within the abbreviation: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also common to put full stops at the end of abbreviations in British English. The traditional rule, however, is to put the full stop only if the last letter of the abbreviation is NOT the last letter of the word being abbreviated. So we write Prof. and Rev. (and U.K.) - but Mr and Jr and Dr109.150.174.93 (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To aid any further exploration of this, I'd observe that abbreviations ending with the full word's last letter are often called contractions to distinguish the two. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In an older writing style, for an abbreviated word with letters missing in the middle, the trailing letter was superscripted and had a hyphen or short-underlin under it. (Some examples.) Presumably that hyphen evolved into a trailing period in American English, and being omitted in British English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution seems to have passed me by, because I still use that style. Dbfirs 23:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in older British writing (up to about 1950), periods ("full stops") were very commonly used with abbreviations—either with all abbreviations or following the rule that 109.150 mentions. Presumably about that time some influential publishers decided to stop using them and the newer practice caught on. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be associated with the rise of open punctuation, about which we appear not to have an article. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had never heard a term for the practice before. I've always just called it "the great British punctuation shortage", and I made that one up myself. Here are a couple of citations supporting the term. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trend seems to be away from "excessive" punctuation. Check out this picture of Comiskey Park in its early years, the 1910s. "Home of the White Sox." With trailing period, goddess forbid there should be a sentence without a period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But "Home of the White Sox" is not a sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the worse, then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments above seem to be off topic, as I see it. I learned this rule from the Jesuits in Detroit in the 1960s, where I was a ringleader of the rebellious kids. But not regarding this matter. Their rule was quite simple, and I use it today: never double up on periods. If the sentence ends "U.S.A." then that final period ends the sentence. If modern usage is to render it "USA", then fine, add a period at the end of a sentence. But never have double periods. Triple spaced periods are ellipses, which is fine. But double periods? Never. The question conjures up memories for me, as I was learning such things at the very moment when MLK was assasinated, and his death motivated me to volunteer for many social justice causes, such as Wikipedia half a century later which is a movement to make knowledge freely available to all people everywhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "off topic", isn't most if not all of your last sentence ("The question conjures up memories ... such as Wikipedia half a century later which is a movement to make knowledge freely available to all people everywhere.") exactly that? Also, I have a sneaking suspicion we didn't need to be informed as to what Wikipedia is. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a direct answer to my question. Thanks also for providing the interesting back story! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[I misposted this to the wrong thread, and have moved it here]

Joseph A. Spadaro, find "contributions" on (most likely) the top right of your current WP page, and click on it. It will list your recent edits, including the article above that you mentioned you could not find. If really necessary, change the parameters from the last 50 edits to the last 500. If your net edit was a deletion, look for a red bit-count. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about your user page as such. It will say "contributions" somewhere. Where it does depends on how you have your settings. In any case, you can find it with CTRL-F. Click on it, and it will show you your last 50 edits. You mentioned above that you had removed a full stop, but weren't sure where. This list of edits should help you find it. When your edit amounts to a deletion, it will be red (additions are green). If the edit was a long time ago, you can also click on "older 500", which should cover the relevant time period. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Medeis: Thanks. You are mixing this discussion thread with the one directly above. That thread is about the word "manslaughter". This one is about periods at the end of the sentence. In the discussion above, I indicate that I did indeed find the example. It had to do with the 88th Academy Awards and Lou Gossett, Junior. (See above and also below.) Yes, I know how to search my edits and contributions. It was just that I had done a lot of edits, and did not feel like scouring through them all, one by one. But I did find it. See below. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above states: I actually went and found it. It was in the article for 88th Academy Awards. It stated as follows. Following is the annual In Memoriam segment, dedicated to recognize members of the film industry who passed away in the previous year, was presented by actor Louis Gossett, Jr.. So there was a period after the Junior for Gossett; and then there was another period. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave it out in the Rain

Is it a common idiom? If it is, where does it come from? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur Park (song). DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applies only to cakes? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The only problem is that the lyrics do not say that:

"MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark

All the sweet, green icing flowing down

Someone left the cake out in the rain."

If your quote is referring to the 1968 Jimmy Webb song popularized by Richard Harris, then it is heavily bastardized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one would say of a cake "don't leave it out in the rain", and do so because of the song. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DuncanHill. I read that sentence in this famous book, which has been published in 1974. It seems that the author has had that song in mind and used its popularity at the time to convey what he means. Omidinist (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "sweet green icing" referring to the cake? Or is the park equated to the cake? Or what? (The song never made any sense to me.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics are drug related. 'Ice' or 'icing' is a reference to cocaine,here while 'cake' is a reference to a round disk of crack.here Another source says 'cake' specifically refers to a kilogram of cocaine. Akld guy (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we know all about the horrors of cake. And perhaps a little more about WP:RS than you, AG. Always a shame to see bullshit answers on the RDs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~And it's never surprising to see abuse from those who don't have the guts to sign their name.~~ Now signed, by an editor with whom I have never previously had dealings. I'm puzzled by his abuse. ~~Akld guy (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Akld guy (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that, AG; my sig error & fix made you look stupid. You've entered this discussion claiming the lyrics to MacArthur's Park are drug related, based on nothing more than discrete words (ice, icing, cake) in the lyrics having (amongst their many meanings) drug meanings. Given the lack of a reliable source for your assertion, I call bullshit on it. Nothing personal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a song from that era (say, roughly, 1965 to 1975) has lyrics that are difficult to find an obvious interpretation for, there's a tendency to assume they must be about drugs. I suspect Akld guy may have fallen into this trap. It's not that unnatural; probably a fair number of those lyrics were about drugs, or at least enabled by drugs. But it's an unfortunate habit because it keeps you from looking deeper, and sometimes it's not that at all, or at least there's more to it.

In this case, as I say below, we have an explanation from the writer himself, and I see no reason to assume it's anything but that. The pining lyrics fit lost love perfectly and make basically no sense with regard to cocaine. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs: The article says it's a reference to a broken romantic relationship, Webb's with Susie Horton. It doesn't have to make literal sense; it's an evocation of how he felt about it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case. As long as the songwriter understands it, it's all good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]