From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< November 4	<< Oct | November | Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

Contents 1 November 5 1.1 Greek motto 1.2 what is the differance between mass and weight? 1.3 Bibliography of Wikipedia 1.4 momism or real phrase 1.5 Titular versus Eponymous

[edit] November 5

[edit] Greek motto

On a wall inside one of the buildings here at FSU there's a crest of some society with the motto ALETHES CHERESTOS ANACKAIOS. ALETHES is obviously the Greek word αληθής ("truth"), but I can't find the other two words anywhere, and I can't think of any reason why the letter combination CK would appear in the transliteration of a Greek word. What does this motto mean and why does it have a CK in it? —Keenan Pepper 00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The last word could be a lousy spelling of anakaious, a singular active participle of a verb meaning "kindling, lighting up (a fire)", and the middle word could be intended to have some connection with the name of Christ, but the motto does not appear to be correct ancient Greek... AnonMoos 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

C was at one point used for Σ (sigma). Is ανασκαιος a valid word?--Siva 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not in my Liddell & Scott. —Keenan Pepper 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the C is a gamma (Roman C is the cognate of Greek gamma after all). Thus alethes chrestos anankaios (αληθὴς χρηστὸς ἀναγκαῖος, "true, good/useful, connected-by-family-ties" (referring to a person - prob. the motto of a fraternal organization?). Wareh 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. I guess it's just a bad transliteration, or a misspelling. —Keenan Pepper 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly seen all kinds of Greek blunders in fraternity crests (for example cursive phis and thetas changing places). Unfortunately, not enough of those frat boys are learning Greek, so their traditions are getting garbled. Just to be clear, then, you're saying that it's clearly written in ordinary Roman letters, and that you're certain the transcription you gave above is correct? Yikes, I hope it's not carved in stone! Wareh 01:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If carved in stone all that is needed is carving one more horizontal stroke turning the C into a G.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

However, the word would be more commonly transcribed into English as ANANKAIOS, and "CHERESTOS" has one too many E's by any theory. The original meaning of anankaios is "forced by necessity (cf. Ananke), anyway... AnonMoos 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I mean, there are Greek forms of gamma that could easily be mistaken for c (if you believed c to be a Greek letter!); it's a lot worse if the text was presented this way in transliteration. So this is a bit of a mystery, and clearly some information here is bad or missing. But I stick by my translation of anankaios as surely more relevant (cf. Latin necessarius), at least on my totally improvised theory that this is for a fraternal organization. Wareh 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wareh, it's written just like that with capital Latin letters. —Keenan Pepper 03:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is the differance between mass and weight?

I am a english student,but doing both math and physics, I have heard people saying my weight is 140 pounds,but they never say my mass is 140 kg, therefore in physics it is wrong to say my weight is 140 pounds.meanwhile mass is the amount of matter in an object, as a human we should be saying my mass is instate of my weight, becuse weight is only describing the force of gravity on us. so can any one explain why we can say my mass is, but we can say my weight is?

This is a science question. Mass is constant everywhere, while weight is your mass times the acceleration due to gravity, g. On Earth, g is 9.8 meters/sec^2 or 32 feet/sec^2. Oddly, the metric system uses a measure of mass (kg) by default, while the English system uses a measure of weight (pounds), by default. Weight, in the metric system, is measured in Newtons. So, if your mass is 100 kg, then you weigh 980 N on Earth. StuRat 10:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict - don't know if I'm saying anything new, but anyways...] Your mass is your volume × your density. It has to do with how much actual matter is contained within your body (as opposed to empty space; think different atoms at different levels of energy: the same volume of heavier atoms like gold or uranium, or the same volume of lighter atoms like hydrogen tightly packed, would be more massive). Your weight is the measurement of the Earth's gravitational force on your body at whatever altitude you happen to be (your proximity to earth). Hence, when you go into space, your mass remains constant, but your weight decreases. Anchoress 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was always taught that the imperial (N.B. NOT english- england use the metric system!) measure for mass was stones, and pounds, and that the imperial weight measurement was pounds weight, equall to pounds times 9.8. Is that right? MHDIV Englishnerd 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that stones weren't used outside UK (possibly Ireland). 2nd, 140 pounds doesn't equal 140 kg, it's closer to 80, I think... Oh, well... 惑乱 分からん 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually more like 65kg. 1 kilo = 2.205 lbs. Anchoress 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to "N.B. NOT english- england use the metric system!", England does officially use the metric system, but in daily life, body weight is expressed in stones, so it is still an "English" measure. In the past, "pound" could refer to both mass and weight; see Pound (mass) and Pound-force. But since the distinction between mass and weight is not important in popular measurements and because scientists use SI units, pound nowadays refers almost exclusively to mass. Lesgles (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the original question: The word "mass" is older than the scientific definitions, and never caught on in everyday speech as a measurable physical quantity, just like "luminous intensity" did not gain household currency. In any case, if you step on a scale you're weighing yourself, and from the point of view of a physicist purist there's nothing wrong then with saying that your weight is 140 pounds, or 10 stone. If you were to weigh yourself on the Moon, your weight would only be one sixth of that, about 23 pounds. When a continental now says: My weight is 63.503 kilogram, they are using what officially is a measure of mass to indicate a measure of weight. They ought to say: 63.503 kilogram-force. I don't see that as an issue. Even the international body working on an absolute definition of the kilogram is called (in English translation) the International Committee for Weights and Measures.

--Lambiam^Talk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some scales measure weight, like a spring scale or a strain-gauge scale, while others measure mass, like a balance scale. That is, your mass would still measure the same on any planet, while your weight would vary. StuRat 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me summarize. In physics, mass is how much stuff is in you; weight is how strongly the Earth's gravity attracts you (a force). Gravity is pretty much the same everywhere on the Earth's surface, and that means the two are proportional. Therefore the custom has arisen to use units of the same name for both. This is convenient as long as we stay on the Earth and don't get confused.

By their official modern definitions, both the pound and the kilogram are mass units. However, some of us (like StuRat and I) were taught in school that the pound is a force unit, and this is still common usage in the US when pressures are expressed in pounds (force) per square inch. Similarly in some metric countries it was common to use the kilogram as a force unit and pressures were given in kg/cm². Scientists avoid these force units today. In SI metric, forces are expressed in newtons.

Further confusing the situation is that although physicists consider it an error, the word "weight" is often used to mean "mass", and this usage has some official standing in law. If I say my weight is... well, never mind how many kilograms, I may be thinking of kilograms of force a implied above, but I may also be thinking of weight as meaning mass. In particular, a product labeled as being "sold by weight" is actually being sold by mass.

--Anonymous, 20:43 UTC, November 5.

Actually, that depends on the type of measuring equipment used. If scales with weights are used, the measured quantity will indeed be mass, but if spring scales are used, the measured quantity will be weight. But, as long as you stay on Earth and are not solving a physics problem, the differences in weight for the same mass are negligible and you will sound more normal if you use the regular word for the concept, i.e. "weight". Zocky | picture popups 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this is missing the point. If the product is supposed to be "sold by weight", then this is a legal statement, not a physics one, and the meaning is that it is being sold by mass, even when the difference is not negligible because high precision is required. --Anon, 03:15 UTC, November 8.

[edit] Bibliography of Wikipedia

Do I include Wikipedia as an online source, or an Encyclopedia? I am using Chicago Cytation Style, on the article about the Egyptian deity, Anubis. Thank you, Hannah

Hi Hannah. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a nifty tool that will help you cite your source. Go to the article you want and click the link marked "Cite this article" under the heading "Toolbox" on the left side of the page. A page should appear with citations in the most commonly used styles, including Chicago. Lesgles (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than cite Wikipedia directly, I would cite sources listed in the article of interest. The same is true of any encyclopedia, it's better to go to the actual source of knowledge, as the encyclopedia is just "hearsay". StuRat 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] momism or real phrase

ĶĶĨ My mother was a legal secratary 60 years ago and used the phrase " how some ever" in talking. I think it was in continuing a conversation when she had been interupted and thought that and felt the interuption had no merit to what ever she was saying. Then again I was raised in Canada so maybe this was something she just did on her own. I used the phrase and now I need to it back up as my co-worker likes to rib me about it all the time. Is it real or is it mom-erex?67.168.136.85 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)ĴÁĆ

Just because it is a momism doesn't mean it isn't a real phrase. It is no accident that the first language we learn is known as the mother tounge. [And my mother obviously couldn't spell, I blame wikipedia for perpetuating my mother's errors.] Maybe the momism comes from saying it as three separate words, it is more often written howsomever. For luminaries other than your mom who have used the word try: Shakespeare "How somere their hearts are seuer'd in Religion, their heads are both one." (although this is a slightly different usage) or Walter Scott "Howsomdever, I object nothing to Captain Cleveland." Nowadays though it is more usually confined to toe-curlingly bad representations of dialect speech: J. M. Barrie "How-some-ever, I daur say we could arrange to fling the grounds open to the public once a week on condition ‘at they didna speak to the geniuses." MeltBanana 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a momism but a germanicism. It's a variant of "howsoever" and ultimately "however". It originally means, roughly, "anyway". So your usage would be consistent with that. But "howsoever" has become a more formal way of saying "to any extent" (which, if you think about it, does mean the same thing as "anyway"). The reason is it's not a conjunction of how-so-ever but rather how-soever, "soever" meaning "in any way", and is in turn of course a compound of so-ever. These "-soever" and -"ever" endings are very old and a shared Germanic thing, for instance the German it corresponds to "-auch immer" and the Swedish "-somhelst". So for: "How(so)ever", "what(so)ever", "whoever" you have "wie auch immer", "was auch immer", "wer auch immer" in German (usually written seperately) and "hursomhelst", "vadsomhelst", "vemsomhelst" in Swedish (usually written as a compound). So it's probably very old kind of construction, older than the word "ever". --BluePlatypus 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "whatever" and "whatsoever" have slightly different meanings, though. "Whatsoever" would correspond to "at all", "He doesn't have any common sense, whatsoever." 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely. The same historic origin naturally doesn't require they have the same meaning today. --BluePlatypus 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few hits on Google for the phrase; how-some-ever, looks like it's frequently hyphenated. Keep it as your signature phrase, too, and pass it on to the next generation. -THB 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titular versus Eponymous

I'm not sure why titular is used for the title character of a literary work. In most instances (besides for Princeton's site), titular is about the title of a person, such as Lord, King, etc. (see Cambridge dictionary and Dictionary.com). Order also matters as far as the title got it's name from the character, or vice versa. However, eponymous (see Cambridge and Dictionary.com) seems like a much better term for the title character than titular, and it's a literary term, which fits title characters much better than titular. So my question is, why is titular used on WP over eponymous, and should eponymous be the standard since it's more accurate than titular? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Eponymous is the correct word, and people are using titular incorrectly. Titular really means "holding a title without responsibility". By the way, the most common correct use of "titular" by far is not with respect to lords or kings but with respect to Roman Catholic bishops. A titular bishop is one who's been raised to a diocese (or see) that no longer has any Roman Catholics living in it. There are hundreds of titular sees in North Africa, for instance; before Islam came along that area was almost totally Catholic. --Charlene 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The character of Hamlet in Hamlet is eponymous, not titular. Michael I is the titular king of Romania, because he still uses that title even though he does not perform the office of king (because the Romanian monarchy has been abolished). JackofOz 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Titular bishops aren't necessarily assigned to any diocese, AFAIK. "Bishop" seems to be both a title and a position, and holding the title seems to be a requirement for the position, not the other way around. Also, Michael I would be the pretender to the abolished Romanian throne, not the titular king of Romania, as Romania has not conferred such title on him. Zocky | picture popups 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true, my bad. Know any better examples? JackofOz 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chancellor of a British university is a titular office - in theory they are the head of the university, but in reality their role is purely ceremonial, with the vice-chancellor actually in charge. -- AJR | Talk 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)