Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 November 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< November 20 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 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.


Contents

[edit] November 21

[edit] Are prepositions ending a sentence really so bad?

Growing up I'm sure all of us were taught never to end a sentence with a preposition. I was randomly reading the article on What a wonderful world and I simply couldn't get past "...and having much to which to look forward." I had to halt everything and come to the scholars of the language desk. Would it be such a sin just to say "...and having much to look forward to."? I know there's a strong case for rewriting the sentence completely, but let's take that off the table for a moment. Which version would irk you less? Sappysap (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The one with the preposition ending the sentence would be much better English, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is absolutely nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. There is a lot of history surrounding that rule, but suffice it to say that Winston Churchill would have agreed with you. He was given a report that contained an egregious example like yours, and he sent back a note that read something like "This is the sort of thing up with which I shall not put". And there is no case for rewriting. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer to end sentences with a proposition - you should try it sometime. :) Grutness...wha? 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally never thought it was anything to think bad of or take up issue with. Besides, it is a natural structure within the native Anglo-Saxon aspect of English, and the alternative ('prep. + which', etc.) comes from Norman French, so putting a preposition at the end of the sentence is something I am all for! Plus, Winston Churchill's quote above is yet another example of him having a laugh, as he was well known for his sense of humour! --ChokinBako (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

—

This is the sort of thing you learn as a child just so you don't do it all the time, like "never start a sentence with 'and' or 'but'". It's okay sometimes, just not all the time, but people very stubbornly cling to rules they learned when they were 6, even after they (perhaps unknowingly) learned the exceptions. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
We get this question from time to time. As I recall, the "rule" was made up by Dryden, who appears to be the only good writer to ever have followed it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I really love this peculiarity of English (I mean, the resource of ending sentences or phrases with a preposition). Maybe that's because Spanish is my native tongue, and so, I feel a musical touch in such phrasings my first language doesn't have. Also, inversions seem a nice feature to me. Pallida  Mors 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It could also be said in this case that "to" is a part of the verb phrase "to look forward to" (or in Churchill's case, "with" is part of the verb phrase "to put up with") so you're really ending the sentence with a verb instead of with a preposition. – Psyche825 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but phrasal verbs are of two types: The ones made up of verbal form plus a particle (eg put a shirt on) and the ones built as a verbal form plus a preposition (the two examples Psyche quoted). So, besides being components of a phrasal verb, they are prepositions, for better or worse! Pallida  Mors 11:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're correct. I was just trying to make the sentence seem less incorrect for those people who "very stubbornly cling to rules they learned when they were 6." =) – Psyche825 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It might be added that there is a place for prescriptive forms. I think For Whom the Bell Tolls sounds better than Who the Bell Tolls For, for instance. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I humblily prefer Whom the Bell Tolls For to both of them :) Pallida  Mors 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogus proscription. Preposition stranding is completely natural. Strad (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If John Donne were alive and active when Hemingway was writing, the quote may well have been "Who the Bell Tolls For". But Euphony, a somewhat under-rated lady these days, would smile at the juxtaposition of "whom" and "bell" in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" - it suggests a low, sinister, melancholy drone, a little redolent of the "bell of doom". To my ears, it's far more musical, and therefore convincing, than any of the alternatives. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation from German

This is some sort of pun—what's the translation, and how does the pun work? (No, not homework. My German is just very, very rusty, and even with my dictionary I doubt I'll get the pun).

  • Rühre kein Gericht an, es sei denn, dass Du hungrig bist.

I understand it is telling you not to do something unless you are hungry, but I am not sure I get the joke. It is something Leo Szilard wrote down as one of his "Ten Commandments", and in the translation I have the translator (Jacob Bronowski) has just put down "untranslatable pun." Well, explain it to me, if you can't translate it! :-) Thanks a ton... --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it have anything to do with das Gericht anrufen (to take legal action), playing with the double meaning of Gericht?--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Anrühren means "to touch", and Gericht can mean either "court of law" or "dish, course at table", so the saying means "Don't touch a court/dish, unless you are hungry." The pun is the double entendre of Gericht. Marco polo (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was at a Thai restaurant in Berlin once where they had decided to write their menu in German and English. On the German side of the page it said "Thailändische Gerichte". On the English side, this was translated "Thai Courts". —Angr 05:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive of hyphenated phrase?

How do you make a hyphenated phrase possessive?

This hammer belongs to a person who is not me. This is a ...

... person's-who-is-not-me hammer. (possessive on the appropriate noun, but me hammer sounds weird)

... person-who-is-not-my hammer. (my hammer sounds correct, but person-who-is-not-my does not)

... person-who-is-not-me's hammer. (me's definitely sounds wrong, but apostrophe-s is at the end)

One of these must be right, but which one? HYENASTE 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The third one, but I'd only use it for comic effect. Write around the problem. Write around every problem. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I would also seriously consider "the hammer of the person who is not me". By the way, wouldn't a purist call for "I" instead of me? I mean, the nominative and not the objective form. Pallida  Mors 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forget the last bit. No nominative form there. Pallida  Mors 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How about "someone else's hammer"? But there are times when adding the 's to a complex noun phrase just sounds right, at least in spoken English, such as "the boy I gave the puzzle to's mother". In writing, I'd rephrase that, but in speaking it sounds just fine. —Angr 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to everyone, I'm afraid, Angr. I guess it depends on where you are. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
@ Pallida, yes, purists would insist on "... the person who is not I", but they would not permit "... the person who is not I's hammer", just as they would not permit '"... the person who is not me's hammer". And not only purists, either. Or pedants. Anyone who abhors ugliness in language would recoil in horror at these forms. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugliness, that's a matter of opinion.
The reason "the person who is not me's hammer" is possible and "the person's who..." is wrong is that the English possessive ending 's isn't really it's an inflectional ending of nouns; it's a clitic. It makes the whole phrase possessive, so it goes at the end of the phrase.
--Anonymous, 18:10 UTC, NOvember 21, 2007.
Oh, it's obviously possible, and once people say it, it stands a chance of being noticed and described by descriptivists (not that I'm applying that epithet to you or anyone in particular here; nor am I a prescriptivist). I've heard people answer the question "Whose house is that?" with "It's she and I's house" or even "It's her and I's house". But would an English teacher be justified in telling their students that these are acceptable phraseologies? I don't think so, and if they told my kids that, I'd change schools. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the proper phrase?

One may view things from a perspective above the objects being viewed. Example: I am on the roof of a 100-story apartment building, looking down, and viewing the pedestrians and the cars on the street 100 stories below me. Or a television news traffic reporter is flying in a helicopter looking down at the highway traffic below him. We normally call this a "bird's eye view". What is the proper term for the opposite perspective (that is, when viewing things above you by looking up at them)? Example: I am lying down on the ground (or on the floor or on the bed), face up, and I am looking up at the clouds or the stars or a ceiling fan, etc. Is there an accepted phrase, the opposite of "bird's eye view", for a scenario like this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

I do not know, though We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. DuncanHill (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Worm's-eye view? – Psyche825 (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That certainly is sometimes used. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct past tense of verb

Which is correct? (grammatically, not substantively)

  • The pilot episode of The Honeymooners has been broadcast more than one-million times on TV since 1955.
  • The pilot episode of The Honeymooners has been broadcasted more than one-million times on TV since 1955.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

The first one. There is no such word as "broadcasted". It's formed from the word "cast" - to say the second would be like saying "The die has been casted". Grutness...wha? 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So, then both the present and past tense are the same exact word? And both examples below are correct? Or no?
* NBC officials broadcast this episode every Monday at noon. (present tense)
* NBC officials broadcast this episode last Monday at noon. (past tense)
Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Yes, that's right - English is a wonderful language! DuncanHill (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, it only works in the plural and the first and second person singular. (By "only", I mean in 5 out of 6 cases. That's another lovely feature of English - words like "only" can sometimes refer to a large majority.) In the third person singular, the present tense is "broadcasts" and the past tense is "broadcast". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up

Thanks. I think that I have figured out the source of my confusion here ... so I have to modify my original question. My original question should have been centered on adjectives, not verbs. So, that being said ... let me re-phrase this whole mess. Can the word "broadcast" serve as an adjective? Can the word "broadcasted" serve as an adjective? Is the latter term even a "real" word? So, which of these below is correct (the first, the second, or either one interchangeably):

  • This is the most broadcasted episode in TV history. (That seems fine to me ... no?!?!?!?)
  • This is the most broadcast episode in TV history. (If anything, this one seems odd and doesn't seem to communicate what it is supposed to be communicating ... no?!?!?!?)

So, I guess my question ultimately boils down to this: after a TV-show episode has been "broadcast" (the verb) ... can we describe that episode as a "broadcasted" episode (adjectivally)? In other words, can "an episode which has been broadcast" also be more succinctly described as "a broadcasted episode"? Or (only) as a broadcast episode? Or either/both? Thanks.

PS -- To Grutness (from your post above) ... You mentioned a dye that has been cast (not casted). If you wanted to adjectivally describe that dye ... would you say a "cast dye" ... or a "casted dye" ... or either/both? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

At the first place, the "broadcast' as in "has been broadcast" is not really a "past tense" form. Perhaps you could take a look at participles in Modern English.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As Grutness said, there is no such word as "broadcasted", and I would add, in any context. "Casted" might exist as the past tense of the verb "to cast" meaning to make a cast, eg. a plaster cast, but it doesn't exist in the sense of casting dice or nets. These are some examples of how "cast" and "broadcast" can act as both a past(-ish) tense verb and an adjective:
  • "These are the cast nets, and those are the uncast ones"
  • "In this bag are some dice that have been cast, and some that have not been cast: it's a collection of cast and uncast dice".
  • This DVD contains various speeches by Churchill that were pre-recorded for later broadcast. A couple were never broadcast because of XYZ reason, but most were. It has both the broadcast speeches and the un-broadcast speeches".
  • "This is the most broadcast episode in TV history". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
American-English dictionaries recognize both forms.[1]  --Lambiam 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"the die has been cast" = "alea iacta est" from Latin, thus it is a die, the old singular of dice, not a dye nor the kind of die that is used for moulding in.SaundersW (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. "broadcasted" is a perfectly valid past tense form. [2] Corvus cornixtalk 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
People who work in the broadcasting industry in the US often use the term "aired" for the past tense of "broadcast". In your example above, it might be better to say "This is the most-often aired episode in TV history." Of course, the context is not mentioned in your example. You should further define whether you are referring to the episodes of one particluar program, series or genre.Thomprod (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "broadcasted" is an acceptable past tense form. The verb "broadcast" is denominal from the noun "broadcast", and denominal verbs generally inflect regularly. For the same reason, the past tense of "to grandstand" is "grandstanded", not *"grandstood". —Angr 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. But I can't think of an example where it would actually sound better than "broadcast". Any suggestions? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
'Broadcast' is one of the examples Stephen Pinker discusses in The Language Instinct of a verb which is derived from a noun rather than existing in its own right, and therefore (he says) cannot partake of irregular morphology and must form a regular past 'broadcasted'. Another example is 'flied out' (baseball term). I may say that, though I accept his argument generally, I find 'broadcast' as a past tense perfectly acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shoule?

What is shoule among this series of words: "turnings, bays, shoules, islets, inlets, and creeks"? I didn't find it in an Old English dictionary. Omidinist (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a misspelling of shoal. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen it as a variant spelling for shoal in 16th/17th century writings. DuncanHill (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just checked the OED, it has shoule as an obsolete from of shoal. DuncanHill (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Idiom for "double edged swords"

Is there an equliviant of the phrase "double edged swords" which can be used in the context "These things can be seen as double edged swords"? Thanks in advance Paperarmy101 (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd generally use zweischneidig, which literally means double-edged. You wouldn't talk about a sword in German but rather call the situation itself zweischneidig - Ferkelparade π 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, some of us think the idiom is "two-edged sword" and not "double-edged", which we reserve for razor blades. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And a zweihänder itself is a double edged sword, however I don't think it would be an appropriate use of the word in the context you are referring to. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the expression refers back to Hebrews 4:12
"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and may thus be found in German as well. SaundersW (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, the German expression is ein zweischneidiges Schwert. The Biblical English is two-edged sword: I share Milkbreath's feeling that this is the proper metaphor, while double-edged should be reserved for actual blades, and I am surprised to find that double-edged sword has a higher google count. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some general questions about languages

1. Is there any language that distinguishes first person plural WE (me and them) from WE (me and you, and possibly them)? 2. In general, are there any languages that have funny "persons", ie. that don't use the conventional "first, second, third person," with singular and plural in each? 3. I've noticed from studying French and in particular Latin that prepositions are a quirky thing in language. They don't really mean much, but you understand what they are saying from the context, and you know how to use them yourself from a knowledge of the idiom (the complexity of this being one reason why foreign languages are so hard). Are there any languages that have a different solution to this "preposition problem," whether by using prepositions in more precise ways, by having a larger set to chose from, or even by somehow doing away with them altogether? 203.221.126.252 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finnish has no prepositions and instead has 16 (possibly 17) cases, and Slovenian has a dual plural as well as a three-or-more plural for verbs. Many languages use something other than the second person singular as a polite or formal "you", for example Spanish and Italian use 3rd person singular, and French and Croatian use 2nd person plural. SaundersW (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) A fair number of languages have a dual that is used when talking about exactly two of something (Arabic and Hebrew being prolific examples). Some languages also have a trial (for three things) or even a paucal (a plural for few things, as opposed to the plural for many things). See grammatical number and grammatical person for an overview with a number of examples.
As for prepositions, I have never encountered a natural language that has anything approaching a logical system for prepositions; the chaos of various prepositions having vastly different, and partly even opposite, meanings depending on context and usage seems to be rather universal (and yes, coming to grips with prepositions seems to be the hardest part in learning most languages). Invented languages usually try to impose a simple and logical structure for prepositions, but having never learned an invented language, I cannot really comment on how well that works -- Ferkelparade π 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question on artificial languages, I used to know a bit of Esperanto, which uses "je" to refer to a preposition that is otherwise undefined or makes no actual sense (i.e., "he bet on the horses" would be something like "li vetas je la cxevaloj" [3]. However, plenty of traditional Western prepositions are used in other contexts by various speakers, making it still a mess for some foreign learners. lojban uses a different method following Bertrand Russell's formal grammar, in which prepositions are entirely replaced by placeholding in a verb function (so "I give him bread" uses a ditransitive verb, but one could also say "I went to the store yesterday by car" is tritransitive, with "store", "yesterday", and "car" as arguments). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer the first question, there are a goodly number of languages that distinguish "inclusive we" from "exclusive we"; I believe Indonesian is one of them. There are Native American languages that have what linguists have dubbed "4th person", but it's more of a "distal 3rd person" (that one/the former/agreement with the object of the preceding sentence) as opposed to the proximate 3rd person (this one/the latter/agreement with the subject of the preceding sentence). In languages like that, sentences like "John asked Jim if he could help him" are unambiguous, unlike in English. —Angr 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) To answer your first question, there are lots of languages that "distinguish first person plural WE (me and them) from WE (me and you, and possibly them)". Look up inclusive and exclusive we. And quite a few languages distinguish gender in second person, so Literary Arabic has a 13-person conjugation of the verb, with that and the dual. Drmaik (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Like the related Slovenian, Russian has a dual plural but it's confined to the use of numbers. When it's the subject of the verb, "One book is sitting on my shelf" uses nominative singular for "book" (κнига); "2, 3 or 4 books" uses genitive singular (κнигы); and "5 through 20 books" uses genitive plural (κниг); thereafter, it depends on the last number (21 uses nominative singular; 22, 23 or 24 use genitive singular; 25 through 29 use genitive plural; 30, 40, 50, 100, 1000 etc all use genitive plural). "These books" uses nominative plural (κнигы); "Many books" uses genitive plural (κниг). When it's the object, "I read one book" uses accusative singular (κнигу); "I read 2, 3 or 4 books" uses genitive singular; "I read 5 through 20 books" uses genitive plural; "I read 21, 31, 41, 101, 1001 etc books" uses accusative singular; "I read 22-24, 32-34, 42-44, ... 102-104, 202-204 ... 1002-1004 books" uses genitive singular; "I read 25-30, 35-40, 45-50 ... 105-120, 205-220 ... 1005-1020 books" uses genitive plural. "I read these books" uses accusative plural (κнигы); "I read many books" uses genitive plural. It gets even more complex than that when you add adjectives and negatives into the equation. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You are all so brilliant :). That's one of the best answers I've had on Wikipedia. Keep it coming if you have more, since I'm sure people have further clarifications and elaborations on this. Drmaik's link covers the first question pretty thoroughly, though I can't see any mention of Sanskrit. I've got a book on it, so I guess I'll have to make the time to have a look through that. 203.221.127.189 (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In Polish (and perhaps in many other languages too) impersonal verb forms are possible. It's not really some 4th person, it's just no person at all. Setences with impersonal verb forms are best rendered into English as sentences in passive voice, although they are in active voice in Polish. Examples: Wino robi się z winogron ("Wine is made from grapes") where robi się is a present tense impersonal form of robić ("to make"). Nie od razu Kraków zbudowano ("Cracow wasn't built in a day") where zbudowano is a past tense impersonal form of zbudować ("to build"). — Kpalion(talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that prepositions "do not mean much", but that is exactly the point: they are not meant (if you can talk of words as if they were intended) to mean much. Prepositions, among many other words, do not belong in the category of content words but in that of structure words. It is their function to facilitate syntax and grammatical correctness. They do not conform to a logical system (language seldom does anyway) but to the syntactic system of a particular language. Their function is stronger than their content (to varying degrees) and some languages may not only use other prepositions as equivalents, but other linguistic devices (such as case). Language is frightfully messy, especially if you compare one to another. No wonder early grammarians thought that language was in a state of decay (:. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] words with the most meanings in various languages

In English, the word with the most meanings is set. What is the record holder in other languages, and is there a list of them somewhere? I had no luck with google. 203.221.126.252 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Smurf language the word smurf seems to have quite a few meanings.  --Lambiam 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ook? Worm (t | c) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(I'll take it as obvious that it's hard to make comparisons scientifically.) OED gives 154 numbered senses for the verb set (and 58 for the other parts of speech; according to this page, in other dictionaries the articles for take or run are longer). The Oxford Latin Dictionary shows ago and in as tied with 44 each. (But if you counted the various prefixed forms of ago as equivalent to the phrasal verbs given under set in the OED, then you might well match the number 154.) Wareh (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose expletives, like fuck in English, have lots of meanings in most languages. — Kpalion(talk) 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no record holder. Polysemous words may be said to have an infinite gamut of meanings, or they may be said to have, roughly, two. Both views would be equally correct. It all depends how you define your semantic fields. The entries in a dictionary reflect convenience rather than sememe analysis. So, before asking "how many" meanings a word has, you should first define what "meaning" means. This might prove surprisingly difficult.
More information is to be had from the article on meaning, although I wonder whether that is meant for the enlightenment of the general reader, and if not, who the target group might be. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember seeing set in the Guinness Book as the record holder. Their reasoning was the same as the OED definitions above. Sandman30s (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And quite right they were, too. The record, then, is held by the word with the most dictionary definitions, which is not the same as the word with the most meanings. One cannot expect the GBoR to distinguish between these nicer subtleties, that would be quite unreasonable. We, however, should be able to distinguish between meaning and definition. Bessel Dekker (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson, et al.

Men give their penis a name; at least I've found they often do. I wonder whether this is a culture-driven or language-driven phenomenon, and whether the names given by men of different cultures to their penises are somehow characteristic of that culture or language. Maybe Norwegians overwhelmingly go with "Mjolnir", or Swedes with "Johansson", etc. Perhaps there are even cultures in which there is conducted a sort of christening of the member during the manhood ritual, or in which the bride gets to name it. The possibilities are endless. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this phenomenon, except for people calling a penis Dick or Willy/Willie. What kind of names are these, next to Johnson? Little Big Man? The Terminator? Anthony A. Aardvark III? Could this be a North-American thing?  --Lambiam 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
All those are good ones. "Mr. Happy", "Warren G. Hard-on" ("Warren", for short, no pun intended), "Woody", you name it. Not a slangy synonym for the part but an actual cognomen. Maybe it's strictly a Middle-Atlantic USA thing. I'm asking on behalf of a friend. No, really. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In Monty Python's Meaning of Life, there's a scene in which a character refers to his penis as his John Thomas, which indicates that it's not strictly a North American thing. I remember reading somewhere that most cultures have a wide variety of slang terms for the penis, but far fewer for the vagina. Donald Hosek (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an entire Monty Python song about this actually - Penis Song (Not the Noel Coward Song). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The Romans apparently were very prolific in coming up with pet names. Not surprisingly, many ofthem revolve around weapons like spears and swords. Steewi (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In Lady Chatterley's Lover the characters discuss John Thomas and Lady Jane. SaundersW (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a very close friend named Roger.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


There seem to be three categories:
  1. Words in general use as synonyms for penis: John Thomas etc. These are euphemisms, and could therefore be placed in the fields of linguistics, anthropology (taboo) or psychology (avoidance behaviour). But surely a euphemism could hardly be purely linguistic.
  2. Puns: Woody Woodpecker etc. I am not sure in which "discipline" such attempts at being funny belong, legitimate though they are. Social psychology? Folklore? Popular literature?
  3. Proper names in the narrow sense: you give your own Member (and Him only, that is the difference with "John Thomas", of course, which may be applied to All Creatures Bright And Beautiful) an individual name, as if you wanted to identify him like you wish to tell your children apart. But you do not wish to identify him, you wish to personalize him. Is this, then, a form of verbal masturbation? Needless to say, I would not know, but I suspect it is. But it is very likely to be a culturally determined phenomenon which would bear further investigation: what sort of names in which cultures, degree of taboo (unmentionability, directness, daring), predominance or absence in relation to a culture's other characteristics.
Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)