Language desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

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.

February 10

the letter H in Scrabble

Why is the letter H worth four points in Scrabble? I mean, this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/English-slf.png graph shows the frequencies of the letters in the English language, and H is more common than R and L, which are worth 1 point, as well as all the letters that are worth two and three points. It seems that Scrabble tile points are based on letter frequencies, given that Z, Q, X, and J are worth a whole lot while E and A are worth just one point. The letter frequency rule is normally followed in the letter tile scores, with some minor discrepancies, plus the major discrepancy of the H.

Why would this be? H is a very easy letter to play: it is in many short words like ah, eh, he, ho, hi, ha, the, etc. If scoring is based on the difficulty of the letters, then C should be worth a lot, and H should be worth little. Has usage of the letter H proliferated since Alfred Butts invented Scrabble in 1938? I am confused. --71.227.1.59 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably has to do with the fact that most good "H" words require the "H" to be paired with other letters, usually "C", "S", or "T". Its certainly not as restrictive as having a "Q", which nearly always requires a "U", hence its 4 points rather than even more. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random contribution: You forgot CH - a very useful word (the only 2 letter word starting with C. And Q is not always "nearly always" used with U - almost every time I play a Q it's in the word qi. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes use "qi", too, but I generally prefer to use Q with a U, where possible. I think what Jayron meant was that Q nearly always requires a U in the real world, which is what Butts had in mind when he devised the points system. He'd probably never even have heard of "qi" (or even "chi", which is its most usual spelling). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, see our article on List of English words containing Q not followed by U. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belt

What are the fastening holes in a belt called?96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I've ever heard them called is a "notch". Dismas|^(talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We call them 'holes' where I am from. A notch is different. A notch is usually something that is caught by pegs, or something on a cogwheel, for example.--KageTora (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dismas. You tighten your belt a notch.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pointy bit that passes through such a hole is tongue, tang, fang, or pin. The hole itself may indeed be called notch. These are all just special uses of the words in question, and do not have separate dictionary entries. SOED, "notch, n.":

1 A V-shaped indentation or incision made, or naturally occurring, in an edge or across a surface; spec. (a) each of a series of holes for the tongue of a buckle etc.; ...

Despite the dictionary entry, I would argue that the holes are not "notches". I would argue that because some devices have different settings implemented by putting a part into one or another notch, the word "notch" has been extended to refer to one of these settings whether implemented using notches or not. So if you tighten your belt a notch by moving the buckle from one hole to the next, you are changing the belt from one setting to the next, and which is changing it by one "notch" in this extended sense. Similarly if you increase the speed of a machine by pushing the next button in a low-medium-high series, you might say you have turned it up a notch. The holes in a belt are still just holes. --Anonymous, 19:02 UTC, February 10, 2009.

Strangely, nothing so specific is to be found in OED (unless the online version has something updated in "notch"; I'm using a version on my hard drive).

I used to know what to call the little crimp at the end of a shoelace that made threading it easy, and stopped it from fraying. Anyone know that one?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have got an article on everything. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THAT's what I had in mind: aglet, or aiglet. Thanks. Now, let's see if we can work it up into a featured article. Then let's do Brass fastener and Castellated nut.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a punch hole, according to CLOTHING &#38 ARTICLES :: CLOTHING :: MEN&#8217S CLOTHING :: BELT image - Visual Dictionary Online. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ------- They are punch holes [to agree in grammatical number with the original question]. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things "are" what we habitually call them, regardless of how various observers might be offended by some supposed irrationality in the choice of words. Those lacunae in the material of belts are holes, punch holes, and notches, since these usages are well enough established to be recorded in dictionaries. Anonymous has written above that "the holes in a belt are still just holes". Well, they are "just" holes and not notches if you insist on a certain restricted meaning for notch; but the rest of the world does not insist, and the rest of the world wins. The rest of the world is the court of final appeal on usage in the world, as opposed to usage in the idiolect of Anonymous.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when referring to a finely crafted belt from Iberia, you may call them Buenas Notches. And, no, I am not from Barcelona! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a belt would go nicely with boots of Spanish leather. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's not feeling called?

what do you call someone who has no sense of feeling? (like touch/tact) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally it was called anaesthesia, as our article acknowledges. Here is OED's first citation:

1721 Bailey, Anæsthesia, a Defect of Sensation, as in Paralytic and blasted Persons.

But not so likely these days, since the word now usually means an induced temporary loss of haptic sensation; or of consciousness, in the case of a general anaesthetic. SOED:

Absence of sensation; esp. artificially induced inability to feel pain.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has no sense of tact is tactless. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paralysis can also cause a loss of feeling in the affected area. Livewireo (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Paralysis and anaesthesia may often occur together; but this is from having a common cause, rather than from either causing the other. If anything, anaesthesia (construed broadly) will "cause" something resembling paralysis, because it may lead to neglect and therefore to absence of voluntary movement.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve injury like e.g. in Leprosy can cause loss of sensation. Any damage to the Somatosensory system can prevent the sensation of touch being processed. I'm not sure there is an overall term, if there is folks here [2] might be able to help you. There are terms for separate elements of the pathway being disrupted or non-functional. Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 3 of Oliver Sack's book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is called "The Disembodied Lady". Sacks describes a woman named Christina who, in her 20s, suffered from a near total, whole body loss of proprioception. Proprioception is usually said to be the sense of "where your body parts are relative to each other". The loss of this "sixth sense" for Cynthia meant the near total loss of physical feeling. She retained a "superficial sensation" of light touch", such as the feeling of the wind on your face while driving a convertible car. Sacks writes that there is no common words to describe this rather rare type of state. The word that comes up the most in the chapter is "disembodied". As for what it is like--at first she could not stand, hold anything in her hands (her hands "wandered" on their own without her noticing, unless she watched them with her eyes), she could not reach for something or feed herself without overshooting wildly. She could barely sit up. Speech was effected too--she lost "vocal posture". Her words on it include: "I can't feel my body. I feel weird--disembodied".

As for neurological terms, Sacks writes "there seemed to be a very profound, almost total, proprioceptive deficit..." Loss of the feeling of body position, muscle, tendon, or joint position sensation. She also had lesser degrees of loss of light touch, temperature, and pain. (In short, the question of the "someone who has no sense of feeling? (like touch)" brings up the issue of just what the sense of touch is. It is not a single thing, of which proprioception is a major type.The near total loss of proprioception apparently quite rare, so standard terminology has not developed, it seems. Sacks writes about the causes that resulted in this kind of loss, which are several. In her case it was a form of "acute polyneuritis" that cause the sensory loss. For the condition itself, Sacks tends towards the word "disembodied" and "pithed".

The chapter goes to describe Cynthia's slow adaptation to this condition and its profoundly disturbing psychological effects (feeling "dead" and such). Reading Sacks, I get the sense that there are no regular English words for specific kind of things. Even in neurological jargon one can only get vaguely close with words about general sensory losses. At least, that seems to have been the case when Sacks' book was published in 1985. Pfly (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed, Pfly. And thanks for your caution: "Proprioception is usually said to be the...". As we may see from what precedes your post, there is much uncertainty with terms relating to the "somatic senses": those other than smell, taste, sight, and hearing, which themselves are sometimes called the "special senses". The word proprioception etymologically means "perception of self", but this is usually narrowed to perception of positions of the body's parts (with or without awareness). It competes with the term kinaesthesia, which etymologically means "perception of movement", and therefore of movements of the body's parts (with or without awareness). The logical relations between these two terms are contested, if they are attended to at all. Any survey of textbooks in psychology, physiology, and medicine will confirm this. It's a bit of a scandal, in my opinion. These two contrast with interoception, also unaccountably and without much rationality. In fact our articles need to be sorted out and brought into harmony, for these three terms. Might do it myself.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out when sorting out Somatosensory system. It's already creating trouble because animal parts like whisker and antenna (biology) link there but editors only consider humans. We either need lots of new pages or sections need to be kept separate for articles that concern multiple applications. Cockroaches may not have interoception, but they do locate their bits and pieces with relation to other bits and their environment. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more common use of insensate corresponds well with the OP's request, although technically it refers to the loss of all senses. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's and its

Why is it that so many native English speakers have trouble telling "it's" and "its" apart? Non-native speakers seem so much better at this, it really puzzles me. Heck, I've even seen the veteran Reference desk dweller SteveBaker mistake them. So, why is that? --Taraborn (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because people are used to possessives ending in 's, so they write "it's" for a possessive the same way they would write "John's". The opposite mistake, writing "its" for "it is" or "it has", is much rarer (unless the person generally avoids apostrophes and would also write "hes" for "he's", etc.). —An gr 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people are familiar with "it's" as a short form of "it is", so confusion can creep in from there as well. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mystery. Some people who can write C++ with their eyes closed and never a semicolon out of place can't spell English to save their lives. I'll never understand it; you'd think it was the same talent, but no. It is a simple matter of spelling; some people can spell, and some can't, and it's not an important skill except for an editor. Bear in mind, too, that there is plenty of English writing from times past lying around where "it's" was the possessive form of "it". If you read too much of that, especially as a kid, it'll burn a hole in the retina of your mind's eye so you can't see apostrophes any more. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your compiler will refuse to compile your application with a missing semicolon, paper doesn't have a similar restriction. Even modern Word processers and Web browsers that display a red squiggly line won't refuse to let you print your document or send your e-mail if there's a grammatical or spelling error. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Whatever you do, don't let your children read books, or they'll never learn to spell properly! :-) —An gr 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's to keep language prescriptivists in business, and Lynne Truss in spleen! BrainyBabe (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are people like me, who are aware of the "proper usage", but choose to use "it's" as a possessive form, anyway. Why ? It seems more consistent with other possessives, like "Joe's". Then people ask about "his", "hers" and "theirs". I'd be fine with "her's", meaning "belonging to her", but "hi's", would mean "belonging to hi", so that's no good. I can accept "his" as a strange English substitute for "him's", and just leave it at that. "Their's" is a bit iffy, as it means "belonging to them" not "belonging to their", but at least "their" is a word with a similar meaning. In a perfect world it would be "Joe's", "it's", "her's", "him's", and "them's", but I'll settle for "it's" (for now). With enough small steps we may eventually fix this screwy language of our's. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Marge Simpsonesque grumble /> In a perfect world, we would excise the blackheadlike apostrophes and hyphens from our writing, so it would be "Joes", "its", "hers", "his", and "theirs" (the last two because your suggestion would change the language itself rather than just the spelling). —An gr 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the problem with doing what StuRat suggests - adopting your own bloody-minded system in spite of accepted usage - is that most people will assume you're illiterate. Try using it's as a possessive in a job application or in another professional context and see how far it gets you. I could choose to write tits instead of its if I wanted, but I would find it difficult to persuade people that I was trying to change the language single-handed, rather than just being puerile or making a typo. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could always use "proper" English in such a case. However, job interviewers are just as likely to not know the "proper" usage (or not care), as anybody else. StuRat (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to adopt the lowest common denominator and be governed, sheep-like, by the illiterati. Where are your standards, man? The problem with your approach is that you start by assuming there's a problem that needs fixing. Making everything logical and neat is just not the way to go when it comes to English. Being absurd and illogical is one of its greatest strengths, imo. What would happen if the French did the same with their spelling? Words like (I've made these up to make a point, but there are doubtless real-life examples) "pouler", "poulez", "poulet", "poulé", "poulés", "poulée" and "poulées" are all virtually identical in pronunciation, but there's no move to spell them all differently. Language change is something that happens, whether we like it or not. But it doesn't happen by someone just deciding that there's a better way than the norms that have been accepted for a long time, and that we have to simply memorise. There is no general consensus that the pronoun "its" can now be spelled "it's", so you're swimming against the tide. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, if they do know the correct usage, you lose. They either think you're barely literate, or they discover your real reason for writing its this way, and conclude that you think you're special and the rules don't apply to you. The simple matter of inserting an apostrophe makes you appear either underqualified or a spoilt little brat. Neither trait is particularly desirable. So what have you achieved? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, they could take it as a sign that you "think outside the box" and don't just automatically do things the way they've always been done because you fear change. Admittedly, these aren't attributes they are likely to look for when hiring someone to fry burgers, but any interviewers hiring for a job I'd want, at a company that's likely to survive, would be looking for those attributes. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They won't, though. I've never encountered anyone who reacts to a misuse of "its" and "it's" in this way. Algebraist 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be explained, of course. But, honestly, I'd "behave" and spell "its" according to conventional spelling rules on a resume. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you only mind people incorrectly thinking you can't spell if you want to work for them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more likely to do things the way someone else wants if they pay me to do them that way, yes. Does this surprise you ? I've noticed that many people here, even Ref Desk regulars, don't appear to spell-check their own work, but I assume they would do that on a resume. So, they also only care if potential employers think they can spell, right ? StuRat (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The difference is that you knowingly make the mistake. And that's what it is. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What really puzzles me is that some native speakers seem to assume that there is actually a system in the ridiculous absurdity known as English spelling. — Emil J. 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great replies! Thanks to all! --Taraborn (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another explanation is that there are some of us who know the difference but whose brains are not well-connected to our fingers. I find that I almost always seem to reverse them when typing. While I may leave a dozen other typos in a posting, I'll often go back to fix a wrong "its/it's" so I don't look uneducated. I seem to have the same problem with "their/there/they're". I reliably type the wrong one. Will Beback talk 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another explanation is that it's not being taught properly any more. It might be mentioned at school, but do people leave school confident about this? or about a whole host of other language matters? The evidence suggests that a lot fewer school-leavers are confident these days than was the case in days gone by. If they're not confident - or simply don't care as long as they can communicate minimally - then there's something amiss with the teaching. It's one thing to take the logical approach (à la StuRat et al) and make what is in fact a possessive (its) actually look like one by adding an apostrophe (it's). It's another thing to not use the apostrophe where it's required - and this doesn't only affect the abbreviation "it's", it affects the entire class of possessive nouns. I see it in advertising and media generally all the time ("Its the service that counts"; "Gippslands whatever"; "Victorias worst disaster" - ok, I haven't actually seen that last one, but it's gonna happen sooner or later). So, there's a bigger picture, of which its/it's is but one symptom. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, is this considered a grammatical error or a spelling error? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, it's a spelling error. But if the "writer" doesn't know the difference between an abbreviation and a possessive pronoun, and cares less, then it could well amount to a grammatical error. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spelling error and nothing to do with grammar, and like many (though not all) spelling errors it has little effect on communication, other than communicating the social message "I am somebody who does not know, or does not care about, or chooses to ignore, this particular social rule". It is very little different from eating with the wrong utensil, or wearing a combination of colours that is not in fashion.

Note in particular that it is quite hard to construct a piece of connected text (not isolated words or headlines) in which misplacing an apostrophe causes genuine ambiguity. The reaction (of those who notice) to "it's" for "its" or vice versa is nearly always "that's wrong" not "I misconstrued that". Of course those who do not notice are at an advantage because their sensitivities don't get in the way of their understanding. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Which is worse, then: to have the sensitivity and find yourself troubled by these things (anywhere from mildly to severely); or to never even notice because you lack the sensitivity about such matters (and possibly more important matters, of much more moment than how we dot our i's and cross our t's and where we place our apostrophes)? An eye for detail is a very useful skill, and if you lack it about these sorts of things, there's a good chance you'll lack it about some matters of life and death. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im sb who nows how to right but i jus don rly care if i make it ez for yall to to read wat im ritin as long as i now yu can gues wat im rightin its only importnt to me that i dont need to think much wen im typin this is the msg i wanna comunicate — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you've made your point. I understood what you wrote, so your message got through. Is that all that's important, though? If you don't really care to make it as easy as possible for your reader, if you don't write with your reader in mind, what's the point of writing? Writing conveys more than just the basic meaning of the text. It also says something about the writer, personally. We're all encouraged to be professional in all sorts of ways, to be efficient, to strive for higher standards, to excel. Why wouldn't this also apply when it comes to the written word? I'm not suggesting that everyone should strive to be a Shakespeare or a Dickens, but why use faulty bricks to build your linguistic house when good bricks are just as available, and come at no cost? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was really in response to what ColinFine wrote. My point, and what I wanted to show, is that careless writing does not only make you look uneducated or nonconformist like using a steak knife for eating fish. It also makes reading what you wrote more difficult to read and is a sign of disrespect for the reader. I may be able to guess from the context whether the author had "it's" or "its" in mind; but I would prefer if they didn't make me stop and guess. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Kpalion. I didn't bother reading your previous post. It's too hard. Correctly spelt and constructed English can be read and understood quickly and easily. If a writer cannot be bothered to write properly, they cannot expect me to bother reading it. It's rarely worth the effort. Thus, the communication has failed. The fact that I might understand them if I work at it is irrelevant. If one wants to be heard, it's courteous to make it as easy as possible for the hearer/reader. Gwinva (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "it's" as a possessive was used by careful writers-- such as Thomas Jefferson-- well into the early 19th century. It's a recent convention. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was first learning to read and write, I was taught that apostrophe s was used in two places - to show a contraction (eg. it's = it is) and to indicate posession (eg. John's saxaphone). I don't recall any mention of an exception for posessive it. Maybe it was bad teaching, or maybe I just forgot that small bit, but until quite recently I would happily use it's to indicate posession (eg. it is rough on it's right-hand side). It is only once I started contributing to Wikipedia that various pedants have corrected me on this point. However, I would really appreciate a reference where this rule exception is written down. Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try any dictionary or style guide. Random examples: [3], [4]. Algebraist 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another here. —An gr 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeze, Louise, it doesn't take a "pedant" to notice doofy othography. Your average, decently educated half-wit will go hmmm when he sees "it's" for "its". When you write that it's like giving a speech with your fly unzipped and a booger hanging out of your nose. I'm trying to let y'all know once and for all, and by "y'all" I mean those of you who make that mistake, that the rest of us can tell. Get it straight, it's not a hard one. Take the trouble to learn the language you govoreet, and people won't point and whisper behind your back so much. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a fraction of a second an unfortunate image was conjured by "fly unzipped and booger hanging out" DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to remain civil in your replies Milkbreath. Astronaut (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, and civility is the kiss of death for comedy. I was trying to be funny, in case you couldn't tell. I'm not a pro, so cut me some slack. The technique is overstatement, perhaps rather clumsily applied here, but a staple of comedy writing. To give offense is necessary for the frisson. They say explained comedy is failed comedy, but that ship has sailed, at least as far as you are concerned, so what the hell. You'll perhaps take note that in my first reply to this question I said that spelling is not an important skill. And do work on your apostrophes, won't you? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it raises an interesting subject. Depending on the context, pointing out that someone's omitted an apostrophe, or put one in where it's not needed, may be pedantry. However, when you have guests coming for dinner, you make efforts to make the house as lovely and welcoming as possible, with all the masses of papers that normally accumulate all over the living room table removed to a locked dungeon, and the toilet smelling unusually fresh, etc. Is this pedantry? Certainly not. When you're going for a job interview, you take extreme care to dress appropriately and have no hair out of place. Is that pedantry? Again, no. Some people take the same sort of care when writing. Some, on the other hand ... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia writing is a good place for pedantry. The entire exercise is pedantic. Will Beback talk 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be encyclopaedia? ~~Wikipedia~~Wikipaedia: The free ~~encyclopedia~~encyclopaedia.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be encyclopædia. Algebraist 19:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella term for hair, fur and feather?

Is epidermal growth the correct or most frequently used umbrella term to understand the commonalities between hair, fur and feathers? --Sonjaaa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be keratin. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodily insulation? Iblardi (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that fur and hair are essentially the same thing, just along a continuum between soft and stiff. Feathers, however, are something with an entirely different structure. So, there might be a term for the first two, which excludes feathers. Scales are also a similar skin covering, so perhaps they should be tossed in there, too. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the right term for the "commonalities". There is an ordinary word that covers animals, pun intended, "coat", and one for both plants and animals, "integument", but these aren't exact synonyms or anything. Just throwing that out there just in case it's useful. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integument includes the skin entirely, so that won't do by itself. Keratin is what hair, fur, and feathers have in common, but then you'd have to include rhinoceros horn, and a few other horns. Keratin comes from Greek κέρας (kéras), meaning "horn" and cognate with English horn and Latin cornu. (Rhinoceros is from Greek meaning "nose horn" or "horn nose".) I suggest keratinous integument, which takes the intersection of keratin and integument, and excludes living skin on one side and horns on the other. This book looks like a fine resource.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and we have a page Epidermal growth 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a term that means what it does rather than what it is, "covering" might do. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]