Language desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

We provide business solutions!

Where/when did this lingo originate? I only remember hearing it after beginning graduate school in 2010, but that's probably because I wasn't often around business-type people before that time. Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else dates from late 2011. I love my single-volume OED, but it's definitely not new enough to include this usage. Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm surprised that your little OED volume has only one sense for the noun.~~ (See wikt:solution for other senses in a sister dictionary.) I agree with you that the business usage is modern and sounds slightly "slangy" and "advertising-speak", but the basic meaning of "method of solving" is at least as old as the chemical sense: see "Dan. ii. 25 A man..that shal telle to the kyng the solucioun." in Wycliffe's Bible of 1382 compared with " Ferst of the distillacion, Forth with the congelacion, Solucion, descencion [etc.]." cited in the big OED from 1390. I don't know when the "business-speak" variation began. Not even the big OED has picked up on the marketing buzzword variation, but they haven't updated that entry yet for their third edition. Dbfirs 06:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the non-clarity; I wasn't attempting to address mathematical solutions, solutions to puzzling divine-sent dreams, etc; all I meant to ask about was the business slang. My OED is little in overall size and in typeface; they reduced the text size to the point that the first owner (no clue how long ago that occurred) was given a magnifying glass included as part of the price. Nyttend (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that it originated in IT. Back in the early 1990s I did some IT courses, and it was stressed that businesses shouldn't just mindlessly acquire expensive gadgets they didn't need, but should work out what problem they had that they needed IT to solve, and then work out exactly what hardware or software would be a solution to that problem. I first noticed IT suppliers and systems analysts using "Solutions" in their business names and jargon, and from there it spread to other businesses, to the extent that Private Eye magazine had a "Solutions" column for a while highlighting the silliest of them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, thinking about it, the systems analysis usage might have come from programming. I learned a little programming in BASIC many years ago, and I was taught to understand the problem before finding the solution - using "problem" and "solution" in a mathematical sense. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: As a normal hater of marketing/business speak, this one doesn't seem that bad to me. As a mathematician, "solution" is a standard go-to work for several related concepts. Anyway, it's not clear to me that this usage is that distinct from the the other primary usage. My OED on a kindle gives this under their first sense of the word: "a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation..." then, "(solutions) products or services designed to meet a particular need - we are an Internet marketing firm specializing in e-commerce solutions" I personally would have written something more like "products or services to designed to solve specific problems or address certain issues" instead of "meet a particular need". Anyway, this version doesn't have sources or dates for the usage quote, but there it is, in the latest Kindle version of the OED. (side note, it is very different from the online version, I'm not even sure if the italics above are supposed to be a direct quote, or just and example usage.) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meat of a fish

An illustrative photo for Ocean sunfish#Human interaction is captioned: "A dish made with the meat of the ocean sunfish." As a native speaker of U.S. English, I'd think that the proper term is "...the flesh of ..." when referring to fish in this context or similar (e.g. a cookbook). Are the two terms equally correct, or only one, or is this a matter of preference, AE vs. BE, or what? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a British English speaker, I'd regard meat as a better choice when (a) the fish is dead and (b) it's being used as food, whereas flesh would be more apt if the creature were alive, or being subjected to an autopsy. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear "meat", I don't think skin, fat or scales. But "flesh", yeah. I'm Canadian English, if that matters. Our flesh article says it's commonly called "meat", when food. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(British) When I hear "meat" I don't think of fish at all. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - it's customary to distinguish meat from fish as kinds of food. (This may be what leads so many people to try feeding fish to vegetarians.) But here the fish part is a given. Just because you call fish-meat fish rather than meat, you wouldn't go on to refer to the flesh of the fish as the fish of the fish, now would you? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but then I would probably say that the dish in Deborahjay's original question was made from ocean sunfish, rather then from the meat or the flesh of it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know every Canadian, but from who I do, "meat" is meat here. If they want to be specific, they say pickerel or deer or quail or whale (not so often). But generally, every animal but insect. Then it's "I'm eating bugs", whether or not true bugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmEng here, I would say "meat from the Ocean Sunfish" -- It's flesh whilst on the fish, it becomes meat when it's cut off/skinned, scaled, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also speak American English, and while this usage of meat is a little odd, it doesn't seem wrong to me. I could also accept flesh, but that sounds less appetizing. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, etymology comes to the rescue. Meat in Germanic originally meant any serving of food, and flesh refered to that which can be torn off. Consider "meat and drink" versus "flesh and bone". μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of TV journalists who have stolen the word "carnage" (as in the carnage on our roads), which derives from the Latin for "meat" (cf. chili con carne; carnal appetites and lusts), to refer to episodes of significant damage or destruction of road vehicles in accidents, whether or not any human lives have been lost or even imperilled. I wonder where one would look to find the meat of a vehicle. Maybe they think "carnage" is etymologically related to "car". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Plenty of wrecks do leave bits of meat laying around. In older newspapers, they'd often literally describe the carnage. Then it became a catch-all word for describing a scene involving carnage. And yes, eventually, for any debris, flesh or metal. Then this fellow. Can't call a wreck "awesome" or "spectacular" anymore, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Our Fugu article says that it "must be carefully prepared to remove toxic parts and to avoid contaminating the meat". Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for you American chaps, Merriam-Webster Learners Dictionary says under "fish (2)" "the meat of a fish eaten as food". Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slang word for military informant

Is there a military slang word for a captured enemy informant, who discloses information to the opposing side (as used in the US and/or British military)? Brandmeister^talk 13:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stool pigeon or stoolie was used by British POW's in the Second World War for a POW who was passing information to the Germans (see, for example, the Colditz books by Pat Reid). DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what word would use the side that captured such a POW? The same? Brandmeister^talk 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stool pigeon and stoolie were also used by Americans during WWII and are still current to some extent in American English. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they flip him around to the side of good (or evil, depending) and send him back to gather more secrets, they've turned a pigeon into a mole. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stool pigeon is an American coinage, although I am sure Brits find it useful. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling with homophones

Is this just me ? Normally I spell common words properly without thinking about it, but not so with homophones, so I find myself writing "Depends wear there cite is". I have to go back and think about every homophone to decide which is right. Note that I do know which is correct, but it just refuses to become "automatic". StuRat (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're not alone, and this certainly does seem to explain people writing "I ate to much", or "their is a spider on the wall." I personally don't have much of a problem with it, but I do mess up on (a/e)ffect once in a while If I'm writing quickly (especially rough since I often use effect as a verb, and occasionally affect as a noun). For reference, here's some relevant journal articles [1], [2]. I didn't have much time to search for open-access, so you will probably have to go through WP:REX (or ask me nicely) if you want to read more than the abstracts :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before, if you care to search the archives. I have the perverse habit of always getting there and their and they're wrong on the first try, which was mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of this [3] (search for the OP there, " filelake"). Mostly it devolved into a lot of discussion of pairs of words that are homophones in some Eng. varieties but not others. If there were any science refs there, I missed it. (Stu's only question is "Is this just me?" - to which the obvious answer is "no". Unless we take him literally, in which case, the answer is "yes", Stu is just Stu. To me, the next logical step is finding studies of mispelling and homophony, perhaps touching on incidence and prevalence. The ones I posted above are a decent starting point, but there are probably better ones out there.) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, Stu, when you say "writing" do you mean actual handwriting or typing? I sometimes have this problem but only when typing. Of course this is just anecdotal OR, but I've always assumed it was either because handwriting requires more time (forming each individual letter gives my brain time to think about the next) or that muscle memory was involved (thinking "/ðɛɚ/", my fingers sort of automatically type the spelling I use the most). I've never looked into the research, but I do find the phenomenon very interesting.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 19:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's very interesting, User:WilliamThweatt. I just noticed the other night I left my dad a note which, had I typed it, would have been full of errors. But there was not a single mistake in the handwritten note of about 100 words. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to do almost all my writing on the computer. When I do write on paper, it's usually things I don't much care about, like a grocery list. If I did sit down to write a letter the old-fashioned way, I expect I'd do better, just because there is such a high penalty for a mistake (start over or leave the mistake in or cross it out or leave a nasty erasure) that I'd write very slowly and think every word through. I remember when I wrote papers in school it would take me many drafts before I was happy with the result. That's still the case when writing on PC, but it's much quicker to make changes here. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We learn to spell at the same time as we learn to write and are also given frequent feedback and corrections on our spelling as we learn to write. Most of us just pick up typing as we go, and without as much, or as immediate, feedback. That may underlie why we spell better when writing than typing. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this on purpose to make a holorime. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GB - UK?

From United Kingdom:

"The term Britain is often used as synonym for the United Kingdom. The term Great Britain, by contrast, refers geographically to the island of Great Britain, or politically to England, Scotland and Wales in combination. However, it is sometimes used as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole. GB and GBR are the standard country codes for the United Kingdom (see ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3) and are consequently used by international organisations to refer to the United Kingdom. Also, the United Kingdom's Olympic team competes under the name "Great Britain" or "Team GB".

Why is GB used as the official abbreviation for the United Kingdom in most official contexts, and as it is, why is the identification considered to be "loose" (i.e. "colloquial", as far as I can understand)? The many sources in the paragraph state that it is this way, but don't explain why. Does the geographical meaning of Great Britain have any significance outside of scientific geography? --KnightMove (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term Great Britain — referring to the island that includes England, Wales, and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland — is used in that specific way by people other than geographers. For example, there are road atlases of Great Britain that exclude Northern Ireland. People who live in Great Britain or on the island of Ireland, in my experience, tend to use the term Great Britain in its specific geographic reference to the island. It is only people from other countries who tend to use Great Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom. The abbreviation GB may date back to a time before UK was well recognized or the sentiments of the Irish were considered important. (Irish nationalists of course object to using GB to refer to Northern Ireland. While most also object to Northern Ireland being part of the UK, few would dispute that it is in fact part of the UK.) The metonymous use of Great Britain to refer to the United Kingdom dates back to the time before the Act of Union of 1800 merged Ireland with Great Britain in a single state. Between 1707 and 1800, the United Kingdom was in fact coterminous with Great Britain. After 1800, that was no longer true, but everyone knew that Great Britain was the overwhelmingly dominant party in the United Kingdom. So, the actions of the United Kingdom could more or less accurately be described as the actions of Great Britain, since Ireland had little voice in those actions. Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the Olympic situation is a little complicated. It's not exactly that the United Kingdom competes as Great Britain: "Great Britain" and "Ireland" are the Olympic teams, rather than the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and citizens of Northern Ireland can compete in either. See also Ireland at the Olympics, Great Britain at the Olympics. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there are no "citizens of Northern Ireland". Under British nationality law and Irish nationality law, persons born in Northern Ireland are dual citizens of both the United Kingdom and Ireland. Most sport federations, including the IOC, have nationality rules for dual citizens that allow them to choose to represent either nation in competition. However, once they have chosen a nationality and competed under that flag, they are deemed to be of that nationality only for the purposes of future competition. There is a process to allow them to change to the other nationality, but it typically requires a waiting period and often approval of the 'former' nation. - Eron^Talk 17:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "Ireland" is the full formal name of what we tend to call "the Republic of Ireland", whereas "Great Britain" is the name of no nation at all. It either contains 3 (or more) nations, or is a part of a larger nation, depending on your definition of "nation". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only three nations? What about the Cornish? DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. Amended. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

C. G. P. Grey on "The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also our own article Terminology of the British Isles, which goes into this and related matters in astonishing detail. A walk through the talk page and its (currently 10) archives is also very instructive. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also "GB" is used as a national identification for British vehicles abroad, because Northern Ireland has a separate registration scheme and their own "NI" badge. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Between 1707 and 1800, the United Kingdom was in fact coterminous with Great Britain." — Well, except for Wight, Mona, the Hebrides ... — Was the phrase "United Kingdom" part of the name before 1800? —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess not. The last monarch in London to die before the union of 1801 was "George the Second, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Archtreasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire". If the style were anything more than "GB", they wouldn't have put France in the middle of the list of titles. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google nGrams suggests that the term 'United Kingdom' came into popular use around 1750, but experienced a massive spike around 1801. Looking at some of its example sources, I've found legal textbooks quoting the articles of Union from 1707 using 'united kingdom' both as an informal term to describe the effect of the Union, and as part of the apparently official title 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will, of course, all become blissfully moot once Scotland throws off the Sasanach yoke. Indeed, the Russians are calling for a plebiscite on independence this very moment. The real question is, would Harry become Henry the IX, or Henry the I of Scotland? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is no: the secessionist parties favor either a republic or keeping personal union with the 16 other Commonwealth realms. —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no matter the outcome of any referendum on Scottish independence, Wales and Scotland will remain part of physical island of Great Britain and Wales and Northern Ireland will remain part of the political concept of the United Kingdom. Anyone else offering half-arsed opinions probably ought not to, since this is supposed to be a reference desk offering fact, not jokes and pissing in the wind (as seems to be usual around here). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Great Britain at the Olympics, the committee has its own way of defining what they mean by "Great Britain", and when or if Scotland breaks away, that will likely be just one of many issues to be negotiated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain will remain what it always has been, the biggest isle of the British Isles. The United Kingdom will cease to exist in the original sense, although it would seem a matter of convenience to keep calling the rump kingdom the United Kingdom. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the results shown in Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 remain consistent, it will likely be a non-issue anyway. September 18th. Just 4 days after the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Baltimore and the writing of the US national anthem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Hope you don't mind, I wikilinked the Battle of Baltimore as most British people will never have heard of it. DuncanHill (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither will most Americans. Angr (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans also can't sing the national anthem on key, nor do most know any more than the first of its four verses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Star Spangled Banner" is a description in archaic elevated poetic diction of a battle that few know much about, set to a melody that many find unsingable -- and we seem to like it that way...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My favorite part is verse three, where it talks about how the enemy's own blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. I'd pay good cash money to see Beyoncé sing that verse.

But slightly back on topic, has there been any discussion of what would happen to other symbols, such as the union jack? Does Scotland have a national anthem, or would it need to invent one? (I see from National anthem of Scotland that there really isn't one.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What should happen to the Union Jack is obvious. Just subtract the St Andrew's flag bit. But that wouldn't be a decision for the Scots, so who knows? Scotland IS a bit lacking on the national anthem front. Maybe another referendum or a plebiscite. Australia did that about 40 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re anthem: they could choose from "Flower of Scotland", "Highland Cathedral", "Scotland the Brave" and "Scots Wha Hae", to name a few. According to our "Flower of Scotland" article, based on a 2006 poll of 10,000 people that song is the most popular, plus it has the advantage of referring "to the victory of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce, over England's Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314" ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have already uploaded speculative flags of the UK minus Scotland... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about everything. See Union Jack#Flag speculation regarding proposed Scottish independence which says that the College of Arms has stated that there is no need to change the flag in those circumstances, and the existing flag could continue to be used if desired. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for the UK flag, without Scotland: [5] :-) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]