Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ave_matthew
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:59 am UTC
Location: ici, here, oota, aqui, m'inade, cxi tie

Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ave_matthew » Mon May 12, 2008 5:50 pm UTC

ok, so how do we spell "to wikipedia+PAST"???

1. I wikipediad?
2. I wikipediaed?
3. I wikipediud?
4. I wikipedyud?

or some other variation, seeing as how it is a verb, it has a past tense, but I can't figure out which spelling to use!

also, is it just me, or does "dost thou ken" sound way more germanic than "do you know"?
ave matthew, je m'appelle matthew, mi nomas matthew, me llamo matthew, I'm matthew.

GENERATION 22: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Mon May 12, 2008 5:59 pm UTC

wikipediad: 2,220 hits
wikipediaed: 3,870 hits
wikipedia'd: 127,000
wikipedia'ed: 38,200

wikipedia'd wins!

ave_matthew wrote:also, is it just me, or does "dost thou ken" sound way more germanic than "do you know"?


They both consistent of fine Germanic-derived words. "ken" and "know" are related. "ken" is mainly Scottish.

User avatar
Dobblesworth
Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. -Banana
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Dobblesworth » Mon May 12, 2008 6:55 pm UTC

I would use Wikipedia'd myself as well.

On the topic of "Dost thou ken" and its 'Scottish/Germanic'-ness, "kennen" is the German for the verb "to know (a person or item/institution in a personal manner)"

User avatar
pr1mu5
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:19 pm UTC
Location: Florida

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby pr1mu5 » Mon May 12, 2008 7:03 pm UTC

I Wikipedid :) Let's start a new word together.

And 'dost thou ken' is something out of a Gunslinger novel by Stephen King.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Mon May 12, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

It also shows up in can and German können. The zero-grade form shows up in English know, Old High German knāu, Latin gnōsco and Greek γιγνώσκω (info)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon May 12, 2008 7:44 pm UTC

Of course "dost thou ken" is going to sound closer to German, since it's three much older words in a row, and English itself used to sound much closer to German (to a modern ear, anyway).

The relationship between "ken", "know", and "can" is interesting, in that "can" morphed from a main verb meaning "to know" (i.e. it split off from "ken"). It arrived at its present meaning because it used to be, as in modern Spanish, that "know how [verb]" was formerly "cen [verb]". And so it slowly took on the meaning of to be able to do something rather than the narrower sense of knowing how to do something.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Mon May 12, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Of course "dost thou ken" is going to sound closer to German, since it's three much older words in a row, and English itself used to sound much closer to German (to a modern ear, anyway).

The relationship between "ken", "know", and "can" is interesting, in that "can" morphed from a main verb meaning "to know" (i.e. it split off from "ken"). It arrived at its present meaning because it used to be, as in modern Spanish, that "know how [verb]" was formerly "cen [verb]". And so it slowly took on the meaning of to be able to do something rather than the narrower sense of knowing how to do something.


You're right about the semantics of can, but Watkins has a slightly different story: can is from from Proto-Germanic *kunnan, *kann "to know", and ken is from Proto-Germanic *kannjan, the causative of *kann - that is, "to make known". Old English cennan meant "to declare", and the "know" meaning comes from the influence of Old Norse kenna "to know". In other words, can did not split off from ken: ken is from the causative of can.

User avatar
ave_matthew
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:59 am UTC
Location: ici, here, oota, aqui, m'inade, cxi tie

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ave_matthew » Mon May 12, 2008 8:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Of course "dost thou ken" is going to sound closer to German, since it's three much older words in a row, and English itself used to sound much closer to German (to a modern ear, anyway).

The relationship between "ken", "know", and "can" is interesting, in that "can" morphed from a main verb meaning "to know" (i.e. it split off from "ken"). It arrived at its present meaning because it used to be, as in modern Spanish, that "know how [verb]" was formerly "cen [verb]". And so it slowly took on the meaning of to be able to do something rather than the narrower sense of knowing how to do something.


score, bonus etymology!

you mean ¿saber? right, and also savoir (french) and scii (esperanto), which are homologous do the same thing.
so wikipedia'd it is? I was hopeing for wikipedyud, did you use google or some other hits generator?
ave matthew, je m'appelle matthew, mi nomas matthew, me llamo matthew, I'm matthew.

GENERATION 22: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Robin S » Mon May 12, 2008 8:46 pm UTC

Google, I would presume (the numbers match closely enough).

Wikipedyud gets 2 hits, both from this thread.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby steewi » Tue May 13, 2008 12:19 am UTC

I'd prefer to say "Kennest thou...", or maybe "Kenst thou...", myself. It's another step away from modern English.

User avatar
Alcas
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Alcas » Tue May 13, 2008 1:01 am UTC

When I use Wikipedia I think of looking something up, not of searching/Googling something - so I use "to wiki it up".

If I did it already, I wikied it up.
"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people"

barysnikov
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby barysnikov » Tue May 13, 2008 1:23 am UTC

I always say wiki'd

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue May 13, 2008 9:07 am UTC

goofy wrote:wikipedia'd wins!

I like using apostrophes in words that are being dragged, often unwillingly, out of their old usage and into the realm of verbs. Especially when that word ends in a vowel and I'm adding -ed or -ing.

wikipedia'ing
wikipedia'd
ninja'ing
ninja'd

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ZLVT » Tue May 13, 2008 9:26 am UTC

I'd say "wikipediad" but tbh, I just use "wiki"and "wikid" now. I am lazy.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
Dobblesworth
Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. -Banana
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Dobblesworth » Tue May 13, 2008 9:34 am UTC

Another personal abbreviation that I use for the website itself is "Wi'pedia". Apparently it has some limited global use: 120 results on Google.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Роберт » Wed May 14, 2008 6:58 am UTC

I personally despise the misuse of the ' character.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Luthen
Posts: 2021
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:42 am UTC
Location: Dealing with xkcdian immigration
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Luthen » Wed May 14, 2008 12:56 pm UTC

Went to ask Wikipedia about its past tense verb form and found that xkcd is an image on its own pagep!

I'd go with Wikipediaed (which Firefox thinks should be medievalists) cause thats the simple rule. I personally don't think a present tense verb should end in -ia. Its just more comfortable to cut it down to wiki (like ZLVT said).

Can anyone think of an example of another verb ending in a soft "a"?
My fancy new blog Image I am not a vampire! Image PM my location for a prize!*

rnew: ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOAVATAR!
*Terms + conditions changeable

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Wed May 14, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

Do you mean schwa? You could argue that for non-rhotic speakers, this includes all verbs ending in <r>: offer, order, hear, suffer, etc.

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ZLVT » Wed May 14, 2008 1:50 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I personally despise the misuse of the ' character.


You concider using it to hold the place of omitted characters a misuse?

Why do people want to end the verb in "-ed"? Surely if a verb ends in a vowel we only use "-d" and if it ends in an aproximant (w, y etc) we'd only pronounce it as a "-d".
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Robin S » Wed May 14, 2008 2:11 pm UTC

I like to think of The Wikipediad as a modern-day counterpart to The Iliad. The latter features epic wars; the former features edit wars.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Wed May 14, 2008 2:15 pm UTC

I personally despise the misuse of the ' character.


The apostrophe was first used in English to represent elided letters. In the 18th century, there was debate as to whether it should be used to indicate the possessive, as in "the soldiers hats" vs "the soldiers' hats", because no letters are actually being omitted.

User avatar
MotorToad
Really Repeatedly Redundantly Redundant
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:09 pm UTC
Location: Saint Joseph, CA
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby MotorToad » Wed May 14, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

In conversation I used "wikied" most and "wikipediaed" less.

For those that are bothered by apostrophe abuse (such as myself) I present:
Attachments
goddamn apostrophies.jpg
goddamn apostrophies.jpg (47.08 KiB) Viewed 4667 times
What did you bring the book I didn't want read out of up for?
"MAN YOUR WAY TO ANAL!" (An actual quote from another forum. Only four small errors from making sense.)

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ZLVT » Wed May 14, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

goofy wrote:
I personally despise the misuse of the ' character.


The apostrophe was first used in English to represent elided letters. In the 18th century, there was debate as to whether it should be used to indicate the possessive, as in "the soldiers hats" vs "the soldiers' hats", because no letters are actually being omitted.


Actually the possesive case in english is "-es" from the old English. so the soldier's hat would have been the soldeires hat but the 'e' was omitted. Similarly in the plural "soldiers'" comes from soldierses (Golum would be proud) but the "-es" was dropped and appostrophised.

[exhales loudly, relaxes and lights pipe]
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Robin S » Wed May 14, 2008 3:13 pm UTC

MotorToad wrote:"wikipediaed"
I misread that as "Wikipediated".
For those that are bothered by apostrophe abuse (such as myself) I present:
I'm still not entirely convinced that's photoshopped.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Wed May 14, 2008 3:33 pm UTC

ZLVT wrote:
goofy wrote:
I personally despise the misuse of the ' character.


The apostrophe was first used in English to represent elided letters. In the 18th century, there was debate as to whether it should be used to indicate the possessive, as in "the soldiers hats" vs "the soldiers' hats", because no letters are actually being omitted.


Actually the possesive case in english is "-es" from the old English.


that's true.

so the soldier's hat would have been the soldeires hat but the 'e' was omitted.


Probably.

Similarly in the plural "soldiers'" comes from soldierses (Golum would be proud) but the "-es" was dropped and appostrophised.


I'm not sure where you get this from. There was never a plural genitive ending -eses in English as far as I know. The plural genitive in Old English was -a or -ena. (But soldier was borrowed from Anglo-Norman soudeer in the 14th century so Old English is irrelevant.)

In Middle English, the plural genitive came to be formed with -s or -es, same as the singular genitive. So my point stands: there never were any elided letters in the soldiers' hats.

User avatar
MotorToad
Really Repeatedly Redundantly Redundant
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:09 pm UTC
Location: Saint Joseph, CA
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby MotorToad » Wed May 14, 2008 3:50 pm UTC

Robin S wrote:I'm still not entirely convinced that's photoshopped.
Sadly, it's not. That sort of dumb doesn't come from imagination. Quite the opposite, I'd say!

Edit: Looky what I found!

(Somehow it bugs me even more that he got "druggies" right.)
What did you bring the book I didn't want read out of up for?
"MAN YOUR WAY TO ANAL!" (An actual quote from another forum. Only four small errors from making sense.)

User avatar
yeyui
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:45 pm UTC
Location: Kinston, NC, USA
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby yeyui » Thu May 15, 2008 4:45 am UTC

I don't think that wikipedia should be used as a verb. I find "to google" (the obvious parallel case) do be a different situation. The action of using an internet search engine is a novel action that it qualitatively different from earlier analogues. Googling something is very different from older methods of finding information. Now consider the action of finding information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is used in essentially the same way as paper encyclopedias are used. So I am satisfied to use the same language for wikipedia as I did for World Book. I'll just say "I looked [insert obscure topic] up." I usually omit the source completely since it is generally understood that I used wikipedia. If I had used a different source, I would have stated what it was.

Further, the verb "to wikipedia" sounds to me to means something different from "to look up on wikipedia". Compare to with "to blog [about]". Blogs and Wikipedia are both iweb applications where people both contribute and consume content. "To blog" means to contribute content, not consume it. To me, "to wikipedia something" should mean to contribute information on the topic, not look up information on that topic.

But, clearly, I am in the minority, and thus by my own theory of the democracy of language I am wrong. So does anyone have a verb meaning "to contribute a fact to wikipedia"?

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby ZLVT » Thu May 15, 2008 7:03 am UTC

goofy wrote:
Similarly in the plural "soldiers'" comes from soldierses (Golum would be proud) but the "-es" was dropped and appostrophised.


I'm not sure where you get this from. There was never a plural genitive ending -eses in English as far as I know. The plural genitive in Old English was -a or -ena. (But soldier was borrowed from Anglo-Norman soudeer in the 14th century so Old English is irrelevant.)

In Middle English, the plural genitive came to be formed with -s or -es, same as the singular genitive. So my point stands: there never were any elided letters in the soldiers' hats.


'Twas a wiki article, I was searching for old English pronouns and one thing led [I belive that is the correct spelling] to another....
It may well have been wrong and possible not Old English but rather Anglo-Saxon or some similar Gemanic language but I read that moderner English used bits and peices from the inflections of the relevant language which had gender and strength based inflection.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Thu May 15, 2008 12:36 pm UTC

ZLVT wrote:'Twas a wiki article, I was searching for old English pronouns and one thing led [I belive that is the correct spelling] to another....
It may well have been wrong and possible not Old English but rather Anglo-Saxon or some similar Gemanic language but I read that moderner English used bits and peices from the inflections of the relevant language which had gender and strength based inflection.


Anglo-Saxon is Old English; they're two names for the same language. And yes, the genitive 's is a remnant from Old English. But there never was a plural genitive formed by added another s. This is why some people used to argue that the plural genitive should have no apostrophe, because no letters were missing.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby Роберт » Thu May 15, 2008 1:50 pm UTC

I wasn't complaining about the use of an apostraphe in a contraction, I was complaining about using it to seperate a word from its suffix. Examples:

"Everyone must remember to bring their ID's"
Isn't that singular possessive?


"I wikipedia'ed it."
Grr....
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Dost thou ken the secrets of "To Wikipedia"?

Postby goofy » Thu May 15, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I wasn't complaining about the use of an apostraphe in a contraction, I was complaining about using it to seperate a word from its suffix. Examples:

"Everyone must remember to bring their ID's"
Isn't that singular possessive?


"I wikipedia'ed it."
Grr....


My point is that the apostrophe has been used for both of those things, and educated writers often disagree on how it should be used. Insisting that these uses of the apostrophe are wrong is misinformed. Particularly with abbreviations like "ID's", the apostrophe as a plural marker is standard. Certainly using the apostrophe to mark the past tense of verbs that end in a is not common, but it is still done in edited text - for instance pyjama'd "clad in pyjamas".

This is from The Oxford Companion to the English Language:

There was formerly a respectable tradition (17-19c) of using the apostrophe for noun plurals, especially in loanwords ending in a vowel (as in We do confess Errata's, Leonard Lichfield, 1641, and Comma's are used, Philip Luckcombe, 1771) and in the consonants s, z, ch, sh, (as in waltz's and cotillions, Washington Irving, 1804). Although this practice is rare in 20c standard usage, the apostrophe of plurality continues in at least five areas:
(1) with abbreviations such as V.I.P.'s or VIP's, although such forms as VIPs are now widespread.
(2) With letters of the alphabet, as in His i's are just like his a's and Dot your i's and cross your t's. In the phrase do's and don'ts, the apostrophe of plurality occurs in the first word but not the second, which has the apostrophe of omission: by and large, the use of two apostrophes close together (as in don't's) is avoided.
(3) In decade dates, such as the 1980's, although such apostrophe-free forms as the 1980s are widespread, as are such truncations as the '80s, the form the '80's being unlikely.
(4) In family names, especially if they end in -s, as in keeping up with the Jones's, as opposed to the Joneses, a form that is also common.
(5) in the non-standard ('illiterate') use often called in BrE the greengrocer's apostrophe, as in apple's 55p per lb and We sell the original shepherds pie's (notice in a shop window, Canterbury, England).


And a bit further on, my emphasis:

Variations in the use of the possessive marker continued for a long time, however; ‘As late as 1794 Washington Irving used apostrophes in only 38% of the possessives in his personal correspondence’ ( Greta D. Little, ‘The Ambivalent Apostrophe’, English Today, 8 Oct. 1986). By the mid-18c, however, the convention had extended to the possessive use of irregular noun plurals (children's, men's, and women's clothing), but the treatment of regular s-plurals posed problems. Some grammarians of the period, for example, saw no need for the mark in such phrases as the soldiers hats, because nothing was omitted; indeed, there was debate as to whether a distinct plural genitive existed in Modern English. By the middle of the 19c, however, such forms as the soldiers' hats were more or less established, but even so it appears from the evidence that there was never a golden age in which the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe in English were clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most educated people.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests