July 20

I read one time that some women have a space between their thighs, while others do not. It is an either/or characteristic, not a continuum. It had a name. What is that name? 64.30.96.165 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A space between their thighs? Where exactly? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the IP is thinking of Genu varum, aka "bowleggedness", but that isn't restricted to an either/or situation, but on a continuum. Also, there is bound to be some variation on the size of the thigh itself even in straight-legged people, but again this is a continuum between "very skinny" and "very fat" and relates to the sizes of the muscles and fat around the thighbone. I have no knowledge of some genetic condition which produces two and exactly two distinct classes of thigh shape, and general observation of the population (consisting of walking around and seeing people) confirms that. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means that for some women, if they are standing naked, their thighs touch each other all the way up, but for others, their thighs sort of curve outwards before reaching their vulva. I can't really explain it any better than that. I can't even explain why I know I what the question means. I definitely don't know if such a phenomenon has a name. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I have a limited personal experience with thighs and vulvas (happily married and have been with the same woman for 16 years. Holy shit. That sounds like a really long time when I say it like that), so I have not taken a survey. Still, I find it hard to believe such a characteristic would be an either-or situation; that it wouldn't be a continuum from a "large gap" to "no gap" depending on the woman's specific skeletal structure, weight, height, etc. etc. I don't say it is impossible to be a real thing, and perhaps the OP is confusing the trait with something else, since there seem to be WAY too many variables to determine the size of said "gap". --Jayron32 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking this up elsewhere, but if I had a son, what would I call his wife's parents? Are they "brother and sister in laws" or just "in laws" or something else entirely?

There's isn't a word in English for that relationship. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Many languages have a name for this relationship, but English does not. Why not, when there's obviously an urgent need for it? That's a good question. Words get created every day of the week if there's a need - who'd ever heard of email, google or spam 25 397 years ago? What's to stop someone from coming up with a catchy term for this relationship? Absolutely nothing, so get to it, bad-ass word persons. For now, some people call them "in-laws", but that's also used for real in-laws like one's spouse's parents, so it might be confusing. Nobody would call them brother or sister in law, as that refers to one's sibling's spouse or one's spouse's sibling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of spam 25 years ago - and it wasn't very welcome to me then, either. And lots of people had email by 1986, though that's a different point... Matt Deres (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Happy now?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

What about "My son's inlaws". That describes the relationship perfectly. --Jayron32 20:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, but I suspect the real tenor of the question is why there isn't a single word, like uncle, niece, brother-in-law, etc. They have to be defined by reference to one's child; but many parents of children who marry each other become good friends, and remain so after their children inevitably divorce. Not always. But for those who do, like my parents and my ex-wife's parents, they've established a direct relationship in its own right, one that transcends the original indirect linking that came from their respective children. And once the kids divorce, they have to say "our son's ex-inlaws", which is a bit much. A single word would be far preferable. Pedants would object that, once the kids divorce, or one dies, there is no longer any formal relationship between the two families, and they're now just friends or whatever. Except they're still indirectly related if there are any grandchildren. But saying "my grandchildren's other grandparents" is an even worse monstrosity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "friend" doesn't adequately capture the relationship either? The "we're on good terms now because our children used to be married but are now divorced, but we didn't decide to stop liking each other" subset of possible relationships is so small that I doubt that anyone (before you) thought that the relationship needed a singular word to describe it. Generally, people who have no named relationship describe their friends as "friends", and then if prompted as to the source of the relationship, will describe the details. But if I were involved in a relationship with my son's ex-wife's parents, I wouldn't use any term more than "friends" to describe them. --Jayron32 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they're more than just friends. They are indeed friends, but that sort of suggests there's no more to it than that; like they met through work, or some sporting club, or at school or whatever. Introducing them to third parties as "our friends Bernice and Harry" might do for the initial introduction, but indefinitely leaving unsaid the fact that their children were once married could create issues. Generally speaking, there's a social obligation to let unsuspecting third parties in on such information, so that lines of sensitivity don't get inadvertently crossed. You might be extremely friendly with your cousin, but you would pretty much always introduce them as your cousin, not your friend, because it's sort of disrespectful not to acknowledge such relationships. "We used to be related but our children ruined that for us" doesn't really cut it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if there was an "urgent need" for a single word then why has it not already been coined or adopted from another language? I'm curious, which languages have a word for it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish does (consuegros). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your grambaby mama mama and grambaby mama daddy. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided that the plural of moose was moose and not mooses or meece in English? Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many words like this, like "fish" for another example. Also, your question is unanswerable, since linguistic decisions are not made by one person who passes down pronouncements on usage. --Jayron32 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when was the first recorded usage of the plural moose and the singular moose being the same in English? Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the word was borrowed from a Native American Algonquian language in the early 1600s. Why moose and not *mooses became its plural is beyond me. Lexicografía (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first usage example for moose in the

OED online is from 1614 ("... a beast bigger, called the Mus."). The modern spelling is listed first at 1707, as the possessive ("A Mooses Hide, ..."). A single with-s plural example is attributed to 1777 ("... mares, mooses, wood ducks, ..."), with the first no-s plural example being dated 1817 ("Cabree and moose are plentiful.") with several examples later. I can't tell if the with-s plural was common around and before 1777, or if that was a one-off example (there are no plural examples prior to 1777 listed). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This is OR, but it's always possible that it may have no plural because it's taken from a foreign language. The plural of

caribou all have plurals same as singular, and are all herd animals similar in some respect (?), there may be a connection there. Buffalo has two plurals: one same as singular, and the other with optional regular plural ending. This is the same with antelope, elk, and reindeer. In light of all this, moose is not particularly odd. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a general modern trend for

English_plural#Nouns_with_identical_singular_and_plural which doesn't provide sources though. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

English has all sorts of oddities. For example, the plural of cannon is "cannon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only in one context (the same one where "horse" and "foot" are also plural). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And borrowing from other languages can lead to 'double plurals'. In the UK a number of fast food outlets advertise "

paninis" Richard Avery (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

And "blinis" and "pirozhkis". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard it in English, but in German people often speak of eating Spaghettis.

talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I used to have a supervisor, originally from Germany, who would talk about criterias. Drove me nuts. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nocciolis?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian restaurant near my house sells lots of different spaghettis, apparently - at least, that's what my mum says (I'm not a fan of spaghetti, because I always end up with at least one spaghetto on my shirt - never had that problem with ramen, though, no doubt because English speakers haven't learnt to count it yet). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the point in general is well-taken, I'm not sure the word spaghetto in Italian will reliably conjure an image of a single spaghetti strand. Literally it's the diminutive of spago, "string", so it's a little piece of string. Not being a native speaker I'm not sure which sense of the word will be more likely understood if there aren't contextual clues, but I am reasonably sure that the word doesn't get a lot of use in the sense of a single piece of pasta. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the plural of ramen to be ramina.

talk

) 05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Heh. —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing can also result in conflicts of number. For example, in many Latin nouns (almost all non-neuters, except a-stems) the nominative singular is explicitly marked by a final s, so a word like rhombuses has the morphemes rhombo+singular+plural. —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]