Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_w | Hacker News Reader

Was thinking about oddities of language recently (happens a lot since moving to Germany), specifically how "toothpaste" isn't made from teeth and "tomato paste" isn't something you rub onto a tomato.

So anyway, should we be calling this "hairpaste for teeth", or "toothpaste from hair"?

View on HN

This semantic variability in the relation between the two nouns of a compound is pretty common in compound nouns: "Y made of X", like "tomato paste", "Y used (somehow) for X" (like "toothpaste", "paintbrush", "electrical outlet"--here an adjective, but still a lexicalized phrase), "Y in X" ("treehouse"), "Y for X" ("doghouse"), "Y containing X" ("paint can"), not to mention metaphorical uses, with some etymological relation between X and Y ("moon shot", "crapshoot", "greenhouse"), and so on. Not to mention multi-word compounds, like "greenhouse gas"--but I'm sure you've seen lots of those in Germany :).

“Windows Subsystem for Linux” is probably the most confusing example of this (an environment subsystem which provides a Linux userspace to a Windows NT kernel). more intuitive would be to call it a Linux Subsystem for Windows, but presumably for branding purposes they wanted Windows in front.

That one isn't an example of this. It is actually a Windows Subsystem (at least WSL1) that exposes Linux syscalls, so is for Linux userspace programs. There is also the Windows Subsystem for Win32 and there used to be a Windows Subsystem for Unix.

Linux Subsystem would be completely wrong, because it is a Subsystem of Windows not of Linux.

No it wouldn't. Following the scheme a couple of comments above, we have:

Y of X providing Z - Windows Subsystem for Linux.

Y providing X on Z - Linux Subsystem for Windows.

The former is "for [having]", the latter is "for [use on]".

I still would expect it to be something running on top of Windows, not a part of the NT kernel. Subsystem is a specific term for a core concept of the NT kernel here, so no it wouldn't make sense to call it LSW.

MS has some confusing naming, this isn't one of them.

"Windows Subsystem" is a noun-phrase here though. If you want an X providing Y on Z, then it would be "Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows"

I regard that as Microsoft's problem.

What about the "Linux kernel module for USB on Linux", what about the "car tires for special use in cars"?

"Windows Subsystem" is a compound noun. It could serve as a noun phrase in a sentence like "Windows Subsystem is nice" or "I like Windows Subsystem", although without some article or other determiner (like "the" or "this") it doesn't sound very grammatical. Generally only mass nouns, like "dirt" or "food", or plural nouns, like "people" or "subsystems", can be noun phrases without an article or determiner. "the Windows Subsystem" or "a Windows Subsystem" (or "a Windows subsystem") would be (complete) noun phrases.

Thanks! I (unironically) appreciate the semantic correction.

I wrote the comment you're referring to, but it wasn't intended as a complete schema, rather as a way of saying two nouns in a compound can be related in most any way. The interpretation is pragmatic and conventional, not syntactic. (And while [W S] is a compound, [W S for L] isn't, it's a (compound) noun plus a prepositional phrase.)

While W S for L is fine in the intended sense, it could just as well mean a subsystem on Linux that runs Windows (like Vine, I guess). Parallel examples might be Brake Pads for Chevys or Oven Cleaner for Microwaves.

As further examples of the weirdness of compound nouns in English, consider Atomic Scientist, which does not mean a scientist who is atomic, but rather an 'ist' (= person) who does atomic science. Likewise Nuclear Physicist, Artificial Intelligence Researcher (at least for now, since AI systems aren't researchers :)).

It's just that Subsystem is a defined term for a component of the NT kernel here. Nobody thinks a "Linux kernel module" is a module for the NT kernel to emulate Linux, but of course it could be, it's just that the term has already a differently defined meaning.

“Toothpaste” is the commonly accepted English word (in most English dialects, as far as I’m aware) for that paste which we use to clean our teeth with a brush. So I expect we’ll call it “toothpaste” regardless of the exact chemical composition.

If keratin is the active ingredient, I would suspect the exact source doesn’t really matter.

I agree that the source won't be a reason for not calling it toothpaste, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not called toothpaste anyway - that's a term they're using now as it makes it easy for people to imagine what they're talking about, but dentists don't call every type of gel/stuff that they apply to teeth "toothpaste", and as this will be about targeting repair rather than daily cleaning I suspect it will get a new name.

I meant colloquially.

Indeed.

We expect olive oil to be made from real olives, but not baby oil…

The coffee cake is a lie.

18 years in the USA and this still makes me sad. https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/jennys-coffee-cake/e2f028f1...

There was some joke where they showed a sign saying “Kinder Kebab, €2”

I only clean my teeth with a dentifrice. I do not want to have to risk turning my teeth into paste!

Thanks for this, I'll be calling it toothhairpaste regardless of what the marketing department comes up with.

Is Baby Oil made from...?

And "pasta" is just the Italian word for paste.

Isn’t it Zahnpasta in German too?

Sometimes you need a (language) barrier to realize a inconsistency/detail which you'd never take notice of otherwise.

Tomato paste is Tomatenmark, not Tomatenpaste though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com