Humanities desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

Word pair order

Why do certain common pairs of words tend to always be said/written in the same order e.g. black and white (not white and black), salt and pepper, heaven and earth, up and down, thick and thin, hot and cold, stop and go, fun and games, etc., whereas other pairs are more flexible e.g. night and day, light and dark, etc.? I can see that idiomatic usage (e.g. "blowing hot and cold") might have had some influence, but why should that be, and is that the full story? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaleCloudedWhite: see Irreversible binomial: it's mostly just a list of them, rather than doing much about explaining, but some of the sources referenced may help. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool question. As ColinFine points out, you're looking for information about irreversible binomials. An interesting thing I came across that might prove informative doing linguistic analysis of the phenomenon might be to look at "irreversible" binomials where the two terms are identical ("so and so", or "face to face"). Thinking about those cases reminds me obliquely of discussing Ellipsis (linguistics) in my undergraduate syntax class 15-odd years ago, where exploring whether there was an unspoken "null" component to the syntax being parsed, or whether the phrase structure didn't require that component, provided a great deal of insight into the general analysis of syntax. Here is a Stack Exchange post discussing these binomials, though I don't necessarily agree with the way they reached their conclusion (by simply applying the definition of "irreversible" to conclude that where the words are identical they are therefore reversible). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the conjuncts have a natural temporal order, as in beginning to end, the binomials tend to conform to that order. This includes bait and switch, catch and release, cause and effect, come and go, cut and paste, duck and cover, hide and seek, hither and thither, lost and found, name and address, over and out, research and development, start to finish, tar and feathers, and up and about. Otherwise, when one conjunct is a monosyllabic and the other is polysyllabic, the monosyllabic one tends to go first, as in bells and whistles, bread and roses, cloak and dagger, death and taxes, fast and furious, fine and dandy, fire and brimstone, hale and hearty, high and mighty, lo and behold, nice and easy, nook and cranny, rape and pillage, slow and steady, smoke and mirrors, vim and vigor, and warm and fuzzy. However, there are plenty of exceptions, such as bacon and eggs and tables and chairs. Also, this rule cannot explain the order of the many binomials in which both conjuncts are monosyllabic; why not bolts and nuts? --Lambiam 11:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You ever try slipping a nut over the backside of a bolt? Don't. Or wear thick gloves, at least! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only yesterday I finished reading Caught in the Web of Words, the story of Sir James Murray (lexicographer) and the genesis of the Oxford English Dictionary. A few things caught my eye, including his use of the phrase "tear-and-wear" (p. 309). He was from the Scottish Borders, and maybe that's the way they say it up there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notwithstanding their influence, we apprehend, however, that dictionary-makers are on the whole an oppressed race, doomed to more than their due share of obscure drudgery. […]" A doomed race, they're calling themselves. --Askedonty (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I was just talking about this with someone. They said that it has something to do with where the vowels are vocalized in the mouth. Like you start with the the word that's made closer to the throat, and end with the word that's made in the front of the mouth. (I don't know the technical terms for this, sorry.) Almost all the examples given above adhere to this pattern. Wikipedia's examples of what are apparently called "ablaut duplications" fit this pattern as well. Temerarius (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems there are several possible explanations for how any particular order might have developed, and as usual in language, there are exceptions and irregularities. It's worth noting that my initial puzzle was with pairs of words that have usage outside of particular idioms or exclamations, but which still maintain the defined order wherever they are used together (so this excludes pairs such as 'cloak and dagger' or 'lo and behold' etc., which I think have very prescribed usage). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Princess Mary never getting married

How come Henry VIII's eldest daughter Mary never got married in her youth while she was a princess before her father's death? 86.129.17.70 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the third paragraph of Mary I of England#Childhood. The marriage of a princess was an important matter of international diplomacy and alliance, and was utilised to secure the most valuable political outcome possible. Several such marriages were planned, proposed or discussed, but all of these arrangements fell through or were not pursued for one reason or another. Subsequently Henry had his marriage to her mother Catherine of Aragon, who could evidently not provide him with a male heir, annulled and married his pregnant mistress Anne Boleyn. This rendered Mary legally illegitimate and therefore a much less desirable spouse, and put her at personal odds with her father. After Anne's execution when Mary was 20 years old, things got really complicated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see the First Succession Act 1534 (when Mary had just turned 18) which laid out the reasons that Henry's marriage to Catherine had been annulled and "that the children proceeding and procreated under such unlawful marriage, shall not be lawful nor legitimate; any foreign laws, licences, dispensations, or other thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding". [1] Also Mary was an avowed Catholic which would make marriage to a Protestant prince problematic, and Henry's break with Rome strained relations with the Catholic powers in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was because she was illegitimate? 86.129.17.70 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about marriage "in her youth". She was not rendered illegitimate (in English law) until she was seventeen, which is well beyond "youth" as it was understood at the time both for women in general and princesses in particular – remember that she was first contracted to a future marriage at the age of two. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.239.195} 90.203.10.153 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is far too facile an explanation. Please read above, there are lots of reasons, several that were explained above. The marriage of a daughter of a king was not taken lightly, and Henry's use of his daughters as political bargaining chips became problematic after his split from the Church of Rome; he basically created a "third way" church in doing so, he maintained much of Catholic dogma and practice that many Protestants did not particularly like, while declaring his independence from Rome pissed off many Catholic nations. Remember, Henry hated Martin Luther and everything he stood for; and Lutheranism was the only meaningful (politically speaking) form of protestantism at the time. There was not a lot of diplomatic opportunity for Henry to secure an advantageous marriage for either of his daughters on the Continent. The best marriage alliance that was secured for Henry after his split with Rome was the marriage of Henry himself to a rather minor German noblewoman Anne of Cleves; neither Anne's prospects as a wife, nor the political advantage of it, amounted to anything and it cost Thomas Cromwell, Henry's chief minister, his life. Henry had a really hard time diplomatically throughout his life, and his lack of prospects for marriages for his children was one of the symptom of that diplomatic problem. It really had little to do with the illegitimacy of Mary, that didn't help, but half the continent didn't recognize the act that made her illegitimate in the first place. --Jayron 32 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the TV series The Tudors, Mary (played by 16-18 year old Sarah Bolger) remained unmarried from toddler to the age of 30 at the end of the series. In the first few episodes of season 1, she was to be married to King Francis' son but was declined. She was then betrothed to Charles of Spain but declined as well. In the final episode of season 3, she fell in love with Philip of Bavaria but he was sent away, which broked her heart. In the first few episodes of season 4, Catherine Howard was surprised that Mary was still not married and she broke down in tears with Eustace Chapuys comforting her when she realised she will probably never get married. And in the final episode, the ghost of her mother tells Henry that Mary ought to be a long time married by now and have her own children. 86.129.17.70 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider there to be anything remarkable in this. After all, Mary's younger sister Elizabeth never married at all. 92.19.168.81 (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]