4 ms·

Is the average reader of NYTimes really so well-versed with Latin that they'd know phrases such as "sine qua non"? I've typically seen such phrases used when th

Is the average reader of NYTimes really so well-versed with Latin that they'd know phrases such as "sine qua non"? I've typically seen such phrases used when the context makes the meaning clear, but this was a real stumper, and my guess is it was for others too. Why is it considered good UX to make your readers switch context to do a google search and then return to reading the article? I'm not a native English speaker, and perhaps this speaks more about my non-elite education.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 8y ago
You don't need to master Latin to understand "sine qua non". A few languages have latin expressions as part of the proper language way of speaking, vs colloquial language, "sine qua non" being a relatively common one. So given the intended audience of NY Times it doesn't seem out of place. Likewise in Germany it would surprise me to read such expressions on The Bild, on The Süd Deutsche Zeitung, perfectly reasonable.
gnicholas 8y ago
This would be fairly common knowledge among lawyers, who become familiar with many Latin phrases in law school. But I agree that this was not a particularly good usage. I would have instead described math skills as "foundational". This communicates the same concept without being pretentious or opaque.
vixen99 8y ago
Latin phrases are in common English usage as is this one. Their use is nothing to do with elite education. It doesn't take long to become familiar with some of the most frequently met ones. I might add that a number of European languages use them extensively.
perl4ever 8y ago
It's not really something that comes from knowing Latin per se, (see what I did there) but just the sort of Latin phrases that were typically used in English writing of the 20th century. Due to the explosion of the Internet, I think there are a lot more people who speak and write fluent English without much experience reading books in English. It used to be that the average reader of the NY Times did read books, I would think, but maybe not so much any more.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  Also due to the internet I don't think using a latin phrase like this is an issue. If the reader doesn't recognize it, the definition is only a couple of clicks away.
  - backpropaganda 8y ago
    Hence the question: Why is it considered good UX to make your readers switch context to do a google search and then return to reading the article?
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      It's a matter of the expected audience. The NY Times is known for a supplement called the New York Times Book Review. Although it may be anachronistic today, it points to how readers of the newspaper and readers of books traditionally overlapped. Books tend to use language not commonly found in speech or informal internet communications.
brianmcc 8y ago
Oh absolutely there will be people to whom it's new, but it's up there with phrases like "quid pro quo", "pro bono", or "quod erat demonstrandum" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. - which aren't all that rare. Et cetera of course is the cool kid amongst Latin stuff we borrow today :-)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pjmlp 8y ago

You don't need to master Latin to understand "sine qua non". A few languages have latin expressions as part of the proper language way of speaking, vs colloquial language, "sine qua non" being a relatively common one. So given the intended audience of NY Times it doesn't seem out of place. Likewise in Germany it would surprise me to read such expressions on The Bild, on The Süd Deutsche Zeitung, perfectly reasonable.

gnicholas 8y ago

This would be fairly common knowledge among lawyers, who become familiar with many Latin phrases in law school. But I agree that this was not a particularly good usage. I would have instead described math skills as "foundational". This communicates the same concept without being pretentious or opaque.

vixen99 8y ago

Latin phrases are in common English usage as is this one. Their use is nothing to do with elite education. It doesn't take long to become familiar with some of the most frequently met ones. I might add that a number of European languages use them extensively.

perl4ever 8y ago

It's not really something that comes from knowing Latin per se, (see what I did there) but just the sort of Latin phrases that were typically used in English writing of the 20th century. Due to the explosion of the Internet, I think there are a lot more people who speak and write fluent English without much experience reading books in English. It used to be that the average reader of the NY Times did read books, I would think, but maybe not so much any more.

LyndsySimon 8y ago
Also due to the internet I don't think using a latin phrase like this is an issue. If the reader doesn't recognize it, the definition is only a couple of clicks away.
- backpropaganda 8y ago
  Hence the question: Why is it considered good UX to make your readers switch context to do a google search and then return to reading the article?
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    It's a matter of the expected audience. The NY Times is known for a supplement called the New York Times Book Review. Although it may be anachronistic today, it points to how readers of the newspaper and readers of books traditionally overlapped. Books tend to use language not commonly found in speech or informal internet communications.

brianmcc 8y ago

Oh absolutely there will be people to whom it's new, but it's up there with phrases like "quid pro quo", "pro bono", or "quod erat demonstrandum" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. - which aren't all that rare. Et cetera of course is the cool kid amongst Latin stuff we borrow today :-)