4 ms·

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"

by ben_w 1y ago

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"?

nkrisc 1y ago
“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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- swores 1y ago
  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.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    I meant colloquially.
BobbyTables2 1y ago
Indeed. We expect olive oil to be made from real olives, but not baby oil…
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  The coffee cake is a lie.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    18 years in the USA and this still makes me sad. https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/jennys-coffee-cake/e2f028f1-c4eb-4a50-94a8-18bd0a5df379 https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/jennys-coffee-cake/e2f028f1...
mcswell 1y ago
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 :).
- Birch-san 1y ago
  “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.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    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.
    - card_zero 1y ago
      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]".
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        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.
tchalla 1y ago
Isn’t it Zahnpasta in German too?
- ffsm8 1y ago
  Sometimes you need a (language) barrier to realize a inconsistency/detail which you'd never take notice of otherwise.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Tomato paste is Tomatenmark, not Tomatenpaste though.
tacker2000 1y ago
There was some joke where they showed a sign saying “Kinder Kebab, €2”
boothby 1y ago
Thanks for this, I'll be calling it toothhairpaste regardless of what the marketing department comes up with.
SweetSoftPillow 1y ago
Is Baby Oil made from...?
readthenotes1 1y ago
I only clean my teeth with a dentifrice. I do not want to have to risk turning my teeth into paste!
glial 1y ago
And "pasta" is just the Italian word for paste.

by ben_w 1y ago

nkrisc 1y ago

“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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
swores 1y ago
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.
- nkrisc 1y ago
  I meant colloquially.

BobbyTables2 1y ago

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

Waterluvian 1y ago
The coffee cake is a lie.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  18 years in the USA and this still makes me sad. https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/jennys-coffee-cake/e2f028f1-c4eb-4a50-94a8-18bd0a5df379 https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/jennys-coffee-cake/e2f028f1...

mcswell 1y ago

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 :).

Birch-san 1y ago
“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.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  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.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    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]".
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      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.

tchalla 1y ago

Isn’t it Zahnpasta in German too?

ffsm8 1y ago
Sometimes you need a (language) barrier to realize a inconsistency/detail which you'd never take notice of otherwise.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Tomato paste is Tomatenmark, not Tomatenpaste though.

tacker2000 1y ago

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

boothby 1y ago

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

SweetSoftPillow 1y ago

Is Baby Oil made from...?

readthenotes1 1y ago

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

glial 1y ago

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