Editing Talk:1661: Podium

Well as a non-english native, I just recently found that the term podium and lectern were used "wrong" on xkcd. Especially because the lectern is often placed on a podium. So when trying to make a description in a transcript of what the scene looks like you would have to write that ''Cueball is standing behind a podium placed on a podium'' if you did not use the correct word of lectern, or be changing both words ''Cueball is standing behind a podium placed on a scene''. So it would be so much easier if people just used lectern, but I guess this is not the way it will be going, maybe except for xkcd readers now? When I found out recently (March 1st) that there were several podiums in explain xkcd where they should have been lecterns I corrected them all. Although I think it is unlikely that Randall would notice this, it is funny for me, that he makes this joke less than a month after I made the correction. And since I did not know about this before, I was not aware that there was these discussions going on ;-) At least it seems that Randall doesn't take sides in this discussion, although he may think it is silly. (Just like using one type of [[1643: Degrees]] rather than another. What is correct and what will be understood). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:Do we have any evidence or knowledge that Randall Munroe knows about and/or visits explainxkcd.com?  It's not officially connected with him or xkcd.org, as far as I know. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:I agree that "podium" is just wrong. Just because so-called "dictionaries" want to coddle people who use words incorrectly doesn't mean we should allow them to ruin our language. Allowing people to use "podium" to mean a stand for notes is as bad as allowing people to use "explain" to mean to describe or make intelligible. The word "explain" comes from Old French, where it meant "flatten out", as is obvious from the etymology: Latin "ex-" + "plano", or "out-" + "(I) flatten". This is easy to remember because it sounds like "esplanade", a cleared or leveled space, a noun with related etymology. English has a perfectly good verb, "irecchen", with the desired meaning. Clearly, this site is meant to level out XKCD, to make it flat and featureless, not to make it easier to understand, and I applaud it for using the word correctly. However, I would like to take issue with the misuse of the word "discuss" on this site. This word was borrowed from Norman French with the meaning "shaken apart", but is only properly used in medical history and archaeology—and, even then, it is often misused as "discussed", ignoring the fact that it is already a past participle. In the common language of the uneducated, it is nearly always used to mean "converse about", but the Latin etymology as a participle of "dis-" + "quatere", or "apart-" + "shake", should make it clear how ridiculous this is. Even if we were to allow the medieval monastic fad for using "discuss" figuratively to mean sifting the truth out of text by arguing over them vigorously, that still cannot justify the so-called modern meaning that our dictionaries promulgate. Wé mōton standen for Englisc propre! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105|162.158.255.105]] 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::I was all ready to go on an [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html etymological fallacy] rant, but then I kept reading and my sarcasm detector finally went off. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.53|173.245.54.53]] 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have huge reference libraries personally, including science and tech, law, medicine, philosophy, arts, etc. I find it a Chinese curse, to need an online subscription for OED 3, after managing to acquire OED 2 v 3 & v4 in forms suitable for both PC and mobile carry, plus Merriam-Webster unabridged as an offline mobile app. Ullman's (industrial chemistry) dwarfs those, however. That noted, dictionaries require active public input, and are plagued by inarticulate speakers. The degradation of "unique" into a comparative is contrary to core etymology. OTOH, "yawl" and "ketch" remain difficult to define as to the basic rigs, while their comparison to each other and "sloop" has been improved as lexicographers have been called out for failing to focus on the key distinction of whether a mizzen mast is stepped fore or aft of the rudder post, not the rudder, or arbitrary relative sail sizes. Nudist and naturist are scrambled by common usage to be both ambiguous, versus to reflect philosophical or religious aspects of naturism versus outward practices or social and business based nudism, while misuse as if conflated with naturalist has decreased, and inclusion of naturist improved. Many dictionaries have recognized schadenfreude as becoming an English word, while despite circa 1981 origins well over the 20 year rule, only a few better dictionaries are yet listing compersion.

Fuck, gender, and profanity now see around 8,000 combined instances in OED 3, close to ten times their presence in OED 2 v4. Jesse Scheidlower, OED editor at large and author of a single word dictionary of "fuck" variants now up to 320 pages in its 3rd edition, gets some credit for that honesty movement over words some unethical publishers have censored or tampered pandering to crooked bigot infested school boards and legislatures. Theist, atheist, pantheist, polytheist, and similar terms are messier, as their common usage is mangled by prejudice based contexts and eastern and western history getting scrambled. Now test for theology versus thealogy, or etymology and definitions for witch (male and female in modern English) versus misrepresentation of warlock (oathbreaker), or words used by both reclaiming identity movements, and as slurs, eg slants, dyke, redskins, q***r, n*****s, pagan, witch, etc. Quality of both dictionaries, and society itself, can be tested by such comparisons.

By joking about politicians using word issues as evasion, Randall could help promote the values that honest understanding of the nature of language and misconceptions of dictionaries and authorities are important. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:I deleted most of your contributions, because they were (in my opinion) unreasonably long and confusing. Sorry, Loki57. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.13|108.162.221.13]] 13:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this whole stucture with elevation and a barrier called "pulpit"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.222|162.158.102.222]] 07:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:A pulpit is a fixed platform, usually partly enclosed, and usually in a church and built specifically for the purpose of sermons. You could describe a pulpit as a kind of podium, but not a _typical_ kind. Also, if there's a stand on a pulpit, it's not a lectern; that word is only used for the smaller stand off to the side of the pulpit for use by lay readers.
:Of course in the kinds of Evangelical churches that have banished the distinction between lay speakers and clergy, and turned the entire stage into a pulpit (no chancel, nave, or even altar), the preacher's stand may be called a lectern. But in that case, there's really no raised podium in the first place, unless you want to call the entire stage a podium.
:The different connotations of "pulpit" and "podium" definitely lead to different metaphorical or figurative uses. For example, it's hard to imagine Teddy Roosevelt talking about the Presidency as a "bully podium". (Of course "bully pulpit" is also hard to imagine a century later, with "bully" no longer meaning "excellent", and sermonizing now being something you accuse religious-right or PC-left politicians of rather than something politicians of high integrity are credited with…) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105|162.158.255.105]] 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Yes Wikipedia defines a {{w|pulpit}} as "a raised stand for preachers in a Christian church." But they can look quite like a lectern in some situations, as can be seen by searching for pictures of pulpit. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


There isn't a good explanation yet for what "a primary challenge from the prescriptivist base" means.<br>
Wikipedia has a good definition for a "primary challenge" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge) but a bit more may be necessary for people who don't closely follow American politics.<br>
In American politics, a primary challenge usually occurs when an incumbent politician has offended the more radical wing of their party. For example a Republican politician (this is usually seen as the more right-wing party in US politics) who takes moderate-to-liberal actions while in office will often face a primary challenge from a much more conservative Republican (someone on the extreme right), while a Democrat politician (the more left-wing party in the US) who takes moderate-to-conservative actions will often face a primary challenge from a much more liberal Democrat (someone on the extreme left). <br>
Two dramatic examples from recent US history are when Tom Foley (then the Republican Speaker of the House) faced (and lost) a primary challenge from the more conservative George Nethercutt in 1994, and when Richard Lugar (a widely respected senior Republican senator) lost a primary challenge to the more conservative Richard Mourdock in 2012. Here is an article on the latter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/lugar-loses-primary-challenge-in-indiana.html <br>
Part of the joke here is that by using "prescriptivist base" in the same way that political commentators do when referring to the extreme right or left wing elements of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, Randall is comparing the extreme mindset and behavior of linguistic prescriptivists with radical right-wing and left-wing ideologues. 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)!

EDIT: (I'm new to this), the basic fact is that the latin root of podium is pod- which means foot, or the thing up on which you stand, and the root of "lectern" is Lectio-" which means "to read".  In medieval times, the "lecturer" literally was just the "reader" and he read at his lectern.  I feel like this is the simplest solution. -KCSEO

Since people typically stand on a podium behind a lectern, there's a subtle pun in "getting to the bottom of this". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43|173.245.54.43]] 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'?  [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones).  A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'?  [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 :A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones).  A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear.  Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 13:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
-Personally I would take the podium standpoint ''and'' be fully behind the lecturn position. Because that's the single best place to make a speech from. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.13|141.101.98.13]] 13:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)