I've certainly only used it or seen it used as a generic, gender-neutral term.

(And only in the phrase ad hominem .)

As Kosmonaut mentions, part of it is that it's in a different language, so any gender mismatch * is not going to be apparent to people unless they know some Latin.

But there's also the fact that classically, in many languages the word for "man" had two meanings: (1) a masculine person, and (2) a member of mankind; a person (of unspecified gender).

Modernly, the second meaning is sometimes seen as prejudiced against women, and thus people come up with all sorts of newfangled constructs to avoid that usage.

Thus you get (hopefully ** ) deliberate plays on words like " ad feminam ", which doesn't actually mean much of anything, but is understandable if taken in parallel with ad hominem .

* As JSBangs points out, homo is not actually the Latin word for a specifically masculine person — that would be vir — so there actually is no gender mismatch with using ad hominem when the subject of the attack is female.

** If the usage was not deliberately playful, but meant sincerely and literally, I would find it to be sad evidence of the decline of society.

No one seems to have pointed out, so far, that the Latin words for male man and female woman are not "homo" and "femina" but vir and femina .

Homo does not refer to "man" as in "male", but man as in "human".

That's (part of the reason)

why male things are "masculine", and not "hominine"!

Ad hominem , in Latin, literally means to the person ; it doesn't make any reference to the sex of the person.

Ad feminam is found in the Corpus of Contemporary American ; it seems a "back-formation", as it first appears in the period between 1920-1929.

As Churchill said, "the masculine embraces the feminine.

" It's Latin, so I think only the most, as you say, po-mo pedant would object to ad hominem .

In any case, ad hominem describes the argument, not the target.

The fact that the target is a woman is irrelevant, IMHO.

To take it one step further - the term "ad hominem" has a meaning in English that it doesn't in Latin, since it's part of a classic list of fallacies.

The term "Ad feminam", whatever other merits it may possess, is simply not included in that list.

So when you use "ad feminam", you're simply losing accuracy.

Not to mention that the listener probably doesn't speak Latin, and may not have any idea what it's supposed to mean.

I think if we were Latin speakers, then there would be merit to the distinction.

But we're not, and hominem doesn't mean anything to the average English speaker on its own; it only means something as part of the phrase ad hominem , which is used to describe the insertion of a personal attack into a debate.

The "man" meaning from Latin is not particularly transparent to English speakers, and so it is not a problem.

(Think of similar things like "fraternal twins", which is happily applied even to girl twins.)

Phrases like ombudsman do have a transparent structure, at least in the -man suffix, which many English speakers directly link with the noun man .

So, this type of word would be much more likely to become "neutralized" in the name of political correctness.

Whoever used ad feminam was almost certainly using word-play intentionally, and I think it is safe to say that this word is not likely to establish itself in the standard lexicon.

I would reply to tchrist that homo- in "homosexual" is indeed a root meaning "same", but not a Latin one.

It is a Greek root illogically attached to a latin noun.

Homo, hominis DOES mean "man" in Latin, not "same" – see Homo Erectus , Homo Sapiens , etc.

However, not having the required 50 points, I cannot reply directly.

To answer the question, Ad Feminam is correct if you want top be specific as to the gender of the person to which one refers to.

However, as was mentioned before, Homo also takes the general meaning of mankind, as it still does to some extent in modern languages – like in the expression " man slaughter"in English, or in the French "Déclaration Internationale des Droits de l’Homme ", instead of the more contemporaneously PC "Déclaration Internationale des Droits des Humains "), etc.

Anyway, I believe more or less everything I said was already mentioned before.

But I just wanteds to add my cherry onto to the Homo cake.

Topical humour!

Yay!

Question: My immediate thought is that the term  is  generic, and yet I read recently a verbal brickbat described as  ad feminam . Was that just a po-mo back-formation, or is there some merit to the distinction?   [Mind you, it's likely I saw it in the same office where a proofer once changed an unrelated text I wrote to read  ombudsperson , so ....]

Is "ad hominem" gender-neutral?

It's possible that "ad hominem" is a generic, gender-neutral term. "Homo" does not refer to "man" as in "male" but "man" as in "human". Therefore "ad hominem" in Latin, literally means "to the person" and makes no reference to the sex of the person. That being said, "Ad feminam" is found in the Corpus of Contemporary American and appears to be a back-formation that appeared in the period between 1920-1929.

"Ad hominem" is seen as a generic neutral noun, mainly because the origin is Latin means "man" as in mankind. This means the wording  "Ad feminam", which doesn't actually mean much according to some, is only  understandable if contrasted with ad hominem . "Homo" in fact is not the Latin word for "man", which is "vir; "homo" in Latin relates to human,  and so the implication "ad hominem" means "man/mankind" in a generic sense, thus the feminine invented form  "ad feminam" is a misnomer, even though "Ad feminam"  is found in the  Corpus of Contemporary American between 1920-1929.  In essence, the term "ad hominem" relates to the argument not the target, which is used to describe the insertion of a personal attack into a debate,  so it is fallacious attributing it to the target. Thus, using "ad feminam" as the counterparty to "ad hominem" is inaccurate, although there is a likelihood it will enter into the contemporary lexicon as the equal to "ad hominem".

Ad hominem, in Latin, literally means  to the person; it doesn't make any reference to the sex of the person. It is a generic, gender-neutral term.

Yes, "ad hominem" is generally considered to be a gender-neutral term.

** If the usage was not deliberately playful, but meant sincerely and literally, I would find it to be sad evidence of the decline of society.

I've certainly only used it or seen it used as a generic, gender-neutral term.

As Kosmonaut mentions, part of it is that it's in a different language, so any gender mismatch * is not going to be apparent to people unless they know some Latin.

But there's also the fact that classically, in many languages the word for "man" had two meanings: (1) a masculine person, and (2) a member of mankind; a person (of unspecified gender).

Thus you get (hopefully ** ) deliberate plays on words like " ad feminam ", which doesn't actually mean much of anything, but is understandable if taken in parallel with ad hominem .

* As JSBangs points out, homo is not actually the Latin word for a specifically masculine person — that would be vir — so there actually is no gender mismatch with using ad hominem when the subject of the attack is female.

No one seems to have pointed out, so far, that the Latin words for male man and female woman are not "homo" and "femina" but vir and femina .

Homo does not refer to "man" as in "male", but man as in "human".

Ad hominem , in Latin, literally means to the person ; it doesn't make any reference to the sex of the person.

Ad feminam is found in the Corpus of Contemporary American ; it seems a "back-formation", as it first appears in the period between 1920-1929.

In any case, ad hominem describes the argument, not the target.

The fact that the target is a woman is irrelevant, IMHO.

To take it one step further - the term "ad hominem" has a meaning in English that it doesn't in Latin, since it's part of a classic list of fallacies.

The term "Ad feminam", whatever other merits it may possess, is simply not included in that list.

So when you use "ad feminam", you're simply losing accuracy.

Not to mention that the listener probably doesn't speak Latin, and may not have any idea what it's supposed to mean.

However, as was mentioned before, Homo also takes the general meaning of mankind, as it still does to some extent in modern languages – like in the expression " man slaughter"in English, or in the French "Déclaration Internationale des Droits de l’Homme ", instead of the more contemporaneously PC "Déclaration Internationale des Droits des Humains "), etc.

I think if we were Latin speakers, then there would be merit to the distinction.

But we're not, and hominem doesn't mean anything to the average English speaker on its own; it only means something as part of the phrase ad hominem , which is used to describe the insertion of a personal attack into a debate.

The "man" meaning from Latin is not particularly transparent to English speakers, and so it is not a problem.

(Think of similar things like "fraternal twins", which is happily applied even to girl twins.)

Phrases like ombudsman do have a transparent structure, at least in the -man suffix, which many English speakers directly link with the noun man .

So, this type of word would be much more likely to become "neutralized" in the name of political correctness.

Whoever used ad feminam was almost certainly using word-play intentionally, and I think it is safe to say that this word is not likely to establish itself in the standard lexicon.

I would reply to tchrist that homo- in "homosexual" is indeed a root meaning "same", but not a Latin one.

It is a Greek root illogically attached to a latin noun.

Homo, hominis DOES mean "man" in Latin, not "same" – see Homo Erectus , Homo Sapiens , etc.

To answer the question, Ad Feminam is correct if you want top be specific as to the gender of the person to which one refers to.

We are misappropriating Latin terms and therefore "ad feminam" has no real basis.

We misunderstand the Latin terminology and therefore introduce inaccuracies in our interpretations.

As we are not Latin speakers we are attaching English language values to terms which do not apply.

Ad feminam is correct if you wish to relate to the gender of the person.


"Fugly" is indeed both vulgar and slang.

When I was growing up it in Chicago, it was understood as a combination word built of f***-ugly, where the first word is one of the proverbial words you can't say on the radio.

As a combination that was often used on the playground, it has less impact than the core four letter word.

But Horatio's description of it sounds about right - a direct insult.

Fugly is used in Britain, amongst certain groups of disreputable youths, as it is American slang, it must get in to the youth culture dialects via the usual media route.

However, there are far more common slang words that are very similar and used instead.

butters - a contraction of butt-ugly , slightly better form than using fugly (unless you have heard teen girls use it to bully someone, in which case any semblance of decency would fade beneath your jading eyes) minging - generally meaning "repulsive", from the Scots word mingin with the meaning "stinking", note it is also used for events/things that are disgusting in addition to the descriptive use for people NB.

Often used in the form of an agent noun instead, minger (there is also munter , but I refuse to explain what munting means and strongly suggest no one looks it up if you want to retain your latest meal) rank - meaning "disgusting" and "repulsive" now, converted from the still used, more standard meaning of "malodorous" This word

has a long etymology, originally from the Old English ranc , see Online Etymology's account (the adjectival form)

rough - should be self explanatory in this context manky - meaning "unclean" or "disgusting" I have seen mixed etymology on this, some say originating in London, others that it is from the French manqué (from manquer - "to lack, to miss out, to fail") and my personal view, the adjectival form of the archaic Scots word mank , meaning "maimed" - the Scots use manky far more than elsewhere in the past.

It fits with the current use best, any body part that is maimed would certainly be referred to as manky .

When I was a teenager in Upstate New York about 30 years ago, the word was standard issue.

As to how it was perceived: if you said it about a 3rd party, you received smirks and giggles.

If you called someone "fugly" to their face, it was met with fists.

Dictionary.com reports only that fugly means very ugly, extremely unattractive ; it doesn't report if it is vulgar, or slang.

Searching for fugly in the Corpus of Contemporary American , I find that the frequency that word is used is 0.01 per million in fiction, and 0.02 per million in magazines; it is not used in other contexts.

The word is only found in texts dated between 2005-2010 (with a frequency of 0.03 ).

I didn't find the word in the British National Corpus , but it doesn't contain data for texts after 1993.

Does what you are wearing make me think of you as more feminine or more elegant or more provocative or more intellectual or more street than I thought before?

And please forgive my chauvinism, but do I fancy you more?

A label in itself is no guarantee of desirability.

A hot designer's clothes can be brilliant or flat-out fugly.

I think women on the whole are more interested to know how they are being assessed by other women; maybe they feel the details are wasted on men.

But as a man, when I see women in outlandish getups, I certainly have some kind of internal dialogue with myself that comes under the heading "What were you thinking?"

—When Women Try too Hard, Christopher Brooks.

"Fugly" is an offensive term which is generally used to refer to a person that the speaker considers to be ugly and unattractive.

I've heard the word used

and it's one that would be recognized most places in America as vulgar slang.

I've heard it used in the midwest and western United States.

Question: "Fugly" is a vulgar slang adjective as far as I know, and I wonder how common it is, and how do people react when they hear that word. Native speakers are appreciated if they share their opinions.

How common is "fugly"?

"Fugly" is indeed vulgar slang and may have been very popular 30 years ago. As to how it was perceived, it you said it about a third party, you would receive giggles, but if you said "fugly" to someone's face, it was met with fists. The word is only found in texts dated between 2005 and 2010.

Fugly is vulgar slang meaning that someone is considered ugly and unattractive, although it may not be as offensive as some other vulgar terms.

Fugly  is used in Britain, amongst certain groups of disreputable youths, as it is American slang, it must get in to the youth culture dialects via the usual media route. It is offensive vulgar slang word which is generally used to refer to a person that the speaker considers to be ugly and unattractive.

"Fugly" is considered vulgar and slang, and how common it is will depend where you are.

"Fugly" is indeed both vulgar and slang.

When I was growing up it in Chicago, it was understood as a combination word built of f***-ugly, where the first word is one of the proverbial words you can't say on the radio.

As a combination that was often used on the playground, it has less impact than the core four letter word.

When I was a teenager in Upstate New York about 30 years ago, the word was standard issue.

As to how it was perceived: if you said it about a 3rd party, you received smirks and giggles.

If you called someone "fugly" to their face, it was met with fists.

However, there are far more common slang words that are very similar and used instead.

butters - a contraction of butt-ugly , slightly better form than using fugly (unless you have heard teen girls use it to bully someone, in which case any semblance of decency would fade beneath your jading eyes) minging - generally meaning "repulsive", from the Scots word mingin with the meaning "stinking", note it is also used for events/things that are disgusting in addition to the descriptive use for people NB.

Often used in the form of an agent noun instead, minger (there is also munter , but I refuse to explain what munting means and strongly suggest no one looks it up if you want to retain your latest meal) rank - meaning "disgusting" and "repulsive" now, converted from the still used, more standard meaning of "malodorous" This word

Dictionary.com reports only that fugly means very ugly, extremely unattractive ; it doesn't report if it is vulgar, or slang.

"Fugly" is an offensive term which is generally used to refer to a person that the speaker considers to be ugly and unattractive.

I've heard it used in the midwest and western United States.

Searching for fugly in the Corpus of Contemporary American , I find that the frequency that word is used is 0.01 per million in fiction, and 0.02 per million in magazines; it is not used in other contexts.

The word is only found in texts dated between 2005-2010 (with a frequency of 0.03 ).

I didn't find the word in the British National Corpus , but it doesn't contain data for texts after 1993.


It can be summed up by an illustration: Source: Indexed

Skeptical means “having reservations”.

Someone who is skeptical will not easily be convinced, will be hard to persuade.

The main meaning of cynical is “believing the worst of people”, or as NOAD says, “distrustful of human sincerity or integrity”.

By extension, it has come to mean “doubting something will happen”, which can be somewhat close in meaning to skeptical in some cases, but not generally.

As an example, in the sentence “John is skeptical about the motorway extension”, you could replace skeptical with cynical without altering the meaning.

In the sentence “John is skeptical about global warming”, you could not do this change.

Likewise, in “John has a cynical attitude”, you could not use skeptical instead.

A person who is cynical generally has a very bad outlook on life, and has very little faith in others.

A person who is skeptical is more likely to put in the appropriate research before believing what they are told.

Someone who is cynical usually assumes people are out to screw them.

Someone who is skeptical understands there are bad people out there, and that is why we must be careful and deliberate in our decisions.

The meaning of cynical is: Believing that only selfishness motivates human actions; not believing in disinterested points of view; feeling uncertain if something will happen or it is worth the effort spent.

Showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions. Pessimistic.

The meaning of skeptical is: Having/showing doubt.

Denying or questioning the tenets of a religion.

regarding the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics.

The words have different meanings; even in the case they both mean having doubts , cynical has a more specific meaning.

The examples reported from the NOAD of sentences containing cynical or skeptical are the following:

Most residents are cynical about efforts to clean mobsters out of their city.

He gave a cynical laugh.

Stalin had struck a cynical deal with Hitler.

The public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals.

A person is rarely a cynic.

Cynicism is a transient attitude which is modified in the light of changing conditions and can be just as healthy as skepticism.

The implications above that one may switch from one to the other without intervening new information and consideration, is ridiculous.

I had hoped that my diatribe would have made this clear.

The cynical desire of History Channel to attract viewers by including irrelevant and even incorrect material teaches me to be skeptical of its production values.

If the History Channel were to become more fastidious about their product I may become less cynical and therefore less skeptical of what they present as history.

For example; In a program about Hitler's religious affiliations, the History Channel made great effort to prove that the madman was not a Christian and therefore the Christian Church could wash it's hands of indirect responsibility for his actions.

In the final minute they presented a statement from Hitler that was totally anti-Christian, but it was later found to be a cherry-pick collection of words from many statements Hitler had made, not a single speech at all.

Yet a viewer reading that statement off the screen would be convinced and unaware that he was being manipulated.

My cynicism has been generated by History Channel's action in trying to deceive me

and so I am now skeptical of HC as a source of reliable information.

Such cynicism in pursuit of a different outcome justifiably generates prudent skepticism of the source.

I'd never had a problem with differentiating the two

but I cannot agree with some of the clear divisions mentioned here.

Both are variables dependent on the place, the time and the people.

For an illustration of this other place — time and people, I choose History Channel and its need to fill empty program hole with something that will grab the attention of new viewers of a younger generation.

As these programs are inevitably being produced by those of the same later generation, they lose the perspective of older presenters and are punctuated with reactions of "wow!" and "unbelivable!" and detail that avoids getting to the core of the matter.

Therefore I have become cynical about these presentations.

Not skeptical because I know that what they present is true but their distraction with mind-blowing detail causes the producers (and therefore the viewers) to be led away from the core of the matter.

Hitler as Military Commander is an extremely succinct title which sets a goal that does not allow for much graphic detail and would therefore be boring to those who come looking for such excitement.

To my knowledge History Channel has not yet approached this topic and I hope they do not, because my skepticism leads me to expect that the current producers could not resist the temptation of straying beyond the threshold of necessary graphic detail into the field of blood and guts.

This was not the prime consideration of Hitler or even any of his generals, they were all cynical enough to think they were doing someone else a service when they were actually serving their own cynical need to command.

With rare delightful exceptions, History Channel is doing the same instead of serving History, and because of this I am cynical of its purpose and skeptical about its ability to stand separate from the back-ground noise.

Skeptics require evidence for claims made.

The main tool of their trade is critical thinking.

Skepticism is the base attitude for delving into other areas: religion, science, science-based medicine, cultural mores, etc.

It is an honest, though not always easy, way to approach life, and bears great fruit.

Cynics do not believe in inherent 'goodness', morality.

Thus, most things are wrong, bad, conspiratorial.

Evidence doesn't necessarily sway a cynic, as they abide by a relentless confirmation bias and stick to their guns.

In defense, life dishes out relentlessly harsh realities, which in some leads to justifiable cynicism.

Cynics are generally pessimistic and set, while skeptics remain open, but not so open that your brains fall out, as James Randi said.

There is obviously much gray area here, after all, we are dealing with the human condition.

Better to be a skeptic most of the time, but be a rabid cynic when calledfor.

There's probably something cynical in each one of us.

Question: Both the words "skeptical" and "cynical" refer to a doubtful mood, but what is the basic difference between them?

What is the difference between "skeptical" and "cynical"?

"Skeptical" means "having reservations" and that person will not be easily convinced. However, someone who is cynical generally has a very bad outlook on life and believes the worst of people. Evidence won't necessarily sway a cynic and cynics are generally pessimistic. Skeptics are considered to be open.

"Skeptical means “having reservations”, a "skeptic" is someone not easily  convinced, hard to persuade. "Cynical  is “believing the worst of people”, or as NOAD says, “distrustful of human sincerity or integrity and has come to mean “doubting something will happen”. Skeptical can mean not believing in the tenets of a religion for example. Skeptics require evidence as proof and tend to investigate and interrogate before believing. On the other hand, some don't believe people can be cynics permanently, that it is a passing mood, and with new information there is a likelihood that their stance might change. On the other hand, evidence will not necessaril sway a cynic -they do not believe in inherent goodness or goodwill.

A skeptic is someone who has reservations about claims and will try to discover the truth through evidence. It is the basic perspective of scientists and those wanting to deepen their knowledge. A cynic is someone who distrusts human sincerity and integrity, and may be generalised as having no faith in humanity and believing the worst, or rejecting simple optimism. Skeptics could be said to be open minded with reservations, while cynics could be more closed minded and pessimistic in their outlook.

Skeptical  means having reservations and doubts. A skeptic is likely to put in the appropriate research before believing what they are told and deliberate in their decisions.  Cynical means believing the worst of people, or as NOAD says, distrustful of human sincerity or integrity. They have little faith in others, believe that only selfishness motivates human actions; not believing in disinterested points of view; feeling uncertain if something will happen or it is worth the effort spent.

"Skeptical" means "having reservations" or "doubts" whereas "cynical" means "believing the worst of people" or "expecting the worst to happen".

Someone who is skeptical will not easily be convinced, will be hard to persuade.

The main meaning of cynical is “believing the worst of people”, or as NOAD says, “distrustful of human sincerity or integrity”.

A person who is cynical generally has a very bad outlook on life, and has very little faith in others.

A person who is skeptical is more likely to put in the appropriate research before believing what they are told.

Someone who is cynical usually assumes people are out to screw them.

Someone who is skeptical understands there are bad people out there, and that is why we must be careful and deliberate in our decisions.

The meaning of cynical is: Believing that only selfishness motivates human actions; not believing in disinterested points of view; feeling uncertain if something will happen or it is worth the effort spent.

Showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions. Pessimistic.

The meaning of skeptical is: Having/showing doubt.

Denying or questioning the tenets of a religion.

The words have different meanings; even in the case they both mean having doubts , cynical has a more specific meaning.

Skeptics require evidence for claims made.

The main tool of their trade is critical thinking.

Skepticism is the base attitude for delving into other areas: religion, science, science-based medicine, cultural mores, etc.

Cynics do not believe in inherent 'goodness', morality.

Evidence doesn't necessarily sway a cynic, as they abide by a relentless confirmation bias and stick to their guns.

In defense, life dishes out relentlessly harsh realities, which in some leads to justifiable cynicism.

Cynics are generally pessimistic and set, while skeptics remain open, but not so open that your brains fall out, as James Randi said.

There is obviously much gray area here, after all, we are dealing with the human condition.

Both are variables dependent on the place, the time and the people.

Cynicism is a transient attitude which is modified in the light of changing conditions and can be just as healthy as skepticism.

The implications above that one may switch from one to the other without intervening new information and consideration, is ridiculous.

There are a variety of traits that are inherent to skeptics and cynics and the main difference can be related to believing proof when shown as well as inherent mistrust of human intention.

Some don't believe people are cynics, that it is a passing mood.

The difference can depend on time and place

"Skeptical" means "having reservations" or "doubts".

"Cynical" means "believing the worst of people" or "expecting the worst to happen".


For a word that can refer to both married people or people in a relationship, you can use cheat , cheater , two-time (informal).

Two-time is also used as verb, as reported from the NOAD:

He was two-timing a fiancé back in England .

For people who are married, you can use adulterer (which is gender-neutral) or adulteress (when referring to her).

Adulterer is gender neutral but refers specifically to a marriage, not other relationships.

edit:

Merriam-Webster lists a female form, adulteress , but it seems to have fallen into disuse.

The term philanderer could be used, although it is more rare and often used along with the other terms mentioned (adulterer/adulteress/two-timer/cheater).

The person who engages in philandering is a person who engages in at least one, if not many frivolous sexual exploits outside of the bounds of marriage.

Philanderer has a strong male connotation.

I have not heard this term used in reference to females.

You dirty, rotten, two-timing, cheating, adulterous philanderer!

I trusted you!

When referring to an unfaithful woman, sometimes much more vulgar terms are used, usually in relation to her sexual morals and/or her potential willingness to engage in prostitution.

Most commonly the betrayer is referred to as an adulterer, although cheater works as a more colloquial term.

I'm pretty sure it is gender neutral, as well.

The technical/formal/old(?) term is adulterer/adulteress.

The term used by ordinary people in not-extremely-formal contexts is cheater.

Cheating on one's spouse is not the only way to betray them; there are several others e.g. disclosing a spouse's deepest secrets, causing your spouse some form of public humiliation, etc.

If the betrayal involves sexual escapades or an illicit/extramarital affair, then relevant terms are: cheat

• womanizer • skirt-chaser • adulterer[ress] •

fornicator • heartbreaker •

philanderer • husband-snatcher • two-timer • unfaithful spouse • ladies' man • seductress

Don Juan • Casanova

The word for a man/woman who is married and has sex with a woman/man who is not his/her wife/husband is adulterer/adulteress

While English does retain some nouns for a person who displays infidelity in a marital relationship, these terms have the sense of being curiously dated.

To call a person "a cheat" or "a philanderer" harkens back to the kind of language you'd hear in some Doris Day-Rock Hudson comedy from yesteryear.

It is possible to say, "he's an adulterer," but to do so is branding the person with an identity, and socially it's becoming less permissible to do that.

Rather, the more common ways to express this sort of thing is through more active terms that describe the activity itself:

He's cheating on her.

She's seeing another man.

He was unfaithful to her.

She went around behind his back.

Etc.

From a British perspective, I would say that cheat (exactly the same spelling as the verb) and two-timer (with an r ) are the standard nouns describing people outside a marriage.

Cheater is used colloquially, but is frowned upon as incorrect.

Two-time is used as a verb, not a noun.

As others have stated, adulterer and adulteress are the standard, formal terms for people within a marriage.

Perhaps not PC, but in English common law betrayal of one's husband (or lord) was called petit treason.

However this tended to be for extreme betrayals: a knife in the back where the blade was rather more solid than a metaphor.

A philanderer can be a person who is not married.

Works for both man and woman: Bedswerver

One who swerves from and is unfaithful to the marriage vow.

It is infidelity or an affair (marriage) vs cheating "the game" and its "players" and "sluts" on both sides, when it comes to dating.

Most marriages are just a pipe dream between two "players" who regain their love for "the game" eventually.

Well, on average it takes seven years; Then the carriage turns back into a pumpkin.

Question: What do you call someone who betrays his/her spouse sexually? Is the word different for men and women? Is it different for people who are in a relationship and not still married?

What do you call someone who betrays his/her spouse sexually?

For a word that refers to both married people or people in a relationship who betray their partner, you can use "cheat", "cheater" or "two-time". For people who are married, the term "adulterer" can also be used when referring to a man and "adulteress" when referring to a woman. Sometimes more vulgar terms are used when referring to an unfaithful woman.

The word "cheater" can be used for both male and females who are not loyal to their partner. "Two-timing" is another term used in the UK.  For married partners "adulterer" is the term used, although some consider this an older term. "Philanderer" is also used solely for a man, who has sexual affairs outside marriage. There are more derogatory terms used for women equating her to a prostitute. Some feel "cheat" and "philanderer" are old terms whereas "adulterer" is more modern. Some consider "cheater" as a colloquial expression.  A philanderer can also be a person who is not married. Another older term from French is "petit treason" and again another term suggested is "bedswearver" for both male and females.

For married couples, adulterer can be used, but it is more formal and antiquated than other terms. Cheater is the most common term that applies to any relationship, although terms like two-timer and philanderer can be used in some contexts. More colloquial terms include womaniser, skirt-chaser, husband-snatcher or bedswerver.

The word for a man/woman who is married and has sex with a woman/man who is not his/her wife/husband is adulterer(gender neutral)/adulteress(female). Other terms that can be used for both married people or in relationships  include betrayer, cheat or philanderer. More informal terms include; cheat or two-timer.

The gender-neutral term for someone who sexually betrays their spouse is "adulterer" or "adultress", although "cheater" is also used in colloquial speech. Other terms that may apply include "bedswerver" or "philanderer".

If the betrayal involves sexual escapades or an illicit/extramarital affair, then relevant terms are: cheat

He was two-timing a fiancé back in England .

For a word that can refer to both married people or people in a relationship, you can use cheat , cheater , two-time (informal).

Two-time is also used as verb, as reported from the NOAD:

He was two-timing a fiancé back in England .

For people who are married, you can use adulterer (which is gender-neutral) or adulteress (when referring to her).

Adulterer is gender neutral but refers specifically to a marriage, not other relationships.

The technical/formal/old(?) term is adulterer/adulteress.

The term used by ordinary people in not-extremely-formal contexts is cheater.

Most commonly the betrayer is referred to as an adulterer, although cheater works as a more colloquial term.

I'm pretty sure it is gender neutral, as well.

The word for a man/woman who is married and has sex with a woman/man who is not his/her wife/husband is adulterer/adulteress

It is possible to say, "he's an adulterer," but to do so is branding the person with an identity, and socially it's becoming less permissible to do that.

From a British perspective, I would say that cheat (exactly the same spelling as the verb) and two-timer (with an r ) are the standard nouns describing people outside a marriage.

Cheater is used colloquially, but is frowned upon as incorrect.

As others have stated, adulterer and adulteress are the standard, formal terms for people within a marriage.

The term philanderer could be used, although it is more rare and often used along with the other terms mentioned (adulterer/adulteress/two-timer/cheater).

The person who engages in philandering is a person who engages in at least one, if not many frivolous sexual exploits outside of the bounds of marriage.

Philanderer has a strong male connotation.

I have not heard this term used in reference to females.

You dirty, rotten, two-timing, cheating, adulterous philanderer!

To call a person "a cheat" or "a philanderer" harkens back to the kind of language you'd hear in some Doris Day-Rock Hudson comedy from yesteryear.

A philanderer can be a person who is not married.

When referring to an unfaithful woman, sometimes much more vulgar terms are used, usually in relation to her sexual morals and/or her potential willingness to engage in prostitution.

While English does retain some nouns for a person who displays infidelity in a marital relationship, these terms have the sense of being curiously dated.

Perhaps not PC, but in English common law betrayal of one's husband (or lord) was called petit treason.

However this tended to be for extreme betrayals: a knife in the back where the blade was rather more solid than a metaphor.

Works for both man and woman: Bedswerver

One who swerves from and is unfaithful to the marriage vow.

He was two-timing a fiancé back in England .

Philanderer has a strong male connotation.

Works for both man and woman: Bedswerver

There are numerous terms that can be used. Some refer to men only, and some are colloquial.

The technical, gender-neutral term for someone who sexually betrays their spouse is an adulterer or adultress.

"Cheater" is generally an accepted term for this in colloquial speech.

Some terms that might apply in this case are "bedswerver" or "philanderer".


Examples: Sarcastic:

Well, this meeting with the boss should be hilarious.

Sardonic: Time for the monthly flogging by a twerp in a suit; I'll try not to get blood on the executive carpet.

Sardonic humour is mocking, but not necessarily sarcastic; sarcasm is stating a counterfactual, whereas sardony is a moment of grim poetic humour and may or may not contain counterfactuals.

The above example uses melodrama rather than sarcasm as a device.

@Manoochehr doesn't quite catch the meaning of sardonic.

It means "grimly mocking or cynical.

" My Webster's gives its origin as mid 17th cent.: from French sardonique , earlier sardonien , via Latin from Greek sardonios ‘of Sardinia,’ alteration of sardanios, used by Homer to describe bitter or scornful laughter .

It really doesn't carry the connotation of superiority or low opinion all by itself, although such feelings may accompany it.

Sardonic is in fact distinct from sarcastic but not by much, and many people use the two as if they are interchangeable, which, strictly speaking, they are not.

Sardonic is more extreme and negative, and one can be sarcastic without being sardonic, and vice-versa.

According to Longman Dictionary of contemporary English: Sardonic : showing that you do not have a good opinion of someone or something, and feel that you are better than them

He looked at her with sardonic amusement.

Sarcastic : saying things that are the opposite of what you mean, in order to make an unkind joke or to show that you are annoyed Was she being sarcastic ?

sarcastic remark/comment/question

He can’t help making sarcastic comments.

sarcastic manner/smile/laugh etc

‘I thought so,’ she said with a sarcastic smile.

The definition of the words I can read on the NOAD are: Sarcastic: marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.

Sardonic: grimly mocking or cynical.

She wrote sarcastic comments on their failures.

She's witty and sarcastic.

Starkey attempted a sardonic smile.

The differences between the words are: sardonic doesn't implicate the use of irony; sarcastic is not used referring something/somebody cynical; sarcastic doesn't implicate a grim (sad or relentless) tone.

The NOAD, in a note titled

The right word , reports also: Irony is the implicit humor in the contradiction between what is meant and what is expressed, or in the discrepancy between appearance and reality.

An example would be to shout, in the midst of a hurricane, What a perfect day for a wedding!

Although sarcasm may take the form of irony, it is less subtle and is often used harshly or bitterly to wound or ridicule someone.

Unlike irony, however, sarcasm depends on tone of voice for its effect ( "a fine friend you turned out to be!", he said, with obvious sarcasm ).

To answer the currently unanswered half of the question: Criticism, if done correctly, is different to sardonism or sarcasm in that they are a mode of voice, while criticism should be a balanced review of a subject.

Unfortunately, bad criticism generally comes over as sardonic and sarcastic - so, you can see the confusion.

Question: Basically,  sardonic  and  sarcastic  both stand for mocking gestures, but what is the difference in their contextual use?  Are there any other words that represent a similar gesture?

What is the difference between "sardonic" and "sarcastic"?

Sardonic humour is mocking but not necessarily sarcastic, whereas sarcasm is stating something counterfactual. Sardonic is more related to showing that you  do not have a good opinion of someone and feel that you are better than them.

Sardonic humour is mocking, but is not necessarily sarcastic; sarcasm is stating a counterfactual, whereas sardony is a moment of grim poetic humour and may or may not contain counterfactuals. It comes from French and describes bitter, scornful laughter. Whilst Longman's suggests there is an undertone of superiority, some people feel the term does not imply this. "Sarcastic" is using irony to mock and uses tone to convey meaning. Sardonic is more extreme and negative than sarcasm. They are distinctly different and not interchangeabel

Sardonic humour is mocking and implies a low opinion of someone or something. It also tends to have a grim tone. Sarcasm implies the use of irony, and is often used to hurt another person.

Sardonic humour is mocking, but not necessarily sarcastic; sarcasm is stating a counterfactual, whereas sardony is a moment of grim poetic humour and may or may not contain counterfactuals. Sardonic is more extreme and negative, and one can be sarcastic without being sardonic, and vice-versa.

Sardonic can be mocking but not necessarily sarcastic, whilst sarcasm is normally counterfactual. Additionally, sardonic is seen to be more extreme and negative than sarcasm.

The difference explained between sardonic and sarcasm

Sardonic is mocking but not necessarily sarcastic, whilst sarcasm is counterfactual.

Sardonic is considered to be more extreme and negative than sarcasm.


Apparently Q.T. is derived from quiet and originated in the 19th century, although its provenance is not certain.

From phrases.org.uk: The slang term 'qt' is a shortened form of 'quiet'.

There's no definitive source for the phrase 'on the q.t.', although it appears to be of 19th century British origin - not, as is often supposed, American.

The longer phrase 'on the quiet' is also not especially old, but is first recorded somewhat before 'on the qt', in Otago: Goldfields & Resources, 1862:

I found an earlier (1874) appearance of Q.T. that shows its origin is most likely from the British side of the pond.

This clip appears in an American publication of short plays, but this particular farce, My Husband's Secret by Walter Devereux Whitty, Esq., shows on its title page (scroll up four pages) that it played first in London.

Here's the clip : A note on the date: Google Books lists this publication's date as 1876.

The play's title page has its copyright date as 1873.

I cross-checked the date of the play at Open Library , where it has 1874.

Edit: Found an antedating of on the quiet , mentioned in @Robusto's answer, from a horseracing story in New Sporting Magazine , 1847:

"Q.T." is an odd abbreviation for "quiet." Since it is of British origin, I would think it would derive from schoolboys' abbreviations, often derived from Latin.

The Latin taceo means "not to speak" and has solemn meaning sometimes, referring to "passing over in silence."

Thus quae tacenda, or q.t., would refer to "things about which one should not speak."

Cf.

Horace, Epodes, 5.49, where Horace speaks of Canidia and quid dixit

et quid tacuit, what she said and what she left unsaid.

Edit: That in "My Husband's Secret" Straps says that "Q.T." is an abbreviation for "quiet," as one "should have larned at Hoxford," is a pretty good indication that Q.T. for "quiet" is a false etymology.

At Oxford and elsewhere schoolboys' lessons in the classics would have occasional obscene expressions.

I can imagine a teacher explicating a classical text, and then coming to the obscene part, and stating that "here there are quaedam tacenda [certain things about which one should keep silent].

These would be frequent enough that schoolboys' notes would refer to these as q.t.

Then the term would be brought into ordinary conversation, e.g., referring to a master—"he drinks too much, and there are q.t.

[i.e., he chases underage boys].

Then the term would be used for schoolboys' pranks:

"I'll join you on this, but only on the strict q.t.,

" i.e., we won't brag about this even to our fellows.

All this just a guess,

but I think a good one.

According to The Phrase Finder , the origin, while somewhat uncertain, is most likely 19th-century British.

Daily Writing Tips , on the other hand, puts forth some argument for the US origin since the phrase is documented to have appeared in print in 1884, and was in a song in 1879.

World

Wide Words cites the use of "QT" as an abbreviation as a clear sign that the origin must have been US, based on abbreviationism being a known linguistic feature of late 19th-century American English.

All three are clear that the QT is short for "quiet" and the phrase means "confidential" or "off the record".

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED says it comes from the first and last letters of quiet, and is chiefly used as on the (strict) q.t. .

Their first quotation is: 1885

G. Moore Mummer's Wife ix.

It will be possible to have one spree on the strict q.t. Victorian music

I found an antedating.

The University of Reading's Spellman Collection of Victorian Music Covers lists a song called You should see us on the strict "Q.T." from 1877 illustrated by Alfred Bryan, composed by Walter Redmond and written by Geoffrey Thorn.

The description is: Caricature portrait, full length, of G H Macdermott; the titles of some of his songs around his feet.

And it includes the text: (Chorus)

Oh my!

what a pious world this is And how very good we all seem to be What a duffing lot

you find If you only raise the blind And see us on the strict "Q T." The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins

The Phrase Finder says: As to on the q.t., in The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins , Robert Hendrickson states: "A British broadside ballad (1870) contained the line 'Whatever I tell you is on the Q.T.'" It would be good to know the name of the ballad in order to follow up this assertion.

Unfortunately, the author doesn't give it, from which we can only suppose he didn't know it himself.

Without some supporting evidence that claim has to be in doubt.

Question: I was watching the movie L.A. Confidential last night, and was reminded of the phrase "on the QT", which Danny DeVito's character says several times.   Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush...   I was wondering if anyone can shed any light on the origin and meaning of this phrase.

Origin of "on the QT"?

It appears that the term "QT" is a shortened form of quiet. There is no definitive source for the phrase, but it appears to be of 19th-century British origin.

Q.T. is  derived from "quiet"  and originated in the 19th century, although of uncertain provenance. Phrases.org.uk:  defines is a the slang term 'qt' is a shortened form of 'quiet'. There's no definitive source for the phrase 'on the q.t.', although it appears to be of 19th century British origin - not, as is often supposed, American.he longer phrase 'on the quiet' is also not especially old, but is first recorded somewhat before 'on the qt', in Otago: Goldfields & Resources, 1862:  There is a potential Latin source from  quae tacenda, or q.t., would refer to "things about which one should not speak"

QT is often said to be an abbreviation for 'quiet', so 'on the QT' would mean that something should be kept confidential. It is possible that the term comes from the Latin 'quae tacenda', meaning things not to be spoken about.

Q.T. is an abbreviation for "quiet."  It is British origin from the 19th century, possibly deriving from schoolboys' Latin abbreviations.

The term "Q.T." most likely originated in 19th-century Britain and means "quiet".

Daily Writing Tips , on the other hand, puts forth some argument for the US origin since the phrase is documented to have appeared in print in 1884, and was in a song in 1879.

Apparently Q.T. is derived from quiet and originated in the 19th century, although its provenance is not certain.

From phrases.org.uk: The slang term 'qt' is a shortened form of 'quiet'.

The longer phrase 'on the quiet' is also not especially old, but is first recorded somewhat before 'on the qt', in Otago: Goldfields & Resources, 1862:

I found an earlier (1874) appearance of Q.T. that shows its origin is most likely from the British side of the pond.

"Q.T." is an odd abbreviation for "quiet." Since it is of British origin, I would think it would derive from schoolboys' abbreviations, often derived from Latin.

The Latin taceo means "not to speak" and has solemn meaning sometimes, referring to "passing over in silence."

According to The Phrase Finder , the origin, while somewhat uncertain, is most likely 19th-century British.

The OED says it comes from the first and last letters of quiet, and is chiefly used as on the (strict) q.t. .

The provenance of q.t. Potentially abbreviation and Latinate root

The term "Q.T." is supposedly shortform for "quiet".

"Q.T." most likely originated in British English in the 19th century.


There are a couple confusions at work here.

First, there are different " lexical sets " the word could fall into: TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, NORTH, FORCE.

For the most part, most speakers and dictionaries of English agree that mall is either pronounced with the vowel for THOUGHT or with the vowel for TRAP, the TRAP pronunciation usually only in the context of pall-mall .

No dialect pronounces all those lexical sets with distinct vowels, but each dialect may merge them in different ways.

American English generally merges TRAP-BATH, LOT-PALM, CLOTH-THOUGHT, and NORTH-FORCE.

This means that Americans use the same vowel for TRAP as for BATH, the same vowel for LOT as for PALM, and the same vowel for CLOTH as for THOUGHT.

British English generally merges LOT-CLOTH, BATH-PALM, THOUGHT-NORTH-FORCE, and keeping TRAP in a distinct group.

Furthermore, the cot-caught merger in some varieties of American English merge the LOT-PALM group with the CLOTH-THOUGHT group, making a single lexical set LOT-PALM-CLOTH-THOUGHT, all pronounced with the same vowel (/ɑ/)—for some speakers of American English (me included).

So, a British English-speaking person would think they might hear me say mall thinking it sounds like moll (that is, to be in the LOT set), and that I am pronouncing it "wrong", but not realize that I pronounce all LOT words with the same vowel as THOUGHT words—that is, for me the words LOT and THOUGHT rhyme.

In conclusion, the vowel of mall should be the same as the vowel for thought , however you pronounce it in your dialect.

If you want the original prononciation, it would be the one that rhymes with "pal", from the shopping street

The Mall in London, which in turn got it's name from the game pall-mall once played there.

1737, "shaded walk serving as a promenade," from The Mall, broad, tree-lined promenade in St. James's Park, London (1674), formerly an open alley that was used to play pall-mall, a croquet-like game involving hitting a ball with a mallet through a ring, from

Fr. pallemaille, from It.

pallamaglio, from palla "ball" (see balloon) + maglio "mallet.".

The modern use of the word for a shopping centre has of course lost most of it's history, thus the Americans simply pronounce it as other similar words like fall, hall, ball and call.

There is not a correct pronunciation.

As you said, American English and British English speakers give to the word a different pronunciation (/mɔl/

in American English; /mal/

/mɔːl/ /mɒl/

in British English); even inside the same English dialect, different regions can possibly have different pronunciations.

This is also a word that's subject to strong regional variations in the U.S.

In Brooklyn English, which is where I, a non-native speaker learned it, it's more like 'mawwl'.

In my native tongue, the word for "mall" is "קניון" (transliteration "canyon" and also means "canyon") which leads to puns like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_%28mall%29

nohat gave a great answer.

There is just one more point, to make about the word mall.

The pronunciation of it is usually different, in American and British English.

In the UK, it's normally pronounced as "morl" (rhymes with the words or and more).

Except, when pronouncing Pall Mall and The Mall.

Those are normally pronounced "mal", like the letter a in the words trap and hat.

Therefore, the pronunciation depends on the context.

It depends if you are pronouncing just the word mall or, you are pronouncing Pall Mall or The Mall.

On a related note, the word mall, is not normally used in the UK.

In the US, it means a shopping centre.

In the UK, it is normal just to say, shopping centre.

The American cigarette brand, "Pall Mall," is pronounced "pawl mawl," and that's the name of that tune.

In American English, it's /ˈmɑ:

l/ http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/mall

Question: In America, it's pretty much universally pronounced "moll" but in the UK, I have heard a few different ways of pronouncing it:   Mall (rhymes with pal)  Maul (rhymes with ball and hence the American pronunciations match up)  Moll   It may depend on accents but which is the correct way?

How do you properly pronounce 'mall'?

There is no agreed "correct" pronunciation for the word "mall". However, most speakers and dictionaries of English agree that "mall" is either pronounced with the vowel for "thought" or the vowel for "trap". The differences are largely regional, varying between the US and the UK.

The pronunciation of "mall" in the sense of how it is actually pronounced can vary between US and UK speakers as the pronounce words based on lexical groupings that follow a pattern. The word should be pronounced as similar to "thought" but this pronunciation varies across the two groups. There are many local variants. In American English, it's /ˈmɑ:. A point to note that UK English speakers use the word "shopping centre" and rarely "mall" anyway.

English has several possible pronunciations that could be used, and since the word is came to the US mostly without context, the pronunciation there is different. While the name originally comes from Pall Mall in London, most British English speakers pronounce a shopping mall differently from The Mall or Pall Mall.

The pronunciation of Mall is usually different, in American and British English. It is also a word that's subject to strong regional variations in the U.S. There is not a correct pronunciation.

It is generally accepted that there is no one correct pronunciation. Firstly, pronunciation will vary depending on the regional dialet. Secondly, it will also depend on the context, with pronunciation varying depending on what you are referring to.

The American cigarette brand, "Pall Mall," is pronounced "pawl mawl," and that's the name of that tune.

First, there are different " lexical sets " the word could fall into: TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, NORTH, FORCE.

For the most part, most speakers and dictionaries of English agree that mall is either pronounced with the vowel for THOUGHT or with the vowel for TRAP, the TRAP pronunciation usually only in the context of pall-mall .

No dialect pronounces all those lexical sets with distinct vowels, but each dialect may merge them in different ways.

American English generally merges TRAP-BATH, LOT-PALM, CLOTH-THOUGHT, and NORTH-FORCE.

This means that Americans use the same vowel for TRAP as for BATH, the same vowel for LOT as for PALM, and the same vowel for CLOTH as for THOUGHT.

British English generally merges LOT-CLOTH, BATH-PALM, THOUGHT-NORTH-FORCE, and keeping TRAP in a distinct group.

Furthermore, the cot-caught merger in some varieties of American English merge the LOT-PALM group with the CLOTH-THOUGHT group, making a single lexical set LOT-PALM-CLOTH-THOUGHT, all pronounced with the same vowel (/ɑ/)—for some speakers of American English (me included).

So, a British English-speaking person would think they might hear me say mall thinking it sounds like moll (that is, to be in the LOT set), and that I am pronouncing it "wrong", but not realize that I pronounce all LOT words with the same vowel as THOUGHT words—that is, for me the words LOT and THOUGHT rhyme.

In conclusion, the vowel of mall should be the same as the vowel for thought , however you pronounce it in your dialect.

As you said, American English and British English speakers give to the word a different pronunciation (/mɔl/

This is also a word that's subject to strong regional variations in the U.S.

In Brooklyn English, which is where I, a non-native speaker learned it, it's more like 'mawwl'.

In my native tongue, the word for "mall" is "קניון" (transliteration "canyon" and also means "canyon") which leads to puns like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_%28mall%29

The modern use of the word for a shopping centre has of course lost most of it's history, thus the Americans simply pronounce it as other similar words like fall, hall, ball and call.

The pronunciation of it is usually different, in American and British English.

In the UK, it's normally pronounced as "morl" (rhymes with the words or and more).

Therefore, the pronunciation depends on the context.

It depends if you are pronouncing just the word mall or, you are pronouncing Pall Mall or The Mall.

On a related note, the word mall, is not normally used in the UK.

In the UK, it is normal just to say, shopping centre.

The pronunciation is based on lexical patterns, and mainly is pronounced like "thought" depending on how this is pronounced. There are local variants and either party may think the other is pronouncing it incorrectly, but this is due to their lexical patterns for these specific vowels.

The pronunciation will vary depending on the regional dialect of English.

The correct answer will depend on the context.


There's also refectory : A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions.

One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries.

It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored.

[Wikipedia] the root of which it shares with restaurant : Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China.

A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb restaurer , meaning "to restore".

[Wikipedia]

Oh, and of course beanery , hash house , greasy spoon , & automat .

Maybe you're looking for the word " eatery ".

One of the best eateries in town.

Also the phrase " eating place " is very common.

There are some other words that I don't think you're looking for them.

But you can also check them out.

Other words: cafe , self-service , diner , bistro , cafeteria , canteen , brasserie

There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.

Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges.

There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom.

If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as dormitory is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any.

Some common "eating place" words are: bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole src

A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals.

There is no single word for eating place, there are many.

Restaurant Diner Cafeteria Eatery

You have to make a choice.

Question: The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"?

What word means "eating place"?

There are a number of words that mean "eating place" and indeed the phrase "eating place" is itself quite common. Some of these terms include "refectory", "eatery", "restaurant" or "canteen". However, there does not seem to be a single agreed term.

There are numerous words for "eating places" that range from "cafeteria" to "refectory", "brasserie", "eateries".  The word the closest to the format of "dormitory" is probably "refectory" from Latin origin.

Eatery', 'café', 'diner', bistro', 'canteen', 'dining room' and other words can be used for this purpose. 'Refectory' is also used, especially in monasteries, and academic institutions.

There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria (cafe), restaurant, canteen, brasserie, self-service, chophouse, coffee shop, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole. Also mess hall (military), galley (Navy),  There's also  refectory: A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions.

There are many different terms for "eating place", including "refectory", "eatery", "dining room" or "diner".

There's also refectory : A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions.

One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries.

Maybe you're looking for the word " eatery ".

Also the phrase " eating place " is very common.

Other words: cafe , self-service , diner , bistro , cafeteria , canteen , brasserie

There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.

If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as dormitory is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any.

Some common "eating place" words are: bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole src

A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals.

There is no single word for eating place, there are many.

Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges.

There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom.

There are lots of words to denote "eating places" and the use will depend on context, the closest to the format of "dormitory" is probably "refectory" from Latin origin.

There are many words also used for "sleeping places" but "dormitory" does not have an equivalent in English


Fastidious can have the sort of connotation

I think you're looking for.

fas·tid·i·ous ( adj .)

Possessing or displaying careful, meticulous attention to detail.

Difficult to please; exacting.

Excessively scrupulous or sensitive, especially in matters of taste or propriety.

"He was the sort of guy who might ring you at 4 in the morning to repay sixpence; the chap was fastidious about his debts."

Perhaps punctilious would be the word you are looking for?

I would call such a person overly or obsessively proud , or possibly haughty .

But it would depend on the culture.

Such a practice is considered normal in Japan, for example, where the concept of on ( face ) requires it.

I think the word stickler fits very well here, in the sense of a person who's obsessive about making sure customs and rules are followed to the letter.

If I were to use it in a sentence, it would go something like this:

He was a stickler for making sure that even the smallest and most insignificant debt was repaid in full.

It carries a connotation of following a rule to the point of being slightly annoying about it.

I'd go for "stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity".

I would say this person suffers from an aversion to generosity .

That's not an adjective, but I think the phenomenon may be too complex to boil down to a single word (cultural factors?

fear of indebtedness?

fear of not being able to return a kindness?

feelings of inferiority?

etc).

Maybe generosity averse ? :)

I would call him a nitpicker, after revieing this

I'm not sure whether it would be approriate: nitpicking

How about compulsively reciprocal ?

Someone who is " anal retentive " is a good fit and conveys the speaker's annoyance quite effectively.

Wikipedia describes it thus: The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. .

Many Danes are familiar with a concept that also seems to be in play in the case of the OP's obsessive debt-repayer.

They call it millimeterdemokrati ("millimetre democracy").

It is typified by phenomena such as the scrupulous analysis of a restaurant bill to calculate who owes how much, the maintaining of a log in order to track whose turn it is to wipe down the fridge door or rinse the tea cups, and the cutting of a cake into slices of precisely equal size (with the help of kitchen scales, in the worst case).

You could say that individuals afflicted with this impulse are applying an ethos of egalitarian reciprocity/responsibility taken to an extreme degree.

(I hasten to add that most Danes are not quite this silly.)

Looking over the other suggested names for this attitude, I don't think any of them quite capture the nitpicking quality of millimetre democracy at its finest.

Question: Let's say you paid for a friend's bus ride, and he insists on paying you back rather than just let it be and stop worrying about it. You even find it rude on his part that he won't just forget about it. Is there an adjective or a phrase for such kind or a person, or for such kind of a behavior?

What would you (negatively) call a person who insists on repaying even a small amount of money?

There are number of terms or phrases that might describe such a person or behaviour. These include "difficult to please", "excessively scrupulous", "punctilious" or "anally retentive". You could also say that this person suffers from an aversion to generosity.

There are numerous adjectives that can apply including "careful", "meticulous" meaning someone who pays extra attention to detail. An alternative is "punctilious" or "stickler" which has a slight annoying connotation. Another option is "stubbornly independent" or "obsessively haughty". However, the trait described could be a cultural trait and a fear of becoming indebted in some cases; one suggestion is "adverse to generosity".

Fastidious, punctilious, nitpicking or compulsively reciprocal could carry this meaning. Other descriptions like being a stickler or 'stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity' could apply in some contexts.

A person who insists on repaying even a small amount of money could be called a stickler, a person who's obsessive about making sure customs and rules are followed to the letter. Or stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity. Or obsessively proud, possibly haughty. Punctilious, excessively scrupulous or sensitive, especially in matters of taste or propriety.

There is no agreed term for this concept, but some potentially acceptable terms include "exacting", "haughty", "stubbornly independent" or "compuslively reciprocal".

It can mean paying extra attention or care to detail or be difficult to please.

Possessing or displaying careful, meticulous attention to detail

"stickler" is another term, someone annoying regarding detail.

"stubbornly independent" is another alternative


On a pilot-vs-FBW system perspective, as mentioned in the comments to the question, the most notable difference is the authority priority: Boeing trusts more the pilots:

they can supersede the Fly-by-wire automatic commands by exerting enough force on the controls Airbus trusts more the FBW system: if the system is fully functional ("Normal law") it will always have priority over the pilots to protect the aircraft and keep it in the envelope, but they still have room for "non-standard" maneuvers, e.g. commanding bank angles between 33° and 60°.

The autopilot can be activated and de-activated at will by the pilots, and it sits on top of the FBW envelope protection.

One of the most famous examples where this comparison emerges (and the subsequent debate about which approach is better) is the China Airlines 006 accident.

I won't go into detail, there is the accident report that will provide much more information that I can remember, but suffice to say that this 747 was recovered from a quite unusual attitude As mentioned in the wiki article, the report states that the passengers were subject up to 5 gs during the maneuver and the stress on the horizontal tail surface has been so great that as a result it was damaged: The usual argumentation goes along the lines that, would this had been an Airbus, the pilots would not have been able to save the aircraft.

See for example this PhD thesis at page 184 of the pdf, section 6.2.3 "Pilot Authority at the Boundary":

It is likely that if the aircraft had prevented the crew from initiating control commands that would lead to aircraft damage, the aircraft (and passengers) would have been lost.

The problem with such a comparison?

It focuses on the recovery after the unusual attitude was achieved and totally forgets about the sequence of events that lead to it or, to the very least, assumes that an Airbus would have responded in the same way to the preceding events (then why make a comparison at all?)

An honest comparison would take into account this and acknowledge that an Airbus in Normal Law would not enter a spiral dive in the first place, even with an engine out, as bank protection/attitude-hold would prevent it.

Boeing aircraft primarily feature a traditional "yoke" system, which allows pilots to directly control the plane:

In contrast, Airbus aircraft use a "fly-by-wire" system via a joystick which transmits electrical signals to control the plane: Airbus aircraft limit pilots' capabilities in situations that require extreme action to be taken; the computer may prevent the pilot from pushing the plane past its safe ranges, which could be necessary in case of an emergency.

Boeing aircraft leave ultimate control mostly to the pilot.

Big difference is on Boeing with a yoke, it is like two linked steering wheels in a car.

The pilot not flying can easily see what the other pilot is doing with his controls, as the yoke in front of him moves along with the other pilot's inputs.

On the airbus models with a side stick, the pilot not flying cannot see what the other pilot is asking of the controls.

This contributed to the situation where Air France stalled and fell into the sea without the pilot in the left seat realizing that the pilot in the right seat had his controls calling for full pitch up.

(The opposite of what would get them out of a stall.)

Airbus (A320+; A300 and A310 have traditional controls) uses flight control laws .

In flight, the side-stick input does not indicate desired position of control surfaces, but desired wing loading and roll rate.

The flight computer takes care of trimming the aircraft for straight flight at current speed and balance.

Boeing uses traditional controls, where the position of control column corresponds to position of control surfaces and force on the control column corresponds to force on the control surfaces.

This means that the pilot has to adjust the trim manually when not using autopilot.

The Airbus system is more convenient, but it has its disadvantages.

The neutral stability means that the aircraft won't tend to maintain speed by changing pitch, so the pilots have to monitor speed more carefully.

It really needs the flight envelope protections to be considered safe.

Boeing has flight envelope protections since 777, so that's not a difference any more.

I don't think they are adding them to new versions of 737 though.

My 2 cents:

There are a few things mentioned here .

The sidestick and autothrust systems of the Airbus are different than the conventional yoke and autothrottle system on the Boeing.

The Airbus technology and quiet cruise was great; the Boeing's tactile feel and crosswind capabilities were very good.

There is a difference in the length of the fuselage, making taxiing different.

The handling characteristics in flight are very similar.

Question: What are the main differences in flying a Boeing vs an Airbus aircraft?  Ignoring cosmetics, e.g. nose/window shape (see  How can I tell apart an Airbus from a Boeing? )

What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft?

It seems that the Boeing planes trust their pilots with more control over them. Whereas the airbus planes use electrical signals from a joystic to fly the plane, giving less control in an emergency.


First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist.

Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called " What Makes You Not a Buddhist ":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do

, you can call yourself a Buddhist ( ref ).

If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can ' take refuge '.

This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions.

More info also here

Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion.

You do not need to give up Hinduism.

To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche: ...

it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. ....

Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so.

( ref ).

Ceremonially, you can take Refuge.

In many traditions, this is the entry or acknowledgement of being dedicated to being a better person.

Kagyu.org has this very nice talk from Kalu Rinpoche about what taking Refuge is and the Three Jewels: http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/bec/bec04.php

It finishes with this wonderful thought:

It should be understood that the taking of refuge is not a process whereby the Buddha takes those who appear to have devotion to him and leads them to his side.

Through taking refuge, one begins a process oneself which, going through various stages, will lead to one's own realization of the same state, the same experience as the Buddha.

And I believe Buddhism is open to all, with some gray areas around the insane and mentally handicapped.

If you are not in "your right mind", it is difficult to understand deeply what Buddhism is.

That is probably a different question though.

Conversion into Buddhism from a Zen Buddhist perspective, initially requires the initiate to take refuge into the “Triple Jewels” in a formal ceremony headed by a religious leader.

The “Triple Jewels” consist of three things: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.

This link on Buddhism Stackexchange explores the nuances of “taking refuge” into the “Triple Jewels” from various Buddhist perspectives.

In Zen Buddhism, which includes the Mahayana Buddhist traditions of East Asia the following vows for taking refuge are used:

I take refuge in the Buddha, wishing for all sentient beings to

understand the great Way profoundly and make the greatest resolve.

I take refuge in the Dharma, wishing for all sentient beings to delve deeply into the Sutra Pitaka , causing their wisdom to be as broad as the sea.

I take refuge in the Sangha, wishing all sentient beings to lead the congregation in harmony, entirely without obstruction.

After the initial ceremony, the initiate follows the basic tenets of Buddhism by applying them to their circumstances along with various forms of meditation.

However, the Zen Buddhist tradition generally considers the terms: Buddhist, Buddhism, and Triple Jewels as methods to help the initiate along the path to enlightenment but are not an end in themselves.

So, converting to Buddhism from the Zen Buddhist tradition is more about starting a life long process rather than being a member of an in-group versus an out-group .

Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen

It depends.

I suggest you study the essential points of Buddhist teaching, especially the teaching on the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self, and the teaching on dependent origination.

These teachings are incompatible with some ideas in Hinduism (Hinduism is very diverse, so I don't think there is always contradiction.)

The main ideas that are common in Hinduism which conflict with Buddhism is the teaching of Brahman, an absolute reality which all of the world derives from.

That doesn't fit, and it would also be problematic if you believe that the Gods are eternal beings who have always existed and always will exist.

However, if you just have love for the Gods and feel devotion towards them and preform Pujas to them, from a Buddhist perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

In the time of the Buddha people venerated all sorts of beings, even including Yakshas and Nagas and the Buddha never spoke against it or forbade his followers from it, and in South East Asia today, some Hindu Gods (such as Brahma and Ganesh) are worshiped by faithful Buddhists and no one thinks there's a problem with it.

If you don't feel a contradiction, by all means, consider yourself to be both a Buddhist and a Hindu.

The Buddha himself had lay followers who where Brahmin priests and it wasn't a problem.

Buddhism is by practice.

There is no conversion.

When you take refuge in the Triple Gem you take refuge in the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga through this now has turned into a ceremonial outlook.

You can call your self a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

but still practice Buddhism as at the core of the Buddhist practice is Vipassana.

This can be done by any one.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

For me personally, things really changed once I joined a sangha.

I view the joining of a sangha (Taking Refuge in the sangha) as the moment I became a Zen Buddhist.

You can practice Buddhism without converting.

You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts.

Question: I am a Hindu, but I like Buddhism. How does that work? Does one need to convert to practice Buddhism? If so, how does one convert to Buddhism? Can anyone convert to Buddhism? Or can I just practice without converting?

How does conversion work in Buddhism?

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Buddhism is by practice. There are no conversion rules, you do not have to give up another religion to practise Buddhism, anyone can practise Buddhism. If you wish to mark your conversion, you can do so by taking Refuge. You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts. However, this is not obligatory.

There is no agreed upon definition about when you are truly a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. Adopting Buddhism is about starting a way of life and practicing. People may choose to ceremonially mark their decision to become Buddhists by "taking refuge" into the "Triple Jewels" in a ceremony presided by a religious leader, after which the initiate follows the basis tenets of Buddhism.

Anyone can become a Buddhist and there is no formal conversion. Buddhism can be practiced without giving up other religious affiliations. No dietary, dress or relationship changes are required. Anyone can become a Buddhist and there is no formal conversion. Buddhism can be practiced without giving up other religious affiliations. No dietary, dress or relationship changes are required.


(Bear in mind, I don't have mastery over the language

but I've been swimming in it continuously for the last two years.

The following advice is based on this experience.)

There is a whole list of books about learning Pāḷi .

Some of them you can find here .

I suggest applying the grammar that you learn from them, in Yuttadhammo's Digital Pali Reader (DPR) which will help you learn the vocabulary.

DPR has an easy-to-use interface, dictionaries & various helpful tools including one of the grammar books mentioned in the first link.

These are the resources I use

and I complement them with the available translations on ATI , SC & in secondary literature.

I also confer this Sanskrit dictionary.

I hope this information will be useful.

Good luck.

Courses Partiyatti Learning Center offers two free online Pāli courses.

Pali Online School at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies is a very intensive 3-week online Pāli course, that involves live instruction by prof. Richard Gombrich , a well-known scholar of Theravāda.

The aim is to enable students to read original canonical texts in Pāli, with the aid of dictionares and grammars.

The course is expensive, but I've taken it and can wholeheartedly recommend it.

I doubt there is any other way to learn a good deal of Pāli in such a short time.

Dictionaries

Pali-English Dictionary (PED) by Rhys Davids and Stede is the most comprehensive fully published Pāli dictionary available to date.

It is freely available online, but the search interface has some strange bugs (the anusvara needs to be typed as ŋ instead of the standard ṃ, and the first letter of a headword must be written in uppercase if it contains a diacritic, e.g. Āsana instead of āsana ).

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ Several Pāli dictionaries, including the PED (though not all the entries), are available here .

The search interface is much more user-friendly, but lacks more advanced features of the aforementioned one (it's not possible to search for words in definitions, words that start/end/contain a particular character sequence, etc.).

https://palidictionary.appspot.com/ A PDF version of the PED is freely available, as well as a text version in a single big file.

Dictionary of Pali by Margaret Cone is an improvement over the PED, with more usage examples, but only volumes I (A-Kh) and II (G-N) have been published (note the different alphabetical order in Pāli).

Books

A Pali Grammar by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman Describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together) An Introduction to Pali by A.K. Warder generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook teaches about compounds (samāsa) and about some aspects of syntax and idiomatic language use, that is, the topics that are absent in Geiger's grammar however, according to prof.

Gombrich, the book cannot be relied on, because it contains strange mistakes, and sometimes is unclear or misleading If you follow a tradition that involves chanting in Pāli (by the teacher and/or by the students), it may be useful to take a look at the chanted texts and their translation.

In such case you are already familiar with the pronunciation and rhythm of the text, so learning should be much easier.

For example, this book may be useful for people who follow S.N. Goenka's tradition: Gem Set in Gold ,

Dhamma Chanting:

English Translation with Pali and Hindi by S.N. Goenka General Access to Insight provides a list of resources for learning Pāli .

The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on SuttaCentral and Access to Insight .

See also answers to this question .

Here is a nice set of well-known Pāli chants on YouTube, with their transcription and translation into English.

It's a good starting point for learning Pāli pronunciation.

For learning vocabulary, I recommend making flashcards in a spaced repetition program (the most popular one is Anki ).

Spaced repetition is a general way to memorise things in the long term, and it is tremendously useful for language learning.

It is especially useful if you don't read Pāli texts regularly and don't want to forget the words.

The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.

Something unusual about Pali as a language of Buddhism is that the language is a little different from country to country, especially with respect to pronunciation.

Flash cards, although sometimes boring, are the most effective way to learn enough words in a language to become proficient in it.

ref: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/7151/pali-flashcards

Because people don't like flash cards, there are a million and one other techniques for learning a language, this is a website with lots of people with good advice .

It would be better to enroll yourself and learn Pali from any university or institute but if you feel that you can manage to do it on your own then you'll have to depend on reading and understanding books etc..

Apart from that you'll need to be in contact with a Pali teacher who may guide you step by step, which will be fruitful.

There's An Introduction to Pali over ZOOM

A Summer Intensive Course

No prior knowledge of Pali is required.

The course will start with the basics, showing students how the alphabet is organized and how to find words in a dictionary.

Basic grammar will be covered in depth.

Students will begin to read passages of the Pali canon themselves.

This course will use two textbooks.

The first, Lily De Silva’s Pali Primer, is available in print as well as freely available on line.

This text starts with very simple sentences that introduce the noun and verb forms of Pali.

Once this book is worked through, A New Course in Reading Pali: Entering the Word of the Buddha by James Gair and W.S. Karunatillake will be used to begin reading the Pali canon.

Additional materials will be made available for students via dropbox.

The first lesson was two days ago, the next starts in a few hours from now.

This answer will be rapidly out of date -- the course is 5 weeks, 2 days a week, 75 minutes per day, via Zoom and with a live (not being recorded)

overflow on YouTube.

Question: I have asked this considering the importance of Pali in Buddhism.   I want to learn Pali. I want to learn it individually on my own.   Is there any relatively simple way?   Can anyone suggest me anything?  Any free learning sites will be appreciated.

A good source to learn the Pali language?

S0: The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.  There are many books to help people learn Pali if the student wishes to study on their own. Flashcards are recommended for vocabulary. Partiyatti Learning Center  offers two free online Pāli courses. Pali Online School  at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies is a very intensive 3-week online Pāli course, that involves live instruction by prof.  Richard Gombrich , a well-known scholar of Theravāda.

The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.  A variety of books about learning Pali is available, including dictionaries and grammar books. Examples include A Pali Grammar  by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman  describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together).  An Introduction to Pali  by A.K. Warder  is generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook. The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on  SuttaCentral  and  Access to Insight. Some free Pali courses may also be available.

There is a wide range of books available about learning Pali, including dictionaries and grammar books.  A Pali Grammar  by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman  describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together).  An Introduction to Pali  by A.K. Warder  is generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook. The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on  SuttaCentral  and  Access to Insight.

Flashcards can be a boring, yet effective way to learn vocabulary. Spaced repetition if a good way to learn things over time.


First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.

In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun

(a.k.a. Bhikkhu)

you have to shave your head.

There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long.

It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.

The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

( source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II )

Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist: One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard.

Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment ( source )

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).

I believe they shave their heads because they don't want to have attachments to the body or self image.

They also don't use cosmetics, perfumes and so on...

This is a very old practice, including the robes they wear, since the time of the Buddha Lay people don't have to do it, only monks.

One reason with hair is you can use it for beautification like having a hair style.

Monks are not allowed to use mirrors or look at once face unless it is for medical reasons or contemplating of aging and impermanence.

Long hair was the style many people had during Buddha's time

some this prevents any styling and beautification.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

It is an act of renunciation of the beauty or attractiveness of the human body or human appearance (Four Foundations of Mindfulness).

Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating.

It's a statement made by the individual.

that they no longer wish to be part of such worldly ignorance!!Metta.

(I can't comment on this "...

it is interesting to note that once you become enlightened you don't worry about such small things.

Although Siddhartha cut his hair, Buddha kept long hair himself.

TheDarkKnightRules

Nov 15 '14 at 9:48...

" because of some silly rules of this website.

But I would like to clear up a point that 'Buddha kept long hair himself.')

In vasala sutta (story heard) in the Tipitaka, a brahman said this to the Buddha "“tatreva, muṇḍaka; tatreva, samaṇaka; tatreva, vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī”ti.

(Stop right there shaven-head, stop right there monk, stop...)The

Pali word "muṇḍaka" means "a shaveling; shaven-headed".

There we have it.

The Buddha had his head shaven too.

No exception for Himself!

Another reason is the connection to the Divine.

Hair stop energy moving, and in meditation practices they need to connect the Sahasrara as best as possible with the Divine, thus shaving the head allows for better "connection".

There are also specific rituals and procedures for that part of the body that take place after death, but that's another story.

Question: I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that?  If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads?

Is there any significance to shaving the head?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns. Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:   One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.   Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating.

Lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads - only monks. Buddha shaved off his hair and beard as part of the quest to defeat age, illness and death. A monk is not allowed to grow hair for over two months or to a length of over two fingerbreadths. A shaved head symbolises being cut off from confusion, hostility and attachment. It also prevents an obsession with self-image and vanity. It is also considered that hair may be seen as a barrier to energy, and shaving the head allows for a better connection.

A Bhikku is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or over a certain period of time. It must be shaved every two months or before it grows to a length of two fingerbreadths. Beard should not be worn long either.

Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly shaved off his hair and beard  when looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death.

Shaving the head symbolises cutting off confusion, hostility and attachment. It also prevents an obsession with self-image and vanity.

Another reason is the connection to the Divine. Hair may be seen as a barrier to energy, and shaving the head allows for a better connection.