Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

May 6

Miles vs. kilometers

Often while reading a book by a British author, right now Good Omens, I will see miles used to describe distance or speed (per hour, of course) instead of kilometers. Wikipedia's article on the M25 motorway even uses miles when describing things. This practice confuses this particular American who thought that all of Europe was on the metric system. So what gives? Dismas|^(talk) 07:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain (which a lot of people still consider to be separate from Europe!) is only imperfectly on the metric system. Distances are still measured in inches, feet, yards, and miles; volumes are still measured in pints, quarts, and gallons (which are different from American pints, quarts, and gallons) except maybe at gas stations, er, "petrol stations"; people still report their weight in stone, and so on. In fact, the only metric measurement that's really caught on in Britain is the Celsius scale for temperatures; I've been told that most people under the age of about 50 or so don't really have a good understanding of the Fahrenheit scale, any more than continental Europeans do. —Angr 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm well over 50, but I'm not sure that I'd agree that Celsius has "caught on" here in the UK. I think and talk in Fahrenheit, and temperatures are often reported in both Celsius and Fahrenheit. Certainly SI units are used in business, especially engineering (with the possible exception of the railways?). Shops are obliged to label goods in metric, but these are often exactly the same size as before instead of a round number, e.g. jars of jam are invariably 454 grams (1 lb). The UK "metrication process" of the 1970s was a fiasco. Our metrication article is rather misleading as regards the UK.--Shantavira 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain signed up to metrication in 1972. Since then there has been a slow movement towards it. Children are now only taught using metric units (Centimetres and Kilos etc) and its normal to find that people under the age of twenty have no/very little understanding of the concept of imperial measurement (inches, feet, gallons) and as a consequence they tend to work only in imperial measurements. There is a large band of people in the middle age range who understand and work in both imperial and metric measurement. It tends to be people in the older age band who rely solely on imperial measurement and have little or no understanding of metric. As with everything you can find 80 year olds with a perfect understanding of metric and 15 year olds who understand imperial. Most companies in the UK have now switched to metric and advertise their products in this way mainly due to the fact that it is now illegal to advertise products in imperial units (with certain exceptions like beer which can only be sold in imperial(if you think that's confusing you ain't seen nothing yet)), dual indication (showing both metic & imperial measurements) becomes illegal in 2009 although if a product is advertised by description as an imperial sized product eg a 6ft by 6ft fence panel then that will be legal.

Despite all of the above the UK populace is massively behind keeping the pint for milk and pub measures and the mile for road signs(despite Ordnance Survey maps being metric since the war). Yet they'll happily order a kilo of carrots at a shop and follow recipe instructions in metric. Temperature measurements also seem to be split by age but to a higher degree, around about 50 years old is where the dividing line for the Celsius/Centigrade vs Fahrenheit debate seems to be drawn. Again anomalies arise here. My father, for example, has to convert the TV weather to Fahrenheit but when cooking with the oven he uses Celsius.

Enough of this though the actual page you want is this one Metrication in the United Kingdom - X201 09:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm 48 and was brought up in the world of Fahrenheit temperatures. Nowadays I'm happy to use Celsius for low temperatures - 0 for freezing point is sensible, after all, but for hot weather I still prefer to think in Fahrenheit - a pleasantly warm day is 70, 80 is getting distinctly hot; to make sense of the weather forecast I just remember that 28C is 82F... -- Arwel (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While I (aged 21) understand the weather only in Celsius, but use only Gas Mark when cooking. Algebraist 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think other English-speaking countries also tend to be inconsistently metricated. I remember once hearing an Australian report his height in feet and inches and his weight in kilograms. —Angr 10:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK goverment hasn't really hesitated to enforce metrication on the population. For instance, you can no longer buy pints of milk. However, I buy milk in containers of 1.136 litres. It can additionally say "2 pints", but not first, and not larger than the litre size. Tesco solve this by just putting a large "2" on the packaging (without units). However, this cost is borne by the private sector; the government sometimes hesitates when the cost must be borne by itself. Still, it would have converted road measurements to kilometres if not for the potential for disaster. Imagine the havoc, half-way through the conversion, when nobody knows which units are used. Better still, think of the speed limit signs. Is that 50 in mph or km/h? This could be managed with dual signage, but I cannot imagine that the transition would improve safety. Also consider: there are campaigns to tell you that 30 mph is a safe speed limit, and driving at 31 mph is dangerous. Should the new speed limit be 48.3 km/h? Hard to do a quick check. But should it be 50 km/h? That would imply a 3% increase in the speed limit, and suddenly 31 mph would be safe. It's all politics. Notinasnaid 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland finally switched all its road signs from miles to kilometres only a couple of years ago - I think there's some obvious difference, such as "km" to distinguish mile from kilometre speed limits. -- Arwel (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Dublin for a few months in 2000, and I seem to remember it not being a very obvious difference at all. It was something like: if it was white characters on a green background, it was in kilometers, and if it was black characters on a white background, it was in miles. Not very intuitive for visitors and new arrivals. —Angr 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

2000 was before the speed-limit signs were converted, Angr, although after the distance signs had been. These were done gradually in the 80s. Previously distance signs were black-on-white in miles like this; then main roads switched to white-on-green in kilometres; then minor routes to black-on-white in kilometres. The latter were of a different shape and font from the same-colour mile signs and were generally changes all in one go in a given district, with "Ballyporeen 16" replaced by "Ballyporeen 26 km". This reduced confusion but of course did not eliminate it. The speed-limit change, as Arwell says, was putting "km/h" under the number like these but not held by senior government members. I think "max clearance" signs are still variable; recently I've seen yellow-diamond imperial, yellow-diamond metric+imperial, and red-triangle metric signs. See also Road signs in the Republic of Ireland, thoough most pictures of signs are at Roads in Ireland.jnestorius^(talk) 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an American, and I rented (hired) a car in England a few years ago. I remember seeing speed-limit signs along the road and assuming that they were in km/hour. But I quickly realized that I was driving ridiculously slowly and that people were eager to get around me. It was a surprise. Marco polo 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA, the only things you can buy in metric are Coke and cocaine. :) --TotoBaggins 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, my experience is that most everybody is fully metricated. The rare exceptions include: (a) police descriptions of missing alleged felons, whose approximate height and weight are often given in both systems; and (b) the weight and length of new-born babies are almost universally given in pounds/ounces and inches only. This applies even where the parents were born well after the introduction of the metric system and generally have little understanding of the old system for other uses. JackofOz 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coke? I buy Coke in 12 ounce cans.  :) But I also buy wine in .7 liter bottles. Corvus cornix 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the excellent repsonse that this question has received! I had no idea the UK was so mixed up when it came to metrication. I also find it interesting that, unless I missed one, all the talk of miles per hour was abbreviated as "mph" while kilometers per hour was abbreviated as "km/h". Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I always write "kph".  :) JackofOz 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its an odd situation to say the least. Just basically remember that anything formal/accurate should be given in metric, and anything casual has the option of being imperial. For example, as it stands now, most people prefer to give their height to friends in feet/inches, but a doctor will measure it in centimeters.

As a bricklayer, I used to discuss with clients a wall thats roughly 15 feet long, but would always use millimetres when actually building it.

As has already been said though, youngsters are growing up with metric more and more, so hopefully we'll get a one system state before too long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.67 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

In Canada, people my age (up to 30 I suppose) seem to use feet and inches to measure the height of a person, pounds/ounces/etc for almost all weights, and Fahrenheit to measure the temperature of water. Everything else is metric. I vaguely understand distance in miles and air temperature in Fahrenheit, thanks to American television and the necessity of occasionally driving to the US. My parents' generation still uses imperial measurements more often though. Adam Bishop 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an 18-year old Briton, and I know most of my generation uses metric measurements for most things. I still think of my height in feet, but weigh myself in kilograms and stone. and i definitely use miles (i always forget that my car has a secondary speedometer in km/h.

From today, it's legal again in the UK to advertise weights in imperial measures again. --Alex16zx 10:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be repeating what has already been said, but:

• Weather forecasts are almost invariably given in degrees Celsius here in the UK (apart from those printed in some of the more conservative newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, which has a readership of high median age). Forecasts in all media that are in degrees Celsius almost always give equivalents in degrees Fahrenheit for older viewers and readers.
• Petrol (= US "gasoline") must be sold in litres by law, but other commodities can legally be sold in units on either the metric or the imperial ("British") scale.
• People almost invariably refer to their weight in stones and pounds (1 stone = 14 pounds; "10 stone 3" means 143 pounds; "stone" is invariable when used as a unit) rather than kilograms, and tend give their height in feet and inches.
• Children are taught the metric system at school (at least, I was, but then it metrication was at its height) but pick up the imperial system either by experience or from their parents or other adults.
• Distances and speed limits on roads are given in miles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talk • contribs) 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, nothing has changed about the legality of current units. All that has been ruled [1] is that current system will continue, when it was planned that the sale of goods in anything other than metric units would become illegal in 2009. Currently, as was the case last month, and the month before, it is perfectly legal to sell things in pounds and ounces. What is illegal, and was illegal before, is to not advertise, or be able to sell, goods in metric units. The so-called 'metric martyrs' were convicted not of selling goods in lb and oz, but of failing to be able to sell goods in kg. They not only didn't provide a price in kg, meaning people couldn't compare prices to get an idea of what the best deal was, their scales didn't have metric units on them, only imperial, so if someone had wanted to buy 1kg of carrots, they couldn't. They could only buy them in a non-standard unit, one that is becoming increasingly unfamiliar to the younger generation.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that while Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett are English, they both write fairly American. So, while accounts of what it is like in England will generally be fairly accurate, you can't necessarily use their writing to draw conclusions about British-English usage. :-) Skittle 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dropping of final e in Italian

Does anyone know of a Wikipedia article that treats the dropping of final e in Italian? I would like to research this (in terms of when it is done (is it optional or required?), why (for euphony, perhaps?) and if this idea has a specific name) so that we can treat it properly in Wiktionary.

Some examples:

• Eppur si muove (attributed to Galileo in defence of heliocentrism; "eppur" is, in full, "eppure")
• Various set phrases beginning with far (from "fare", to do, to make), such as "far piangere qualcuno" (to make someone cry)
• "la maggior parte" (most, the majority of; from "maggiore", a comparative of "grande", large, big)

I'm not talking about e being dropped in pronominal verbs (eg, "lavarsi" [to wash (oneself)] or "farsela" [to manage, to succeed]) but rather when it is dropped from a separate word. These ideas might well be related, however, or one and the same concept.

Thanks for any help. — Paul G 09:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well one word for it is apocope, though I don't know if that word is used in Italian. So far as I know it's never mandatory. —Tamfang 17:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging from Italian wikipedia, it is so used (cited examples include qual[e] and fior[e]). Some explanations: [2] [3] (JSTOR subscription required for second link.) The Southern Italian dialects heard among Italian-Americans feature more widespread apocope. Wareh 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much. I see that the related adjective is "apocopic", so I'm going to propose that Wiktionary uses "apocopic form of ..." for these forms. — Paul G 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

closed/close

the door is close.

the door is closed.

is the meaning the same or different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.87.36 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

different.66.188.211.154 10:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The door is close means: the door is near-by (not far off), or, in other words, the speaker, the audience, or some other focus of attention, is not far from the door. The door is closed means that the door is not open. The meanings are completely independent, and all combinations are possible: a door can be close and closed, or close and open, or far off and closed, or far off and open.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out to the questioner that both these words can be either adjectives or verbs, which have different meanings, and, in the case of "close", a different pronunciation. In the first example above, "close" can only be an adjective, but in the second it could be either, depending on context, e.g. "the door is quietly closed" (verb) or "the door is still closed" (adjective), or even "the door is firmly closed" in which it could be either.--Shantavira 12:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pronunciation is different for the verb "close", meaning "shut" (IPA: klouz) and its form "closed" (klouzd) than it is for the adjective "close", meaning "near" (IPA: klous). Marco polo 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Something very odd, however, is that these two do mean the same, or nearly the same, thing:

"The door is open."

"The door is opened."

StuRat 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But "The door is opened" is odd in most varieties of English. 'Opened' is a past participle, and hardly exists as an independent adjective, unlike 'closed'. --ColinFine 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the rules for "opened" and "closed" are strangely non-symmetrical. I've also seen "The door was opened" used to mean either that it had gone from closed to open at some point in the past or that it was open at the moment. StuRat 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that we talk about doors being open or closed, when what's really open or closed is not the door itself but the doorway. JackofOz 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that close (nearby) and closed (shut) are unrelated, as far as I know. Whereas to be open is the result of having been opened.Storeye 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can also close (shut) a door - X201 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Though that's pronounced differently (naturally!) Algebraist 09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add another question: has the word "CLOSE" ever meant "NOT OPEN"? If so, then, what dictionary cites the meaning? thank you. You have all been helpful. I am expecting a reply.Carlrichard 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the verb/word?

If a principal expels a student, what do you call it when the principal un-expels the student and allows him to come back to school? --Kaypoh 12:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... "Impels"? No. "Repels"? No. "Readmits", maybe? —Angr 12:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with "readmits." Recury 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardons, perhaps? Storeye 05:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that he "retains" or maybe "accepts the student back".

Derren Brown

Hi, I've been studying a bit about accents, and I would like to know what specific accent Derren Brown has, if any (if you are not familiar with his voice, search his name on YouTube). Thanks! --203.208.110.207 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To this American, he sounds like anyone in southern England. —Tamfang 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He sounds like a Londoner to me. Which is very unsurprising considering he is from South London. --Phydaux 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And specifically, it would be a South London accent. London has a number of accents, apparently, though they all sound the same to us scousers. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Below Birmingham, we Merseysiders (and other Northerners for that matter) can only really distinguish between South-East and South-West accents! --Alex16zx 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which Dutch bookseller accepts credit cards?

I want to buy a dutch english picture book for children. I know it exists or did, because I bought several for my kids thirty years or so ago. Richard Scarry had one in English , Nederlands and French. The Berenstein books were available in Dutch. Who is a Dutch Internet bookseller, boekhandelaar, Who will accept my credit card.? I can just barely cope with business Dutch but I know they all speak English. Just might buy myself another Kookboek too.Sesquepedalia 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Selexyz is a Dutch Internet bookseller that accepts MasterCard and Visa. Their website is Dutch only.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bol.com is the largest Dutch Internet bookseller. They also sell second-hand books. Skarioffszky 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

languages with the greatest number of words.

Where can I find a list of the languages with the greatest numbers of words? I'm looking for one with the languages listed in order of the size of the lexicon, but also one where I can look up a given language and find how many words it has in it. In particular, I would like to know how many words there are in Arabic and Farsi (Persian). The Mad Echidna 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

English has the greatest number of words, over a billion, as it has loanwords from every language.--Kirby♥time 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the OED lists around 500,000 with a very inclusive policy, see Number of words in the English language.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC) And this site show the total approaching one million!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That only counts headwords.--Kirby♥time 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The number you claimed is still off by a factor of one thousand. Do you have a source for your claim, or did you just make it up and then present it here as a fact?  --Lambiam^Talk 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This article on lexica describes how someone estimated that Steingass’s (obsolete and unreliable) Arabic dictionary contains about 9600 three consonant root entries, while finding about 23 words (headwords?) for every 8 root entries. Combining these two gives an estimate of (23/8)×9600 = 27600 words. The method used was to count the number of words on every 200th page in a dictionary of between 1200 and 1400 pages. While these numbers do not sound implausible, in Arabic you can, for example, form nouns from the three consonant root verbs in a regular way, and many of the resulting words are considered verb forms in Arabic and may not have a separate mention or entry, while the corresponding noun in English usually will have its own entry, even for regularly formed words derived from verbs, like baker and thatcher. For such reasons comparisons of the lexical size between languages are precarious; for example, Turkish has a single word Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız meaning "You are one of those we couldn't turn into a Czechoslovakian", but you won't find that in a dictionary. I did not spot data for the size of the Persian lexicon, but if you have a good dictionary and a fair amount of patience and determination, you can go through the same exercise yourself.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız? That was in my dictionary! Remarkable, some of the stuff they give us at school! Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then your dictionary must be one of those where we can also find an entry for the word Mükemmelliyetçileştiricileştiriveremeyeceklerimizdenmişçesine.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good article about why it is impossible to compare the number of words in different languages. That English is the largest language is an oft-heard claim, at least in the English-speaking world. There is a kernel of truth in it, in that there is a large number of actively used synonyms for many words in the English language; but it is also a false claim for reasons mentioned in the article and in Lambiam's excellent post above. --Bonadea 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(1)It depends on what you mean by word. (2) Playing Scrabble, you can often take a gamble by adding un- in front of an adjective. In a large single-volume dictionary, there will be many plausible such formations which are included, and as many which are excluded, based on some more-or-less arbitrary decision of the compiler. unbreachable? unthorny? unwhipped? unsilly? jnestorius^(talk) 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can get a truly infinite amount if you allow things like scientific nomenclature. IUPAC nomenclature allows chemical compounds of any size to be given a name. --Pyroclastic 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 7

how to speak english

I would like to speak english fluently but still I can't is there any easy way to lean how to speak english very well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.65.107 (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The easiest way to learn any language is to hear it. Do you often talk to people who speak english? Do you go to English classes? If you do not, then there really is no "easy" way. I suggest reading many English textbooks and using internet resources. I am learning Ancient Greek that way. I am sorry I can't help any more.Storeye 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that hearing a language is not enough if you want to speak it well. For that, you have to speak it. The best way to learn a language is to spend time in an environment where others are speaking that language fluently. If you can possibly spend time in an English-speaking country, that would be best. Short of that, you might try working in the tourist industry or some other context where you will frequently run into English speakers. Marco polo 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a chance to speak it very often, while your typing, speak the words. That may help over a period of time. (AQu01rius • Talk) 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have spent 4 years teaching English to Nepalese students and I tell them that the more ways you experience the language, the faster you will learn it. Read English for twenty minutes a day. Write English for twenty minutes a day. Speak English for twenty minutes a day. Listen to English for twenty minutes a day. In this way you are getting input from four different learning pathways. Each language can be compared to a style of music, getting the intonation, cadence and pitch is as important as the vocabulary. Idiom and colloquillism are especially important and listening to radio and television, and asking about usage that you don't understand can be very helpful with this. Also, concentrate on major differences between your native language and English. An example is the Nepali language, which does not use articles before nouns, thus saying, 'the' book, 'a' pencil, 'an' elephant, do not come naturally.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my teens I gained considerable fluency in French, and in retrospect I believe Asterix deserves much of the credit. What would be a good analogue for English? —Tamfang 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

English translations of Asterix? Or Tintin? -Elmer Clark 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon English, and a dentist in Zagreb

Heya,
See this Jon English article edit.
I have almost no Dutch and no Croatian.... Mmmm... what's a better translation of 'Tražim zubara, Gdje je?' than simply "I need a dentist"? --Shirt58 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like, "I need a dentist; where is one?" However, this is based on my limited knowledge of other Slavic languages and may not be quite right. Marco polo 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation confirmed, but... I don't see the relevance, and Wikipedia is the only GHit for the phrase. That contrib is better undone... Duja► 14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, MP and Duja. When I read the article, though it stayed around for a while I was pretty sure the contrib was nonsense. It has been removed.

Still, I just thought I should check. Relevance? None at all, as it turns out. Mmm... dear old Jon English is multi-talented, and does have kind of scraggly teeth ... might he have been in a Croatian-langauge rock-opera about dentists? Well, very unlikely, but no harm in asking. (See also: the Google cache of a Dutch-Croatian phrase-book).

Enough silliness. Thank you again, MP and Duja.--Shirt58 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto - How hard to learn

Some days ago, there was a question what is the Easiest/Hardest language to learn. An answer was, that the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California had statistics how long it takes, to teach a language to bring students to a certain level of proficiency. Are there similar numbers for Esperanto, is it really an easy language like it was designed? --141.35.20.90 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a regular language in many respects (as it was designed to be), but regularity doesn't mean that it's trivial to learn -- you still have to learn vocabulary, inflections, and rules of grammar (such as adjectives agreeing in case and number with nouns). AnonMoos 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto grammar is very simple and regular and anyone can learn it in a few days. The vocabulary is often difficult to learn, particularly for speakers of non-Indo-European languages. One advantage of the regularity is that once you learn a noun you also have an adjective, a verb and an adverb, just by changing the word endings. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of two cases would present some difficulties to English speakers, but less so than the gender systems of "easy" European languages such as Spanish, where gender is not always predictable. So I'd say that it is a relatively easy language for English speakers. That said, whether a language is easy or not depends on one's native language and how different it is from the target language. I don't think that Esperanto would be easy for speakers of, say, Chinese. Marco polo 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No language is equally easy for everyone (though Loglan might come close if its vocabulary were random rather than democratic). Esperanto is not as easy for Chinese students as for (say) Italian students, but it is easier for Chinese learners than other European languages. —Tamfang 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. After several hours of study in the past weeks, I found that Esperanto word roots are hardly predictable for me. I speak English at a decent level and has been learning German for several months. I can sporadically spot word roots that are from these 2 languages, and it does help. So far, the biggest problem for me is word order. I don't seem to have got used to free word order. Chinese word order is very strict. And yes, I also have problems listening to plural nouns because the plural marker, -j, is clear to my ears. Chinese denotes plurals by adding measure words and determiners, rather than modifying the nouns. It is not inflected at all!--Fitzwilliam 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Experanto morphology is very simple and regular, and can be learned quickly. Esperanto grammar is (with a few exceptions) Standard Average European, so most of it comes readily to speakers of European languages, but not necessarily so easily to speakers of other languages. Marco Polo has pointed out that English speakers may have difficulty with cases, but, to take a very obvious example, Esperanto shares with most European languages that number is obligatory. This is not restricted to languages of Europe, but there are many languages in which number is more or less completely optional. --ColinFine 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comma's

I remember being told in High School English at St. Helena's in the Bronx NY that a comma denoted a change of thought in a sentence, that is, to separate TWO distinct thoughts, could someone verify this, I have tried many time to verify this particular view, to no avail, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.199.22.248 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It is hard to define what "distinct thoughts" means, and therefore this does not appear to be a useable rule. In fact, wouldn't distinct thoughts typically be expressed in different sentences, separate by a full stop or other sentence delimiter? While sometimes commas may separate parts of a single sentence that could be considered distinct thoughts, it is much more likely that the purpose will be served by a semicolon (to separate parts that could also function as sentences on their own) or a dash (to set off a parenthetical remark). Commas as punctuation serve a large variety of purposes, about which you can read more in our article Comma (punctuation).  --Lambiam^Talk 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A comma is a way to signal a pause you would make in speech; depending on the kind of pause made (and depending on the sentence structure) you might use a colon or semicolon or dashes or parentheses instead. So in a nutshell: it isn't really based on thoughts. We actually use full stops for that. --Kjoonlee 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And IMHO, "thoughts" in this case is just a way of avoiding saying, "Sentences end with a full stop. Don't create run-on sentences." --Kjoonlee 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comma use is much more complex than that. New writers often err in using it as "a way to signal a pause you would make in speech" or "a break in thought"; writers who do this often leave off commas that are grammatically necessary and add ones that are unnecessary. This makes their prose appear uneducated, stilted, and often confusing to the reader. In fact, the number one way to make your prose look bad (and often even make it difficult to understand) is to use commas improperly based on some simple rule.

It's made even more difficult by the fact that comma use differs from region to region. I often see sentences like this on Wikipedia:

"The dog failed to bark in the nighttime, however he did wag his tail."

That makes me scream (figuratively) NO NO NO NO!!! because in proper Canadian English the word "however" used in this manner MUST have a semi-colon or a period before it and a comma afterwards. No exception, no discussion. But the above sentence is perfectly good British English. --Charlene 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty categorical, Charlene. I thought the Canadians were a little more phlegmatic than that. :) The word "however" is widely used as a synonym for "but". "But" requires no semi-colon or period before it; a comma is more usual, but even that's not mandatory. Indeed, many would say it should never start a sentence, so it cannot possibly be preceded by a period. But I disagree with them. JackofOz 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Charlene, by "depending on the kind of pause made (and depending on the sentence structure) you might use a colon or semicolon or dashes or parentheses instead" I think I pointed out that a comma is not just a pause; it can also give semantic syntactic cues. BTW, I speak British English but I find your example awkward. --Kjoonlee 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The most annoying comma usage I see on Wikipedia is what I call the "Shatner comma", that is, a comma inserted directly between subject and verb. I see more and more of these every day, usually in longer sentences that are missing commas in other places. It's like the writer knew a comma belonged somewhere, but couldn't figure where, so just stuck one in the least appropriate place. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God, look at that apostrophe! Why is it there, WHY? Aaadddaaammm 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May 8

Literature

How does the number 25 relate to english? 71.190.2.208 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the sense that the English language contains the words "twenty" and "five", which, when placed together ("twenty five") convey in words exactly the same concept as the number "25". Sorry if that's not helpful, but the meaning of your question seems somewhat elusive. JackofOz 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also: 2 + 5 = 7; and there are 7 letters in the word "English". --Bielle 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question, which we cannot answer, but you might find something to start you off here. -Elmer Clark 06:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hate a teacher who set such a vague question as homework. How does butter relate to friendship, or zygarchy to jellyfish? A good answer is: they don't. It sounds like a puzzle question to me, with a hint given through the header in the form of the word "Literature".  --Lambiam^Talk 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabic userpage

Can someone who can read Arabic please take a look at User:CreativeArabs and see if the content given is in conformation with Wikipedia policies? Thanks!--thunderboltz^(TALK) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a quote from some innocuous literature min al-munfa ila l-munfa (not familiar with it). Drmaik 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It is all about a poem and looks like (a stab at) an article in desperate need of wikification as well as assertion of notability through reliable sources. I see no violation of policy. This used to be a (multiply created and deleted) article with the same Arabic title (presumably the name of the poem). The last time it was created here, moved to main space by the author, and moved back here by an admin.[4][5]. It looks like no-one has cared to engage with the author through their talk page about any of this. An article with the same title was AfD'ed and deleted on the Arabic Wikipedia: ar:ويكيبيديا:تصويت_للحذف/من_المنفى_الى_المنفى. Disclaimer: my understanding of Arabic is severely limited.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Can you also see why the article was AfD'd on the arabic wiki?--thunderboltz^(TALK) 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The delete reason is "Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing amateur poetry and the article is not encyclopedic". Adam Bishop 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All right. The userpage is harmless then. Thanks! --thunderboltz^(TALK) 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a divorced uncle still an uncle?

Is your fathers sisters ex-husband (or any other combination of ex-husband that fits) still officialy an uncle, and would they have to be declared on aplication forms etc. that ask if any relative is in the same company/organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.254.97 (talk • contribs)

If you're not sure, its always best to ask your boss. However, in the absence of any definition of "relative" I think you would be safe in saying "No". "Relative" is usually taken to mean blood-relative. But, in any case, you could certainly argue that he's no longer a relative.--Shantavira 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I also think that legally you're quite safe in not identifying him as your uncle. He is not married to your aunt, and therefore is not your uncle-by-marriage. (Informally you could refer to him as your ex-uncle, I suppose, as he is your aunt's ex-husband.) —Angr 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coffee matters

Please help me to understand the following: Volunteering to get someone a coffee is quick way to power and influence. Once you know someone is a 22 or a white without, you can ask them pretty much anything.

What is "22" in this case? I understand it refers to coffee, like "someone who preferes 22 coffee", also, what is "white without"? Does it mean coffee without cream? Please help, I need it for the correct translation and understanding as well. Thank you! Elena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.33.196.2 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The following is speculation, I could not find definitive references. "White without" would most likely be coffee with cream but without sugar. I'm nearly stumped on the "22" but I think perhaps the digits should be separated, thus "two two" not "twenty two," and that would be coffee with two cream and two sugars. Where did you find this information about coffee being the way to power? --LarryMac 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

'White without' could also mean with milk (rather than cream) but without sugar. I suspect the 22 is a reference to the codes that you have to key into a vending machine to get your coffee. So 22 could mean white with milk etc etc. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think RIchardJ is right..22 is a code on my coffee machine at work (well they say Coffee, water dressed in brown perhaps is more accurate). I expect that "white without" is meaning no-sugar, but with milk (or perhaps cream). I guess the idea is that coffee introduces a situation where there is no employer/employee mindset and so means you could 'connect' on a level. Similar to how I notice that people who smoke in my office often have a camaraderie with each other that (and I can say this with a degree of certainty) wouldn't exist without that link. I suspect the idea of coffee getting you ahead is similar to this. ny156uk 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Was this sentence written or uttered by a Canadian? Because a 'double-double' is common Canadian slang for coffee with two sugars and two creams.[6] --Charlene 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Charlene. It's almost certainly 'double double white without (sugar)'. Anchoress 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all!!! This sentence is from a humorous book by Guy Browning. The author is British. I guess 22 does refer to the vending machine, since it is used in similar context (with respect to the vending machine) further in the book. As for coffee being the way to power, it is just a joke I guess, since the book is a humorous one;) Also, thanks for "white without" :) But for you, I might have got it wrong. Elena

To this Brit, the sentence is completely clear. "White without" means with milk and no sugar (we usually refer to coffee as "white" or "black" rather than saying "with/without milk", (and we never say "cream" except on the rare occasions when we actually mean cream and not milk or non-dairy whitener). And I would immediately understand '22' to mean the code on the particular vending machine they share - but without knowing the machine, I would have no idea what particular variety of beverage that was. --ColinFine 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Learning Japanese

I am intending to take a course in Japanese at university, but I don't know if i wll be able to cope with it. I have some language background in that i am fluent in french so am familiar with learning a language. Any thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.251.218 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 May 2007.

Basic spoken Japanese is very easy: no tones, easy Italianate sounds, hardly any grammatical inflections. You could pick up the essential structure in a weekend and be able to hold a basic conversation (where do you live, what time is the next train to Osaka, two beers and a pizza please etc.) within days.

What are you talking about? Japanese is agglutinating (e.g. mi-ta-kuna-i see-want-not-nonpast "I don't want to look"), and I don't think postpositions are easier to learn than suffixes. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting beyond that, and understanding nuance and attitude and any conversation where it isn't obvious at the outset who is doing what to whom, is rather more complex, given that Japanese leaves out many of the words we'd use in European languages. Think about the way in English we might say "another?", where the situation makes it obvious that we really mean "John, would you like another beer?" - we don't bother to put in the non-necessary words. Well, trying to understand Japanese is like working out all the time what "another?" means when you're not familiar with the situation. Another what? For me or you? Who's offering?, etc.

Learning vocabulary (beyond basics) is complicated by the preponderance of short homophones in Japanese: a simple two-syllable word such as 'seikoh' can have at least half-a-dozen meanings, and there are no tones to distinguish them - only the context. (And the way it's 'spelt' in Chinese characters, though that's not much help if you're on the phone.)

Japanese does have pitch accent to distinguish words. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The written language is ludicrously difficult and cumbersome - two parallel alphabets (strictly, 'syllabaries'), plus eight hundred Chinese characters just to be able to read a kid's book or simple news story, and more like three times that to read a novel. If you can read and write a simple postcard within a year you're doing well.

That was my experience of the language as a native English speaker while living there for two years, anyway! No doubt other people here will have different observations... RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I would expect the pace of the course to take the difficulties of learning the language into account. In the end, all languages are incredibly difficult if you want to attain perfection (the same competence as a native speaker). For an English speaker, there are two or three main difficulties for mastering Japanese at a basic level. When learning French, about half the words have something familiar, but in Japanese almost all words are completely unfamiliar. You'll have no problem with kimono, and to remember that biru = "beer" is also not hard, but there it more or less stops. You'll have to memorize that shako means "garage" (or "partridge"), and so on. The problem of lack of vocabulary will remain until you have progressed quite far. Difficulty number two is the completely different grammar. Japanese grammar by itself is not particularly difficult, but if all you know is English and French, you'll have to do some brain rewiring before you can understand Japanese in real time. The keyword here is lots of practice. Then, if you are the type who can improve their language skills by reading – learning to read Japanese in the Japanese writing system is much more difficult than learning to understand Japanese in the first place, and actually not very profitable unless you already know Japanese. Finding interesting material in romaji is hard. Finally, on the way to perfection, you'll also have to master the language variants and nuances used for speaking "up" (being deferent) and speaking "down" (e.g. to a servant), next to the equal-level variant for addressing colleagues at work and such, normally the only one taught in courses and textbooks. But for getting around in Japan as a tourist you don't need this level of proficiency.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

May 9

What does Quebecois pronunciation mean??

I was looking at the item on wiki about poutine and it said something like "Quebecois pronunciation". What is that supposed to mean? I'm not trying to be a smart ass but this is commonly known stuff. Have you really researched the province of Quebec and its population and history before asserting this attribute? I don't think so.

Had you done so, you would have known that québecois is not a nationality or a language, not even as a canadianism. The proper word or words you were looking for are either french-canadian or at the most extreme, joual. (pron. joo-al)

Québec, as you know, is not 100% francophone. The vietnamese population who were born the 2nd generation in Québec are also from the province of Québec but are no more francophone than you are. But they are canadians who reside in the province of Quebec in a country called Canada. Therefore, you can't use something like "quebecois" to describe the roots of a word's origin or how it's pronounced. It's insulting to the other francophones (french-canadians) living outside Quebec and the non-francophones living in Quebec. Unless you've actually lived in a french-canadian community in Canada, it may be a hard concept to grasp but please bring some accuracy to your articles and make this simple edit. 74.104.23.97 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Benoit Aubry

As you are probably aware, anybody can edit articles at Wikipedia, thus the "you" you have addressed in this comment could be anybody. This also means that if you feel that something is incorrect in an article, you are free to change it. In addition, you comment might better have been placed in the talk page for the specific article you are addressing, Poutine. --LarryMac 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It says how to pronounce the word in Quebec French, which they are saying is a variety of French. People pronounce words different ways; what is so wrong about saying that people who speak French in Quebec pronounce it that way? I'm having a hard time seeing how it is possible to get offended over something like that. Recury 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article was edited after the gripe was posted.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ojibwe language for Manitoulin Island?

I'm interested in learning the language spoken by First Nations people on Manitoulin Island. See: http://www.wikwemikongheritage.org/language/resources.html Is that Anishinaabemowin? Is there such a thing as an Odawa-Ojibway language and is it different from Anishinaabemowin? Is there a standardized orthography for the language spoken in Wikwemikong or competing systems? Where can I see a full phonology explaining the sounds of that specific dialect or language? The Anishinaabe language dialects page does not mention Manitoulin Island, so I'm not sure which "dialect" is used. The Ottawa (First Nation) page says that Wiky is an Odawa community. Does that mean I'm looking for the Ottawa dialect of Anishinaabemowin? Or does it mean there's more than one dialect or language spoken in Wiky?--Sonjaaa 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

♦Answer to your first question: Yes. The indigenous languages spoken on Manitoulin Island are various forms of the Anishinaabe language. The three dialects or languages (depending on personal and academic biases) spoken are mixture of Eastern and Central Ojibwe (ojg and ojc), Odawa (otw) and Potawatomi (pot).

♦Answer to your second question: Yes, there is such a thing as a Odawa-Ojibway language. And no, it is not different from Anishinaabemowin, but rather part of Anishinaabemowin. Now, Anishinaabemowin will have subtle differences from community to community, and sometimes from speaker to speaker. On Wikwemikong, due to the past relocation projects from other areas to Manitoulin Island, this variation is quite pronounced. Often a person from Wiky will jokingly claim the ability to speak 5 different languages (dialects): English, Ojibwemowin, Daawaamwin, Bodéwadmimwen and "Ojiwaadmimwen" (a joke name to describe the form of Anishinaabemowin resulting from the mixture of Ojibwemowin, Daawaamwin/Jibwemwin, Bodéwadmimwen uniquely found on Manitoulin Island). The so called Odawa-Ojibway language is the form of the Anishinaabemowin typically called Nishnaabemwin. Nishnaabemwin is divided into Daawaamwin (Odaawaamowin or the Odaawaa language/dialect) and Jibwemwin (Ojibwemowin or the Central/Eastern Ojibwe dialect of the Ojibwe language).

♦Answer to your third question: No. There is not a standardized orthography for the language spoken in Wikwemikong; however, the Rhodes Double Vowel system is what is used among the academic circles.

♦Answer to your fourth question: Anishinaabe language dialects is the article you want to look at. It does not say "Manitoulin Island" specifically, but it is grouped (for now) with Ontario. Using the ISO 639-3 designation, again, the four dialects of Anishinaabe languages found on the island are ojg, ojc, otw and pot.

♦Answer to your fifth question: No, despite what the article currently says, Wikwemikong is not an Odawa-only community. Most of the people in Wiky are Odawa and Potawatomi, but with high degree of interactions with neighbouring Ojibwa communities, that distinctness Canadians and American love so much but have always been fuzzy among the Anishinaabeg are even more blurred with the communities found on Manitoulin Island.

♦Answer to your sixth question: Yes, you are looking for the Ottawa dialect of Anishinaabemowin, if you are looking at a predominantly Odawa, but as said before, other than the otw, there are ojc, ojg and pot spoken there as well. This was part of the reason why when Richard Rhodes compiled the Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary (Hardbound - ISBN-10: 0899251145/ISBN-13: 978-0899251141; Paperback - ISBN-10: 3110137496/ISBN-13: 978-3110137491), he grouped them together in this work. He also breaks down collection of communities with these codes in that dictionary:

1. (unmarked) - common to both Jibwemwin and Daawaamwin
   1. Oj - common to Jibwemwin
      1. CL - found in Curve Lake, ON
      2. R - found in Rama, ON
   2. Od - common to Dawaamwin
      1. BC - found in Bay City, MI
      2. CC - used by a speaker from Cape Croaker, ON
      3. CV - used by a speaker from Cross Village, MI
      4. M - found on Manitoulin Island
      5. S - used by a speaker from Sarnia, ON
      6. W - found on Walpole Island
   3. Pot - words that came from Potawatomi

The other "standard" work for the Nishnaabemwin, other than Rhodes' "EOCOD", is Rand Valentine's Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar (Hardbound - ISBN-10: 0802048706/ISBN-13: 978-0802048707; Paperback - ISBN-10: 0802083897/ISBN-13: 978-0802083890). CJLippert 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to our artice Ottawa (First Nation), the Ottawa (Odawa) language is considered a divergent dialect of the Ojibwe language, the latter being also considered a group of languages and then called, also including Algonquin, Anishinaabemowin. So, apparently, Odawa is a dialect of (a language belonging to) Ojibwe (also called Ojibway or Ojibwa). The Ethnologue report on Ottawa calls its use "Vigorous on Manitoulin Island".[7] This is the only language for which the reports mention Manitoulin Island, so it must be the major indiginous language there (and thus apparently including Wiky), even if, as the report states, all speakers are bilingual or trilingual: "All speakers also use English, some use other Ojibwa varieties."

I can't help you with the other questions; perhaps some other user can, but this is very specialized. But I bet that among the linguistics departments of the universities in Ontario there are linguists with a special interest in Anishinaabemowin languages and dialects, who can refer you to proposals or standards of orthography and phonological studies, if such exist (and I bet they do). I hope this answer is helpful.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard for writing out numbers

I've always been told, you write out any number under 10 and use the numbers for 10 and above (i.e. "He has seven cars." vs "He has 12 cars." Is this proper form for Wikipedia articles? LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, except "ten" goes the other way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words. --Anonymous, May 9, 2007, 06:01, corrected 10:12 (UTC).

Huh. I had always heard to write out any number expressible in a single word (one through twenty, as well as thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, hundred, thousand, million, etc.). —Angr 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a style question. Having worked for several publishers, I can report that the style for writing out numbers varies depending on the publisher, and sometimes depending on the publication. What does not vary is that a given style should be applied consistently throughout a publication, document, or series of documents. If Wikipedia's style is to write out numbers below 10 but to use numerals from 10 up, then you should adhere to that for Wikipedia. I have also seen 13 and 21 used as cut-off points below which numbers are written out. Incidentally, most style guides called for writing out any number that begins a sentence (though that usage should be avoided for large numbers.) Marco polo 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Still another style that some of us techies prefer is to use digits for any number that's viewed as a simple count or measurement, no matter how small. Thus "He has 3 cars", just a count, but "He has three cars: a Ford, a Lincoln, and a Roosevelt", viewing them as three different things. But that's certainly not Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, May 10, 2007, 05:54 (UTC).

Or in mathematics, where you might "take two 3-manifolds; if one is a knot complement, then there exists exactly one harmonic 1-form on it." "Adding 2 to a number preserves its parity; adding two even or two odd numbers results in an even number." etc. Tesseran 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Numbers_in_words Unimaginative Username 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

german translation

hello

right now i'm in primary school and my german lote teacher has given the yr 7s a german weather report speech as an assignment (or project) and i have to do a weather report for 6 different cities around the world. but i'm having trouble translating what i want to say , from english to german. could you please help me find what these words/sentences are in german (it's a pretty long list): _______________________________________________________________________

degrees celcius (as in 24 degrees).

In paris, it is the middle of winter and it is very cold. It is snowing and it’s very dry. Not ideal if you are trying to avoid bad hair days.

In cairo it is scorching hot and also very dry. The sun is up every day, so wear a hat and sunscreen if you are planning to visit.

Over on the other side of the world.

beijing, los angeles, brisbane, amsterdam. _______________________________________________________________________

i really appreciate you helping me. i'm not really good at german,but i want to get a good mark on my report card.

thankyouHamburgla 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we won't do your homework for you, but here are some links that may be helpful:

• de:Wettervorhersage, the article on Weather forecasting at the German Wikipedia
• Wetterzentrale, a German weather forecast site, where you can read Wettervorhersagen in German.

This may help you to find the right words and expressions to use in your weather report. And, by studying this, you will actually improve your German-language skills, which is more important than good marks on your report card.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

thankyou for the help lambiam!

What's the "shiz-niggle?"

I've searched for a definitition and derivation of the term "shiz-niggle" without success.

I have heard and read it used in describing a noun, e.g., he's the shiz-niggle.

I'm new at posting here and I hope this is an appropriate query.

BeeSssJay 11:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete guess here, I would say it's a continuation of shit --> shiz --> shizzle --> shiz-niggle, so therefor he's "the shit". Someone might have a better answer though. 213.48.15.234 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For those not familiar with this colloquial usage, calling something or someone the shit conveys a very favourable view on it, like saying it's the bee's knees. See our Shit article, which is quite the shit. Indeed, the uses of shizniggle on the Internet appear to have the same meaning.[8][9] (Most uses I could find spell it without hyphen.) In [http://blog.myspace.com/blog/rss.cfm?friendID=28345867] – I can't link this live because blog.myspace.com is on the Spam blacklist – it is used in combination with the shit, and in a grammatically freer way: I finally went out and bought my new car and holy friggin shizniggle, I love this car. Infiniti G35's are the shit.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You, Lambiam, are the shizizznizziggle-nizzigglizziggle-iggleniz. What? No article? 213.48.15.234 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting read on the "iz" infix and the "izzle" suffix is here, which I found in a reference on the Snoop Dogg page, the performer who popularized this particular form of slang. --LarryMac 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In Victoria, Australia "the shizz" (or shiz - I'm not sure how it's spelt) means the tops, or the best. It may or may not be related. Storeye 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's precisely related, as it's an abbreviation of shizniggle, and means exactly the same as above! Natgoo 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it could also be related to relatively early "shiznit" or could be derived from something like "it's the shit, nigger". Chances are, though, that it's just made up. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See also -izzle. jnestorius^(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese questions

Hello. I've recently started learning Japanese (only started a couple weeks ago), but there are a few small things I've come across that I'm curious about. I've got hiragana, katakana and some basic Kanji down, and am learning some vocab in tandem, just to give you an idea of where I'm at. So far I've been unable to find any answers through conventional means, so if anyone could answer I'd be grateful.

~ In written Japanese are there no clearly seperate "words"? Just an observation, but when presented with a block of text I'm often at a loss as to where a new word begins and ends, as there dont seem to be any discernable spaces. Is this overcome by Japanese by just recognising each word as its read, or is there something I'm missing (looking at particles or other signs)?

~ Learning Kanji. I suppose this is the crux of why Japanese is so hard to learn, but it seems like there's alot of stuff to remember even with one Kanji. The character itself, the stroke order, on and kun readings, what they mean and how they should be used seem pretty hard to memorise in "raw" form. I suppose what I'm asking is: has anyone come across an effective method of linking these things together, or just making them easier to remember by way of a system?

Thanks for your time folks, any answers would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.23 (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Japanese is one of the world's easiest languages to learn how to speak, but at the same time is one of the world's hardest languages to learn to read and write. The short answer is "No, Japanese is generally not written with spaces between words". This means, you have to know not only the single Kanji words, but multiple Kanji words (but most are in groups of 2 - though there may be several of these groupings strung together). In addition, the Kana, like the Kanji, are written without spaces as well, which means you have to know when to read the Kana as a pure phonetic element or when to read it with a special pronunciation due to its grammatical function... which just means practice, practice, practice. Don't sweat. Even Japanese have problems. As for the On/Kun readings, this too do have some flexibility, so don't get hung up on it. The best way is to take in the concept of the word and not down to the mechanics of the word. Focus on how the language is spoken, and then just drudge away at making the written language fit the spoken. Sorry if this wasn't too helpful. CJLippert 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some general rules. Kanji are usually (but not always) pronounced in their On form when they are in groups of 2 or more. They are usually pronounced with their Kun form when they are on their own, and very often they are accompanied by hiragana in this case. Speaking about the kana not having any spaces, I know of a particular example that usually can be worked out by context:

Sign at the entrance of a hotel or hot spring: ここではきものをぬいでください。 Is that 'kokode, hakimono wo nuide kudasai' or 'kokodewa, kimono wo nuide kudasai'?

You just get used to it after a while. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanji are hopelessly complex, and the Japanese managed to lumber themselves permanently with a system totally unsuited to representing their language that just has to be learnt by brute force of memorisation, but there are few bits of good news. First is that even the most complex kanji are always made up of a few smaller ones bunched together as one. Once you know a mere 800 or so basic kanji, you'll find it reasonably easy to pick up the complex ones because you can think ah, this one's just a composite of three kanji: 'rain' on top, 'foot' bottom left, and 'ritual self-immolation' bottom right.

Second is that Japanese can make a huge range of very subtle compound words by combining sequences of kanji. It's a bit similar to the way in which we can coin words in English from Latin or Greek roots: if I made up a word like 'symphonophobia', for instance, you'd probably guess that it was something to do with a fear of large-scale orchestral music based on a logically evolving motivic premise. Well, Japanese can do stuff like that all the time. The catch is that, because it's written in kanji, you'd know exactly what it meant at a glance if you encountered it in print, but might not be sure of the pronunciation. Even if you were, the pronunciation would be so bland thanks to all those pesky homophones that the spoken result wouldn't be comprehensible (it would just sound like another jumble of koh, kyoh, kyo, ku, sha, shi, ka etc).

In short: kanji are maddening but fascinating, with a magnificent illogic all of their own. If you like language you'll love delving into their complexities and quirky beauties. And (just as English speakers love talking about our comically inconsistent spelling) the Japanese love talking about kanji as this monstrous but strangely rewarding shared burden. It's a wonderful and intriguing system; it's just rubbish for writing a language with. All in my humble experience anyway etc. RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Basicaly, there are 1600 kanji that people learn up to high school, and then another 400 extra ones that do not have to be strictly learnt at school, but do help when reading newspapers and literature. However, there are over 6,000 kanji in use (not exactly daily use), and as said above, there are new ones being either imported from China or being newly constructed. The traditional kanji are the easiest to remember to read, as the modernized ones tend to have lost some of the 'logic' in them. There was no real standard-simplification rules for the kanji, which is also compounded even more in Japan as only some of the simplified kanji were borrowed from China, whereas Japan simplified others in their own way, and furthermore, both simplified and unsimplified are in current use.

The biggest problem, however, is with names of people and places. People's family names are fairly straight-forward, as there are not many of them. Given names are harder, as someone may have a 'standard' standard name, like 'Shinji' or 'Emiko', but if you don't know the person it can be very hard to work out the actual pronunciation of the name. Plave names are worse. Sometimes, like 東京 'Tokyo', it is very straightforward, but the smaller towns can have names where the kanji is the same as one of the major towns (神戸 'kobe', 'kanbe', depending on which town you are talking about), or the kanji might be completely unrelated. Plus, the Japanese pronunciation of Chinese place names will either have its own Japanese pronunciation of the name, or the 'English' pronunciation, like 北京 'Pekin' and 香港 'Honkon'.Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers guys. It seems alot of Japanese relies on the context of the conversation/writing your reading, rather than the definitiveness of an isolated statement. I guess its something you get accustomed to the more you practice, but it is strange when you first start learning.

So with the Japanese language as a whole, does anyone who's studied it have any general tips or methods of learning they've found effective? It seems every book and website suggests different styles of learning, how much to learn in a given time, etc. For example, I've seen some suggest learning to speak Japanese before even picking up a pen to write it (just listening and reading romaji), while others discourage the use of romaji. Just wondered if you guys who've been there and done it have any wise words.

Thanks again in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.7 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

What works for one person may not work for the next. Also, an approach that is good if you spend eight hours or more a day studying Japanese may be less effective if you spend no more than ten hours a week on it. Keeping that in mind, learning to read and write katakana and hiragana really well is relatively easy and almost certainly worth the investment. My advice, for what it is worth (my efforts to learn Japanese have had very limited success), is to also start early with learning kanji: since it will take you a couple of years to master this, you don't want to start late. Make sure you learn, with each character, how to write it with the correct stroke order. But take it easy, say one character a day, and as CJLippert already said, concentrate on the meaning and don't sweat memorizing the on and kun readings – they will come naturally as your Japanese improves. Don't expect, though, that in this stage you will be able to understand a text, even if you already know all characters; usually you won't be able to. So this is all next to and relatively independent of learning the (spoken) language. If you are immersed in a context where people constantly teach you spoken Japanese and patiently listen to your fumbling attempts to speak it, then by all means skip reading & writing romaji texts. Otherwise, I don't see how avoiding romaji can be helpful. Once you have reached the stage that you comprehend most romaji texts without too much effort, start reading texts in the Japanese writing system with a comparable level of complexity. In the end, the only thing that works is practice.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Most beginners' manuals worth their salt actually have sentences written in more or less standard written Japanese (i.e. with level-appropriate kanji) and include furigana (kana on top of the kanji to show the pronunciation). These type of books allow you to get used to seeing the language written at the same time as being able to pronounce the sentence properly (and look up words you don't know in a dictionary). As reading material for when your language gets a bit better, I would definitely recommend manga, as they are almost all written like this. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the general consensus, going by what other people have said too. Thanks for the help guys.

BTW Scouse Mouse, just read your profile, and blog, nice to see a fellow brit. What's it like actually living out there, if I may be so bold?

Some help with a German word

The name for the Rhine river in German, "Rhein", is very perplexing to me in terms of how to pronounce it...I'm a Spanish student, and pretty much the only word I know in German is how to say "bless you". Is the Rhine river pronounced like "rain", or is it obvious and pronounced like its English name? --Kitty ^who? 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of der Rhein, via dict.leo.org. Jacek Kendysz 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work for me. o_O --Kitty ^who? 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like "rine", with a German R sound.--Sonjaaa 04:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie, thank you. --Kitty ^who? 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May 10

English sounds like. . .

Most languages seem (at least to me) to have a unique sound. For instance, although I do not know German, I recognize it by its guttural sounds. I don’t know any Indonesian languages, but I find that many place a lot of emphasis on open mouth sound, particularly –ongs and -uls. (Not unlike Gamelan Music.) So my question is, to a non-native speaker, what is English’s characteristic sound or personification? What sounds do people use to identify English? S.dedalus 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well: We do not have the gutteral "r" of German, the trilled "r" of Russian, or the "ch" of German. We do have an "h" that I think French at least doesn't have. umm... We have no particiular system of connecting words together to sound nice (such as Turkish's euphony rules or the complicated rules about French constanants on the end of words) which may lead to clashing parts of speech. We have no specific voice modulation for words like there is in Thai and many other Asian languages. It is a very Europeany/Romancy language. errr... I would personally think of English as very plain, unmusical, yet varied in vowel sounds. Others may disagree, and of course, a language sounds different when spoken by different people or in different places. Hope that helps Storeye 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I think I’m developing an inferiority complex :-) S.dedalus 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This question probably needs a non-native English speaker to answer it, but I'd say somewhere between German and French (our two major language influences).Cyta 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing English has that a lot of languages don't is the two different "th" sounds. --Anon, May 10, 08:13 (UTC).

I think the most obvious sound in English that identifies it as "English" for someone that does not speak English is the "r". The English r is very particular among European languages, I can't think of any other European language that has that sound. On the coneither roll it like the Spanish or Russian "r", or gutturalise it like the French or the German "r". There may be other languages in the World that have that soft r like in English, but I have not heard of them. Now Lambiam or some other Ref desk guru is shoot down my theory :-) Lgriot 08:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, a common imitation of native English (esp. US) speakers by foreigners is to insert a lot of rolled Rs (even when not speaking English). I guess that also mimics the way that American L2 learners sound when trying to speak a foreign language. Well, I know at least one :-). Duja►

The sound you linked to (also known as alveolar trill, IPA /r/) does not occur in English – except Scottish English. You probably mean the alveolar approximant, IPA /ɹ/, which occurs in rhotic accents of English. It is not rolled but produced by a steady airflow.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides the consonant clusters that do not occur in some other languages, and the unusual consonants of English (consontal 'r' and the voiced and unvoiced 'th'), English is unusual in the prevalence of schwas. Most unstressed syllables have this vowel. Only stressed syllables have strong vowels. To speakers of other languages, English may sound like a series of staccato syllables with strange consonants and schwas, punctuated by long stressed vowels. Even the stressed vowels tend to at least start as central or open vowels, though many of them are diphthongs that end in close vowels. English has fewer strong close vowels [i] and [u] than most other languages. So English probably sounds rather consonantal and mid-mouth to speakers of other languages. Marco polo 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Northumbrian English has a strong Germanic "r" sound, quite unlike the Scottish "r" which is more of a trill. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To the original questioner: I'm a native speaker of both Spanish and Catalan and, since a very very young age, I've always recognized English by a perceived omnipresence of "r"s. The great difference between English r and the Spanish and Catalan ones was probably responsible in part for this. When I was about three years old and I saw someone speaking English on TV, I was like "hey, this guy only says something like wrourrarruour". --Taraborn 13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether that's partly because of the reduction of unstressed vowels, as Marco noted above, to what can pass for a nonrhotic /r/ (if that's not an oxymoron). Without that, I imagine that the large repertoire of vowels would stand out. —Tamfang 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

in too deep

im just curious to know what "in too deep" means in the song that has the line "coz im in too deep, and im trying to keep up above in my head..."

The phrase "in too deep" means that you've gotten into a situation that you can't handle and things are overwhelming you. The lyrics, as you posted them, don't really make any sense. "I'm trying to keep up above in my head" just doesn't make grammatical sense. Dismas|^(talk) 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"In too deep" implies that one is in water over one's head, and presumably can't swim. I read "Trying to keep up above" in the sense of trying to keep one's head above the water. Here is further discussion of this very lyric (albeit with a not-too-friendly tone). See also idiom --LarryMac 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you.. you have been very helpful. Carlrichard 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)210.1.82.53 06:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Translate "Be all that you can be" into German

The US Army used to have a slogan: "Be all the you can be". How would you translate this into german-- it's a very nonstandard use of "be" and the tenses are insane? Now that I think about it, I'm suprised I can even understand "Be all that you can be" in English, although that's my native language.

Bonus points if we can find a translation that was "official", i.e. used by the US Army. --Alecmconroy 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find nothing non-standard about it.

• Be all that you can be.
• Eat all that you can eat.
• Go everywhere that you can go.

These are all fine, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sei alles was Du sein kannst." 213.201.189.242

The first 'be' is imperative mood — it's a command — while the second is infinitive as it's the object of 'can'. As a slogan, and a rather poor one at that, it should, perhaps, read „Seien Sie alles, daß Sie sein können“, but I'm not entirely sure about it. — Gareth Hughes 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I like the anon's version better. First, I think "du" is better in this context (it's supposed to reach you on a personal level). Second, "daß" is wrong, it has to be "das" (it's a relative clause). And finally, I'd never use "alles, das" but "alles, was" (this is purely my gut feeling, but I think it's because no actual object is given). </nitpick> --Dapeteばか 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, "alles" always takes "was" as a relative pronoun. "Alles das" or "alles dass" is incorrect. -Elmer Clark 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Be quiet!" "Be careful!" More examples of "be" as a command, as Kjoonlee said. The slogan might be more clear if "become" were used: "Become all that you can become", i. e., "Become as good as you can possibly become". "Be" is shorter and catchier. Does that help any with the English version? Unimaginative Username 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Translating "pickles" into french

I've looked in dictionaries and asked french canadians how to say "pickles" in french. (I was wondering because i work at a Subway in New Hampshire and get customers who speak french.) Despite my research attemps I can't find a sound answer to my question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.177.70.228 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I think the word you are looking for is cornichon. "Pickles" would be "des cornichons". - Eron ^Talk 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if that translation was used for Stu Pickles, Didi Pickles, Dil Pickles, Angelica Pickles, and Tommy Pickles in Rugrats in Paris: The Movie. StuRat 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the New Hampshire use of the term pickle. For pickle in the sense of "(pickled) gherkin", cornichon is right. If pickle is used for "(pickle) relish" (typically chopped, not necessarily (only) gherkins), then it appears the French for this is also relish, as in: Avec de la relish?[10].  --Lambiam^Talk 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of relish in France. My dictionnary gives the French word achards (alaways plural) for relish. My French dictionnary gives pickles as a synonym for achards.195.33.65.134 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be Canadian French. Achards appears to be more like Indian pickle (also known as achar). No cucumbers but other vegetables like for example beans, carrots, cauliflower, and cabbage, and typically containing turmeric. Indonesian acar is similar, but seems to contain no oil.  --Lambiam^Talk

You are right. The Grand dictionnaire terminologique [11], from the Office Québecois de la langue française translates "relish" by relish and adds a note: ((Le nom de ce)) condiment américain est intraduisible en français d'autant plus que le mot lui-même veut dire goût, saveur, soupçon, amuse-gueule, condiment ou assaisonnement

Ce condiment nord-américain sucré est bien éloigné des achards dont certains ont songé à lui donner le nom. 195.33.65.134 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Znüni

Can anyone impart some wisdom? Is Znüni Masc. or neut.? It's a type of snack if that helps. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch it can be either masculine or neuter. (My nonnative intuition favors the neuter, though, because it's a diminutive.) It's discussed at de:Zwischenmahlzeit#Vesper, Znüni und Zvieri, but only occurs either without overt case/gender marking or in the dative, so you can't tell which those authors prefer. —Angr 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article Helvetism also has "der/das Znüni".  --Lambiam^Talk 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Masculine and neuter are both acceptable in Swiss German dialects and in Standard German (as a borrowed helvetism - see the article Lambiam linked to). There are regional preferences, but there is also the phenomenon of flexible license, perhaps more so in spoken dialects with few standardized and codified norms. As a native speaker, my usage is inconsistent, and I believe I use both grammatical genders for all the names of meals beginning with the letter 'Z':

es or en Zmorge (breakfast, from zum Morge, to/with morning)

es or en Znüni (morning snack (or second breakfast?), from zum Nüni, to/with nine o'clock (am Nüni means at nine o'clock. The noun nine is Nüni (neuter), not an unflexed Nün/Neun (f) like in Standard German. I don't think 'Znüni' is a diminutive.)

es or en Zmittag (lunch, from zum Mittag, to/with noon)

es or en Zvieri (afternoon snack, from zum Vieri, to/with four o'clock. vier/Vieri same numerical substantivation as with 'nün/Nüni')

es or en Zabig (dinner/supper in some dialects, from zum Abig, to/with evening)

es or en Znacht (dinner/supper in other dialects, from zu de Nacht, to/with night).

For a text written in Standard German, I'd probably choose the masculine version. To my ears, it would give the word more of a Helvetic feel in a German Umfeld. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

May 11

Can you all help?

Which of the following is wrong?

you will = you'll. you all = you'll.

Zain Ebrahim 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of you all being shortened to you'll. The nearest shortening of You all that I have heard of is the American Y'all. - X201 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. 213.48.15.234 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article Y'all mentions some evidence suggesting that y'all is not actually a contraction of you all; see under Controversy.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In South Africa, "You all" is shortened in some communities to "you'll" (pronounced "Yoll") - but this is certainly slang (sometimes we call it 'Kitchen English' which is an extention of Kitchen Zulu which is a common vernacular spoken by South African indigenous people so that they can understand each other - much like Swahili is spoken in Africa) Sandman30s 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comma question

How would this exhortation be: "Learn to speak, man" or "Learn to speak man"? --Taraborn 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The first, with a comma. See also this earlier question: What's the rule that.... If, contrariwise, you wanted someone to become able to speak Manx, the commendation would be: "Learn to speak Manx", without comma.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Just wanted this as a proof against an idiot that claims the other one :) --Taraborn 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Learn to speak man" could have an interesting interpretation: "Movie very good, many big explosions, many naked women, me much like". :-) StuRat 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rasputin

Hiya, does any one know where i can get books written by Rasputin? He supposidly wrote a few one called: My life in Christ and another called: My thoughts and meditations. Among others. Are these available in English? And if so where? NB, I am not interested in books about him, that I already know. I want to read what he had to say Thanks Guys81.144.161.223 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You've asked this before, and received rather extensive answers: [12]. --LarryMac | Talk 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but I did not have any luck in finding his books. Therefore I have asked again. Sorry, but i really need this. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, as indicated on the linked archive page, it doesn't appear that Rasputin wrote anything called My Life In Christ, and perhaps the only way to get My Thoughts and Meditations in English is from the Maria Rasputin book, My Father. Since that book is out of print, you would need to find it in a library or from a used book seller. I note that AbeBooks.com and it's counterpart in the UK AbeBooks.co.uk both list available copies. --LarryMac | Talk 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, based on library catalog information: Mariia Grigor’evna Rasputina's My life does supposedly contain "My thoughts and meditations, by Gregory Rasputin. [Short description of a visit to the holy places and the meditations on religious questions aroused thereby]": pp. [121]-157. Also, "The Story of the Revolution was written by Rasputin, and done into a booklet by Fra Pir Bakks."—this note appears in the said booklet, which was published [Greenville, Ohio]: Benares & Co., 1934 (just a little pamphlet: 31 pp.). The only library in WorldCat that owns it is Cornell University. Wareh 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Breathless Whispy sort of sound

I'm trying to think of a word to describe the soft, breathless, whispy, comforting and even slightly sexy sounding female voice when used by female singers, such as Amy Lee on Hello, KT Tunstall on Heal Over, Dido's general sound and many others I like such as Dar Williams or Beth Nielsen Chapman occasionally.Scraggy4

In phonetics I believe this is known (logically enough) as breathy voice. Gandalf61 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it logical to call a breathless voice a breathy voice?  --Lambiam^Talk 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A breathless voice would be no voice at all. A breathy voice emphasizes the sound of breathing. —Tamfang 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I once (honestly!) told a woman that her voice was like the low notes of a flute. --TotoBaggins 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not tell her it was like the brown note ? StuRat 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May 12

Spear/Distaff or Paternal/Maternal?

What is the difference and which one should I use? 69.218.237.116 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In what context ? StuRat 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Children, Offspring, Infants, Issues, Progeny

What is the difference between the words that are mentioned above? 69.218.237.116 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)