Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

October 11

(Nada)

(There were no Language questions today.) [24:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]

October 12

Nahuatl translation

So, this is not a difficult question, except for the rarity of Nahuatl speakers. All I want to know is how to say "Farmer's Branch" in Nahuatl. 4.226.72.90 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the town of Farmer's Branch, Texas, I doubt if it has a distinct Nahuatl name. -- Visviva 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, but I'm not looking for a distinct Nahuatl name, just the translation meaning a "branch" belonging to a "farmer" --4.226.72.90 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that 'branch' as in, of a tree? Steewi 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --4.226.72.60 05:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems prima facie unlikely to me that a Texas town's name was intended to mean "tree branch belonging to a farmer"; maybe "branch of a river watering the farmer's fields"? Wareh 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Farmer's" could also be referring to a person whose surname is Farmer. —Angr 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any way there is no way to adequately translate that particular phrase into nahuatl. Limbs of trees are generally in Nahuatl (classical at least) called "māitl" - "hand" there is no separate word for branches of trees that I know of. Amother way to say it would be to just say the word for tree/wood or stick "cuaitl". Or one could use a compund like cuauhmāitl "treehand". There is also not a separate word for "farmers" or agricultors, the closest translation might be "macehualli" which means something like "commoner" or "tequitqui" which means "worker". The closest translation of the phrase then would be "īcuauhmā in mācehualli" - which could equally well be understood to mean "the commoners treehand". In modern nahuatl spanish loanwords would probably be used, In Hueyapan Nahuatl it might be said as "īkoh den campesino" translateable as "the farmers stick of wood" ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet all the money in my pocket that "branch" refers to a stream and not a tree limb. --Milkbreath 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This page explains why it's "Farmers" (it is indeed about agriculturists, not a person named Farmer) but is silent about the intended meaning of "branch". —Angr 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't people just take my hunches as gospel? Topozone shows a "Farmer's Branch" in its list of Dallas County streams, and this map seems to show it. --Milkbreath 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cutting back to the left here. It's probably true that branch means branch of a river, but I'll go with the "Farmers stick" translation above unless someone comes in and gives me "Farmer's River-branch" I'm just trying to get it to the point that, when read in context, someone with basic knowledge of Nuhuatl would recognize what i was talking about. --4.226.72.39 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to continue the negativity, but isn't it pretty obvious that most people with advanced knowledge of Nahuatl would be utterly mystified by a reference to "the commoner's treehand"? Maybe not if your Nahuatl speaker happens to do lots of cryptic crosswords for fun... Wareh 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this exist?

Does this exist:

a computer simulation that generates a made up list of words, then simulates language change according to the principles known to historical linguistics, and then presents a series of word lists for the fictional 'daughter languages'. A user then looks at these new word lists, and tries to recreate the original language, much like they've been doing for years with real langauges (eg P.I.E.).

--Duomillia 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do recall that there is a program which will generate lists of words according to the phonotactics you specify, but I can't find it. This program will take a list of words and apply the sound changes you want. Strad 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/10/2250221 is this ?87.102.87.36 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about two different programs, one to generate proto-words and one to mutate them; obviously the first can feed the second (at least in principle). For the first step, you'll probably find something at Langmaker. For the second, see Geoff's Sound Change Applier and Zounds. —Tamfang 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'have to' and 'need to' as modal verbs

On the modal verb page says:

Modal verbs give additional information about the mood of the main verb that follows it. In other words, they help to incorporate or add the level of necessity: (must/need to/(have) got to/have to = obligation, requirement, no choice); (should/ought to = recommendation); (can/could = it is possible); and (may/might = option, choice).

and

In English, main verbs require the auxiliary verb do to form negations or questions. Modal verbs never use this auxiliary do...

(emphasis added)

These seem contradictory to me as "need to", "(have) got to" and "have to" all need "do" to form negations and questions. What is the consensus regarding these as modal verbs?

211.2.159.2 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say they're modal verbs in function but not in form? Or, to use linguistic jargon, semantically but not morphologically. —Angr 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, this looks like a confusion between defective verbs and modal verbs. As I recall, all defective verbs in English (those without a "proper" infinitive form) are modal verbs, ie can, must, may, (could, should, might, etc), but some non-defective verbs may be used with modal function. One might speculate that these are colloquialisms that are in the process of becoming formal, and I offer the candidate "better" as one that may become formally accepted in time. (You better come home on time, young lady!) SaundersW 08:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your

Picture this scenario: You're house hunting, and you're being shown over yet another potential purchase. The agent says: "Here there's your living room, and next door is your dining room, and your kitchen. Down the hall are your 13 bedrooms, your 9 bathrooms, and your 3 libraries". The word "your" is unstressed. This use of "your" is often a way of enumerating things, and is found in all sorts of circumstances that are not related to anybody owning anything. Shakespeare used it in Hamlet - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", not meaning Horatio's philosophy (whatever that may have been), but philosophy in general, and it was a bit of a put down, imo. Is there a term for this usage of the word "your"? -- JackofOz 07:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

i would call it the 'common' second person, but that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.100.107 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Genitive form of the generic you perhaps? -Elmer Clark 09:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite it, Elmer. The example given is "You should always wash your hands", as an alternative to "one should always wash one's hands". You and your could refer to the person being spoken to, or to people in general. Whereas in my scenario above, the dining room does not belong to anyone, at least not yet. What the agent is really saying is "Here there's the living room, the dining room, etc.". He's not saying it's your dining room. -- JackofOz 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what Jack is talking about; you hear it a lot in Texas, where I grew up. I don't know any term for it, but it reminds me of the Hiberno-English phrase "your man" used where I would say "that guy", as in "Look at your man over there with the socks that don't match". —Angr 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh like this:

(Touring a cool company) "What you have here is your basic run-of-the-mill electro--hey don't touch that!"

"I thought you said it was mine?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.126.201 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reply to your query, Jack, but Neil Gaiman quotes a lot of "your" in a "Julian and Sandy" conversation in his blog here. SaundersW 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been racking my brain over this question since it appeared here, and I've been getting nowhere. I finally gave up and looked in the OED. No wonder I was baffled. The OED calls it "corresponding to the ethical dative you". It's much older than I thought; Shakespeare used it in exactly the same sense: There is not a more fearefull wilde foule then your Lyon liuing. The earliest citation is from 1568.

What is the "ethical dative" you you ask? Well you might. "Used with no definite meaning as an indirect object" says the OED, which then provides several inscrutable archaic citations. It says to compare the ethical dative me, which I can approximate here: "Cry me a river" would be using the ethical dative me if it didn't mean "cry [for] me a river" but simply meant "cry a river". We just don't use anything like the ethical dative any longer except for the your we're talking about. --Milkbreath 00:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we seem to be onto something. You're saying this "your" is not the ethical dative itself, but a usage of the possessive pronoun that corresponds to the ethical dative? How interesting. Funny that there's no precise term for it. I'm sure this isn't the first time this question has ever been asked anywhere. Fowler and some other reference books in my library seem to be silent on the matter, which is odd because it's quite a common form of colloquial expression when you think about it. (I've never seen it in a written text - other than here, of course; and other than when a character's words appear.) Thanks for the replies so far. -- JackofOz 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're all missing something :) Real estate agents try to get the prospect to picture themselves in the home. The old saying is that when the prospect(s) start trying to decide where each piece of furniture will fit, the sale is "made". (A more subtle trick is to drape a negligee across the bed.) This doesn't answer the very valid general question of the editorial "your" (hey! I think I just answered it -- it's the "editorial" "your"), but it answers the actual scenario posited in the OP. Regards, Unimaginative Username 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Maybe that was a bad example, UU. Thinking a bit more about this while I was in the shower, maybe one of the reasons it's not much discussed in the literature is because it is so colloquial. People say it all the time, but they almost never write it, except, as I say, where a character in a play/film is made to say it. Or where some public figure makes a speech or gives an interview and the words are transcribed, e.g. "You've got your Labor Party and your Liberal Party, and you've got all your other minor parties, but whether any of them can actually do anything useful is a moot point". -- JackofOz 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not the ideal example, the real estate thing, but I knew what you meant. But back to the ethical dative. The OED actually has it in single quotes, now I go back and look: 'ethical dative'. I take this and "corresponding" to mean simply that there is no such thing anymore. So, I think we can call your your that in the absence of a replacement label. By the way, they do define it as vaguely implying "that you know of" and comment that it often expresses contempt. --Milkbreath 01:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Further thought: Maybe one of the other reasons it's not often found, even in plays, is the stress ambiguity. I've often heard actors (even John Gielgud) declaiming the Hamlet speech as "... than are dreamt of in your philosophy", whereas I'm sure it ought to be "... than are dreamt of in y'r philosophy". It's hard to write this without the stress intention of the playwright being misinterpreted (and I doubt whether Shakespeare, whoever he was, knew IPA). -- JackofOz 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of which: Will someone please tell all the Hamlets that it should be

...whether it is nobler [micro-pause] in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...

rather than

...whether it is nobler in the mind ...

? Some fairly famous actors seem to make this mistake. Well, at least Patrick Stewart in the role of Jean-Luc Picard did. --Trovatore 02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the most notorious one of all: Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? ("wherefore" means "why", not "where"; and there's no comma or pause before the final Romeo). And as we're coming up to Christmas, please let's not have any merry gentlemen being rested by God, but lots of gentlemen being "rested merry" (= made happy) by God. -- JackofOz 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Further OT, but sense can be made of each version, placing a single comma at any point along the sentence, regardless of the original intent.Steewi 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack, while I'm not disputing the "Julian and Sandy" your exists, I disagree that Hamlet is an example. Why do you think Shakespeare meant "philosophy in general" rather than [Horatio's] "particular system of ideas or beliefs relating to the general scheme of existence and the universe", which is how I've always interpreted the passage? And what does (or did) "philosophy in general" mean? FiggyBee 19:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to believe as you did, FiggyBee, but I heard someone who sounded authoritative say this some years ago (can’t remember where or when), and it struck a chord with me. It made a lot more sense, and apparently others agree. Google reveals various schools of thought, but in support of mine I offer:

• footnote 1, page 114, this, this and this
• I need a sub to access this document, but searching for “Horatio’s philosophy” on Google tells me it includes " ... philosophy," which is almost universally quoted with an emphasis on "your", instead of on "philosophy". It is, of course, not...."
• same for this, which includes " ... It is, of course, not Horatio's philosophy that is meant, but "that philosophy that people talk of-the so-called 'ethical' use of 'your'. ...". Note the word "ethical" again.

Did Shakespeare actually intend this intepretation? We'll never know for sure. Re "philosophy in general", I mean that Hamlet was not saying that Horatio's personal philosophy was inadequate (because it's never mentioned again, and we have no idea what his personal philosophy was, so it would have been a pointless statement), but that the study of philosophy (which in those days included things like astronomy, religion, astrology etc) would never give one all the answers to all the questions of life, the universe and everything. He was having a go at "philosophy", not at Horatio -- JackofOz 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go with Mr. Oz, here. I almost argued Ms Bee's point yesterday, but I've changed my mind. It seems to me that the only reason we didn't interpret your properly all along is that it would sound too colloquial for the Bard according to present usage. He used it in Midsummer Night's Dream, so why not here? And it makes more sense in situ, as it were. I think we can add this to the long list of everyday misquotations like "Play it again, Sam." --Milkbreath 13:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't quite call it a misquotation. "Play it again, Sam" is one, because nobody in Casablanca uses that exact sequence of words. The Horatio quote has the right words in the right sequence, but suffers from the stress being placed, in the eyes of some people, on the wrong word. Is there a term for this? (I must say my original query has proved quite fecund). -- JackofOz 15:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for source of translation

Hello,

I'm looking for the source of the English translation used for the Tamil poem Kuruntokai 234 in the wikipedia article on Sangam landscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_landscape). Here is the translation, which appears about halfway down the page I linked to above:

The sun goes down and the sky reddens, pain grows sharp, light dwindles. Then is evening when jasmine flowers open, the deluded say. But evening is the great brightening dawn when crested cocks crow all through the tall city and evening is the whole day for those without their lovers.

In the article, all the English translations are unattributed. I've been unable to track them down -- the English translation above is quite a bit different from Ramanujan's translation of that Tamil poem in _Poems of Love and War_. Could someone help me identify the source of the translation above? I need it urgently in order to seek copyright permission to quote this translation in my novel, _Evening is the Whole Day_, forthcoming in May 2008.

Thank you very much.

Best, Preeta Samarasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetabird (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you contact the author of the article, who supplied these translations. The author, Venu62, should be able to tell you his or her source. You can leave a message on the author's talk page. Marco polo 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

English Grammar - Parallel Comparision

Can someone pls let me know the website to improve parallel comparison setences. I need some help.

Like Byron at Missolonghi, Jack London was slowly killed by the mistakes of the medical men who treated him.

1. Like Byron
2. Like Byron's death
3. Just as Byron died
4. Similar to Byron
5. As did Byron

—

Dunno where you'd go for such advice in general, but:

• I'd go with "Like Byron": it's simple, clear, unambiguous; it says that Byron and London were in similar positions, which is all you want to say.
• If you begin with "Like Byron's death," then London's death, not London himself, ought to be the subject of the main clause.
• "Just as Byron died": comparing "Byron died" to "London was killed" smacks of what Fowler calls elegant variation, i.e. superstitious avoidance of repetition even when repeating a word is the clearest way to say it.
• "Similar to Byron" seems to be trying too hard to avoid using "Like", and what's wrong with "Like"?
• "As did Byron" wrecks the parallel because in the main clause London didn't do something.

—Tamfang 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, I'd drop Missolonghi entirely (not that this is what you asked). The point of the sentence is not (I assume) to show that you know where Byron died: it is that both men died of quackery. Where it happened is irrelevant, unless Byron had more than one death, or Beauty Ranch parallels Missolonghi in some other way. A more allusive sentence, that does not come out and mention mis-medicine, could legitimately begin "Like Byron at Missolonghi" – if you can count on your audience to know what happened to Byron at Missolonghi. —Tamfang 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the sample sentence to be an actual quiz question, where the wording outside the quotes is fixed. Yes, "at Missolonghi" is not strictly necessary, but there is nothing wrong with it, either, and it adds cachet.

"Like Byron" is the only possible phrasing. The other choices are wrong, as Tamfang shows. This is a rarity in ESL questions. Usually there is more than one right answer to a native speaker's ear. --Milkbreath 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You could also say "As Byron was, Jack London was killed ...", or "Just as Byron was, Jack London was killed ...", but they're longer than "Like Byron", which conveys exactly the same concept in fewer words. The only real justification for using a longer phrase, when a shorter one would do, is style. -- JackofOz 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you the phrasing is not fixed, it would be clearer if you put your primary point first, secondary point second - thus "Jack London was slowly killed by the mistakes of the medical men who treated him, as was Byron". Gandalf61 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

subspecies of the possessive

One of Larry Niven's "Draco Tavern" stories mentions that the chirpsithra have three kinds of possessive pronoun, which can be illustrated by my body, my possessions and my neighbor. Do any human languages have such a feature? —Tamfang 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"My body" is inalienable possession (i.e. the body that is a part of me), "my possessions" is alienable possession (i.e. those things that I own), and "my neighbor" is less possessive than relative (i.e. that which is a neighbor with respect to me). There are certainly languages that distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession. Our article Possession (linguistics) might provide some help. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

October 13

Capping his tags

In a news story about a New York six year old upsetting local authorities by drawing on her sidewalk with chalk, her father was quoted as saying “I do love that kid,” Shea said, “but I wish she would stop capping my tags.”

Can you help me make sense of that phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.159.157 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's graffiti slang. A tag is a ubiquitous signature. To cap a tag is to deface it, often by crossing it out. See Graffiti terminology and this. (To cap is not in the Wikipedia article, but I'm no expert, so I'm reluctant to add it. Also, I hate having to cite things.) --Milkbreath 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Korean question

What does 침착해라 mean? Kikiluvscheese 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It means "Calm down!" or "Take it easy" etc. It's the command form of "be composed", so sort of like "compose yourself". Zippyt 04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, how do you say "Be yourself" in Korean? Some translation site gave me 침착해라 for "Be yourself," but it can't be right. Kikiluvscheese 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't. Well, you can, but it needs to be longer and it won't sound as neat. People usually just say "자신감을 가져," which literally means "Be confident." --Kjoonlee 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you write it in romaji? (I know romaji is Japanese, so let's just say the Korean equivalent of romaji.)Kikiluvscheese 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

in RR it would be "Jashingam-eul gajyeo," but the "y" is silent after "j". Eu and eo are digraphs; the eu ([ɯ]) is sort of like the Japanese "u", except that the lips aren't compressed; the lips are just straight and unrounded. The eo ([ʌ])is sort of like the short stressed "u" as in hut, cut, but, and so on, but is slightly "lower" and further "back." More details at Korean phonology, terminology at vowel. --Kjoonlee 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But who would you be saying it to? If you're good friends, then "Jashingam-eul gajyeo" is fine, but in some other cases, you should say "Jashingam-eul gajyeoyo" or not say it at all. --Kjoonlee 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

October 14

proestro - English?

Is 'proestro' an English word or at least suitable for an English publication? As best I can tell it comes from Spanish, but it sometimes used in English, perhaps only be non-native users, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or not. It has to do with animal beeding. --Seans Potato Business 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but maybe it's a contraction of proestrogen? Proestrogen is the precursor to estrogen. --Kjoonlee 12:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Proestro" is not in the OED, but "proestrus" is. I've never heard it, either, by the way. To judge by the website I looked at, "proestro" is jargon from veterinary science for a stage of proestrus in dogs (and maybe other critters). So, it does eem to be an English word, but if you are writing for the average English-speaking audience you won't be able to use "proestro" unless you define it. I hope a vet weighs in here. --Milkbreath 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, proestro is the Latin ablative case; you'd say in proestro just as you'd say in utero (from uterus). —Tamfang 08:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of phonetic popularity reference?

I'm looking, and so far have been unsuccessful, for some sort of reference as to how popular certain sounds are universally. For example, b is a very common sound in many different languages, while θ is not. Additional information (for example, that while b and d are equally common, variations of the allophone b are more common than variations of the allophone d) would be great. The Wikipedia pages on the IPA and individual consonants and vowels just aren't factual enough for my needs. Help?

Deshi no Shi 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You might try Patterns of Sounds by Ian Maddieson (ISBN 0521265363). —Angr 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Phonology by Roger Lass has some information on system typology which you may find useful (/p/ is more common than /b/, if you have only one fricative it's most likely to be /s/, 86% of all languages have a /j/ phoneme, stuff like that). You can browse it on Google Books before you decide to buy it. Haukur 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly an answer, but in some languages, [p] and [k] are perceived to be variants of a single sound. I suspect taro was the same word as kalo, historically. --Kjoonlee 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, since "taro" has a t, not a p, your second sentence is a non sequitur. And yes, taro and kalo are etymologically related; in Hawaiian, t->k (after k->ʔ in a chain shift), and r->l. —Angr 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, I meant [t] and [k], obviously. Well, I still think there are some languages that don't distinguish t and k. --Kjoonlee 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal is a handy popular introduction to many fields of linguistics, including this. —Tamfang 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the etymology of "cleveland steamer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.21.225 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary has the reason for the steamer part, but as for the Cleveland part, your guess is as good as mine. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither is our article of much help on the issue. The ever-reliable Urban Dictionary, in the sixth definition offered, suggests, rather, I would say, dubiously, that Cleveland means to refer to the cleavage of a woman, proximate to which the steamer is deposited. Joe 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, Cleveland laid out 1796 by Gen. Moses Cleaveland and later named for him. His descendants included U.S. President Grover Cleveland. The family name is from place names in England based on M.E. cleove, a variant of cliff. I'd expect it was named after the city in Ohio. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek COA motto - need characters and translation

Could someone help me get the greek characters from this coat of arms: Image:St Micheal's College University of Toronto.jpg. Thanks, nat^tang 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It says ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΑ - ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ - ΓΥΜΝΑΣΤΙΚΗ, which means "piety - music - gymnastics" (a rather odd trio). —Angr 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, #2 and #3 together sum up Classical Greek education and can often be found paired in Plato, Xenophon, etc. (gymnastics as training of the body, mousike covering the entire education of the mind, not only poetry/music—though poetry of course was foundational for Greek education in a way it hasn't been in later periods—but every other branch of learning & philosophy & the liberal arts; see [1], the synopsis of Rival Lovers). #1 Christianizes it. Wareh 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be an article on Education in Ancient Greece; the closest we seem to have is Paideia, which is so bad I'm putting the cleanup tag on it. Wareh 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Name for the disk in the bottom of a urinal?

What do you call the disk that you often see in the bottom of a urinal? I believe that an informal term is "piss puck", but what is the formal term for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.121 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Urinal cake? Skittle 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Poking around Google with "janitorial supplies", I found several sites that call them "blocks". Urinal block or bowl block, depending. Not a very colorful name, eh? --Milkbreath 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but thank God it's not a bowel block. -- JackofOz 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek phrase

I've heard that the Greeks had a phrase, "look to the end", meaning to look at how a person died before assessing his life. What is the original Greek version of this phrase? Cevlakohn 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's from Herodotus' Histories, Book 1, chapter 32, spoken by Solon. In Greek: σκοπέειν δὲ χρὴ παντὸς χρήματος τὴν τελευτήν, κῇ ἀποβήσεται, "It is necessary to examine the end of every matter, how it will turn out." Do yourself a big favor, and read the wonderful context: start at the top of this page and read up to this quotation, which is there translated "But we must of every thing examine the end and how it will turn out at the last." Wareh 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

October 15

Æ

I've created a stub for Aeneas MacKenzie, but should it have been Æneas MacKenzie instead? I'm going to make a redirect one way or another, but this is a royal pÆn, so to speak. Clarityfiend 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the man may have actually used Æ (so a redirect would be appropriate), but you put the article at the right place, in my opinion. Wareh 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes - if that's how he's listed on IMDB, that's probably his real name. You should definitely create a redirect one way or the other. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made Æneas MacKenzie a redirect page, since it's harder to type. But out of curiosity, what exactly is the status of "Æ" in English? The article doesn't really say. Clarityfiend 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obsolescent. Wareh 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Although occasionally seen in older encyclopædias, especially articles on mediæval subjects. Bazza 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Suffice

Which is grammatically correct and why? Suffice to say or suffice it to say 68.206.98.67 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Grandma Sue

It's a fossilized phrase—both versions are significantly remote from contemporary English, which somewhat nullifies the question of which is grammatically correct. However, suffice it to say has a subject (a dummy subject, more specifically), while suffice to say does not. Canonical English phrases always have subjects, so if you had to label one more correct than the other, I suppose suffice it to say is "more correct". Strad 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a mighty careful answer, Strad. In case you're left in any doubt, Granny, "suffice to say" is wrong. Grammar don't enter into it. Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it. --Milkbreath 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "suffice it to say" is a little better, as suffice is a verb and it provides it with a subject. It may be fossilized, as Strad says, but I'd say it's still part of standard English, if a little old-fashioned. Plenty of people use it, and there are millions of hits on Google, including 672 on the English Wikipedia. Xn4 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion from the archives. --LarryMac | Talk 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mademoiselle

What is the short form (like Mrs. for missus) of Mademoiselle?

Thank you, 138.192.140.113 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mlle, which in French usage doesn't have a period after it. (Wiktionary: French, English.) Wareh 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reprehensibly OT, but Mrs is not the short form for missus. Mrs is short for M/mistress [of the house, of course], which in addition has a colloquial form missus/missis. Bessel Dekker 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jar and jug

Are "jar" and "jug" different or interchangable? I consider in the context of having a water jar or a water jug on the dinning table. --Chan Tai Man 10:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever use 'jar' in that context. A jar is a small glass vessel with a wide neck. Jug is the word you want; "pitcher" would be an alternative. And "jug of water" sounds better than "water jug". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jam comes in jars, water comes in jugs. DuncanHill 11:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot think of any circumstance under which the words might be interchangeable. See jar and jug--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jar" is British English slang for a pint (of beer) - as in the invitation "Fancy a jar?". Bazza 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since moonshine traditionally comes in jars in the U.S., we would expect quite a stronger effect than you get from your jar. Rmhermen 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Water jug" sounds fine to me, but I agree, jug and jar are not that interchangeable. --Falconus 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A jar doesn't have a lip to pour, a jug does :) This is probably half-true/not the main difference, but I'd guess it's the most helpful thing to someone trying to learn words that don't have exact parallels in their head. Skittle 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your answers. --Chan Tai Man 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English?

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English? I have done some searching around the internet and grammar pages, and have found somewhat conflicting answers. It seems quite natural to me to say "these/those ones," and http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammarfaq/grammarfaq_answer.cfm?qid=340 seems to agree with me. However, another site seems to disagree, http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2006/05/these_ones_thos.html . Where can I find the definitive answer? (I assume there is a definitive answer, for if it is not definitively incorrect, then it is permissible, right?)

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.51 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disregard the advice in your second link; it amounts to saying that ones in "these ones" may often be unnecessary, and thus it would be better style to omit it, so that the usage may be entirely missing from the collected works of careful writers. But I don't think there is anything prescriptively wrong about "these ones" and "those ones." Wareh 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. I would call the form colloquial and dialectic. I'll say it like that sometimes, and I talk English good. The OED shows a similar plural "one" from 1953 in Donegal and calls it Irish English (Are there any X? You'll find ones in the shed.)

The second link says "English is full of rules, half of them broken." I say "English has very few rules; usage is all" (in the long run). If everybody around there says a thing a certain way, it is correct by the only definition of "correct" that makes any sense. Whether a locution is appropriate in writing for an audience who expect standard English is another matter, and I would leave the oneses off, myself.

Incidentally, I wouldn't go back to the first link for advice about English because they think "drawer" is spelled "draw". Come here, instead. --Milkbreath 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The exotic Irish-English citation is beside the point, since ordinary English countenances "She ate those small ones you left on the table." (KJV example: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones...") It's just that without an attribute like "small" or "little," "ones" is redundant and can/should be omitted. Wareh 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear a semantic difference. Sure, you can say "those little ones", but can you say "those five ones"? Not so much, and the latter is heard in "those ones", to my ear. I only noted the Irish citation because it sounded similarly alien.--Milkbreath 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Milkbreath, I see a bit of a disconnect between what you're saying here and what you said in a previous question, "Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it". Can you clarify? -- JackofOz 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous question was about "suffice it to say". That has a fixed form and is of a piece, what Fowler calls "cast iron idiom". No variation is possible except as a conscious play on words. Usage trumps "rules" every time, eventually, but usage often, perhaps always, goes through a phase where its new formulation is a mistake. In years to come, "suffice to say" may become the norm, used by all the best writers, and then that will be that. But right now it's a shibboleth of less-than-complete literacy.

Here, we're talking about a casual locution, not a fixed idiomatic expression. What authority can we look to? The only authority I recognize on the correctness of an English string of words is the body of literature, interpreted by my ear and verified by consensus. Grammaticality is another matter, but more often than not what is not grammatical also sounds wrong. Our "those ones" is perfectly sound grammatically, and it is idiomatic in some dialects; it is therefore correct (and would be even if it defied one's personal idea of grammar if you ask me). Besides, I use it. It does not, however, seem to be standard American English, which is an institutional-size can of worms we can open later.

Don't get me wrong, I'll hit you if you call me a descriptivist. There is usage that is just plain wrong, but "those ones" isn't an example. I hope I've answered the question you asked and not one I thought you asked. --Milkbreath 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whichever question you were answering, what you say makes sense to me. Thanks. -- JackofOz 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to think of any context in which "ones" would not be redundant. I guess in "Would you like those cakes or these ones?" the "ones" indicates that the speaker is still talking about cakes and not carrots. A quick search shows that neither phrase occurs in the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, and even Wikipedia, not known for its eloquence, has surprisingly few occurrences in article namespace.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that there are no longer any rules about correct usage, and accept that common = correct, do what you want. If you want to write something that is grammatically correct, don't use a phrase that is redundant. The only "correct" usage I can think of, would be within quote marks attributing the usage to a particular individual. Steve Pastor 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For a recent discussion about this on the Language log see here and the follow up. If you read the post immediately above this one here and are left worried that by writing these ones you have implicitly accepted that there "are no longer any rules" please rest assured that there is a very large (sensible) middle ground. Stefán 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the word "grammatical" is being stretched and abused by such statements as (to quote the original languagelog observation) "to my ear it isn't quite grammatical." An appeal to the ear is usually a test of whether language is being used idiomatically, not grammatically. "These ones" is not part of the "best usage," it may be stylistically awkward and redundant, but it is not ungrammatical, as it leaves every principle of syntax and logic unscathed. Redundant and awkward language, in general, is not necessarily ungrammatical, unless it is also illogical ("most favorite" I'd be more willing to consider). Wareh 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed on Pg.111 of "British Or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns" by John Algeo; but it's not previewable in Google books. I surmise he's saying it's more common in Britain than America, which accords with the Language Log posts referred to above, and with the British National Corpus (these ones those ones). Here's a British textbook: Lambotte, Paul (1998). "Demonstrative adjectives and pronouns §3". Aspects of Modern English Usage for Advanced Students: A Comparison with French. De Boeck Université. pp. Pg 58. ISBN 2804126765. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

'One' is used in all registers after 'this' and 'that' to refer to a countable.
'These ones' and 'those ones', on the contrary, are only used in colloquial language (and some people do not like them at all), while 'these' and 'those' are more formal.

1. If you want strawberries take these ones. colloquial, same frequency as
2. If you want strawberries take these. more formal

1. These shoes are more expensive than those better than
2. These shoes are more expensive than those ones

1. These coaches arent as comfortable as (those / those ones / the ones) over there.

Anybody purporting to explain why "these ones" is (often) unacceptable needs to take account of the fact that "this one" is (often) perfectly acceptable. Language Log has plenty of posts deploring the "omit needless words" bugbear: many insecure writers over-apply Strunk and White's rules to every nook and cranny of their prose, never trusting to intuition.

My person theory: "it's just one of those things". That "these ones" is more common in spoken than written language is not surprising given its deictic sense. So I think it is sometimes correct to say it, though you may never need to write it. jnestorius^(talk) 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, jnestorius. Wareh 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

preposition question

Which sentence is correct grammatically (from Jim Corbett National Park):

1. The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable against Rohila invaders.
2. The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable to Rohila invaders.

--Mattisse 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say number two. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. One defends something against an invader because it's vulnerable to that invader. -- JackofOz 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mattisse 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

October 16

Expletives

I have a few questions about expletives -- if anyone can share any insight, I would appreciate that. Thanks.

1. Oftentimes, when a swear word or expletive is referred to in writing, the actual (offensive) word itself will be removed and will be "masked" with a symbol such as "@$!#@$&!". Is there an actual name for this symbol (in the same way that the "&" symbol is called an "ampersand")?
2. Is there a name for a symbol (word) such as "f---" or "f--k" to represent the four-letter word f,u,c,k?
3. Is there a name to describe the phenomenon where we would call the above example "the F word"?
4. Would the term "euphemism" be applicable or inapplicable in any of the above situations, to describe the thinly veiled swear word? Euphemism does not seem quite right -- or is it? If not euphemism, what would be better grammatical / linguistic terminology?
5. Does anyone know the origin of these practices -- or have any references, cites, etc., about their history, usage, frequency?
6. Finally: What -- if any -- is the standard, accepted, conventional way to use expletive words in "formal" writing? Is the standard to use the exact words? To "play it safe"/conservative and use them only in direct quotation marks? To use a generic "expletive deleted" notation? To use the "@$!#@$&!" notation? Or to employ some other alternative? I am referring to an example where it would be essentially meaningless to sanitize the offensive words and "hide" them ... in other words, where using a generic statement such as this is not sufficient: "The teenager shouted several expletives at the police officer and was immediately arrested for breach of peace." If the above scenario needed to be placed into a formal paper, what would be the accepted standard? (I mean, there must be some formal settings -- who knows? a large-group presentation, a police interview, a psychiatric evaluation, etc. -- where you might need to indicate something substantive ... and you can't get away with the above generic-type sentence.) What would be used:

• John called Officer Smith a fucking asshole.
• John stated, "You are a fucking asshole" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a f------ a------" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a "@$!#@$&! @$!#@$&!" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a (expletive deleted)" to Officer Smith.

I guess what I am asking is this. What is the proper professional way to write this kind of stuff in a formal setting where (a) you do not necessarily have to use direct quotes but (b) you can't get away with saying nothing at all and you need to have some substance to the writing? So, I am not referring to a police officer's arrest report -- where he would probably use direct quotations. And I am not referring to a psychiatrist's medical evaluation -- where he would probably use direct quotations. But I am referring to some formal setting, where a generic "John used bad language" statement would not quite cut it. Perhaps a letter to the Pope or the Queen or a Judge or a Senator or the Mayor or a Chief of Police or your kid's school teacher/principal or your boss or ... whomever.

7. Finally, finally: How about the same (above) questions, but when the presentation of the offensive words is spoken as opposed to written (e.g., you are speaking at a Town Council meeting or you are speaking in Court)? Any thoughts on all this? Thanks for any helpful input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

• Representing profanity by a string of punctuation marks is mostly done in comics. See The Lexicon of Comicana: this is one of several comic conventions that Mort Walker invented a name for in jest, only to find it being taken up seriously. The name for them is "grawlixes".
• "The F word" is certainly a euphemism. The deliberate substitution of a weaker word would be bowdlerization. I think "f---" lies on the border between the two.
• As to formal contexts, whether spoken or written, I don't think there is any real standard; it's up to the responsible person or organization. For example, until fairly recently you couldn't find "fuck" in any dictionaries; today reputable ones do include it. If one politician tells another to fuck off, one newspaper will find this fact newsworthy and report it verbatim; another will use "f---"; another will use vague wording. Political forums may have rules against inappropriate language. And so on.

--Anonymous, 04:15 UTC, Oct---r 16, 2007.

• Just for fun, here's an example of that last point. The Speaker of the Quebec provincial legislature ruled this week that it is now impermissible in the legislature to call your opponent a "girouette"... which is to say, a "weathervane"! (News story: in French, in English) --Anon, 05:10 UTC, October 17.

A variant on "f------ a------" that allows the reader to deduce exactly what was said without writing it in full is to replace vowels with asterisks, thus: "f*ck*ng *ssh*l*". This is also done for other reasons; many years ago The Judy's had a song called "Will Someone Please Kill M*rl* Th*m*s", where the asterisks were presumably used in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. —Angr 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The choice of which sort of censorship (which it is, in a way) in the quoting you use is not standardised. It would depend, mostly, on the audience. If it's for the Council for Easily Shocked Grannies, replacing the word entirely with CENSORED would be appropriate. In most cases, it would be acceptable to use f**k, f--- or f@!$, for politeness' sake. It could also be appropriate to use the uncensored text without removing any part, but placing a visible warning before that part of the text, saying that it contains offensive language (like you might see before a movie or on a CD case (if they do in your part of the world). Steewi 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to add - there is also the possibility that people may be offended by the non-use of swearwords when they obviously occur, taking it as a form of being patronised.

5. The practice of replacing all or part of an offensive word with hyphens appears as a guideline in The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, the American journalist's stylebook. It doesn't give the practice a name.

6. I think you would have to judge case-by-case. In the highest register, I would tend to go with the exact words in direct quotation. I would expect the intelligentsia to be more offended by the insult to their intelligence that euphemism gives than by the words themselves, and indirect quotation puts the words in the writer's mouth, so to speak. If it seemed advisable to tone it down, I would probably go with the hyphens. Grawlixes are only for the funny papers and fiction. "Expletive deleted" is a euphemism for "censored", and has a comical ring to it. By the way, "expletive" is itself a euphemism for "profanity" or "obscenity". --Milkbreath 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. According to our WP:Profanity article, this can be called bowdlerization, as suggested by Anonymous.

3. I agree with Anonymous that the "F word" is a euphemism.

6+7. I haven't found any resources on style that talk about this, but in my opinion, when it is important to include the exact words, I would suggest using their completely uncensored forms in quotes in both written and oral presentations. It's annoying (at least to me) to see forms like "f------ a------" and hear "he called him a racial slur." When the intent is to be informative, uncensored forms are preferable since they leave it up to the reader—instead of the writer—to decide how offensive a statement was.--El aprendelenguas 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The most professional approach is to actually quote what the person stated, 'he said the officer is a motherfucker'" would be fine. however if you have any restraints such as censorship one of the other alternatives is fine, except the #$%& approach which is childish and comical i.e. Pow! Bam! Kpow! "F-ing A-hole (sic)" might be the best way to state this if you have censopship as an issue.Cholga^talK! 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The sic in your example above means that the speaker censored their own speech (their utterance sounded like "eff-ing ey-hole"). This seems exactly the opposite effect from the desired one. Tesseran 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sic would be inappropriate there. It's normally used to convey that an apparent spelling or factual error is exactly what a previous writer wrote, and should not be attributed to a typo in the current text. -- JackofOz 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a word

What's the word for when you use an item for a use other than its intended use? Like when you use a screwdriver to hit a nail. I'm not describing it well, but its usually used in the context that most people can't see uses for things which would be useful otherwise. E.G. a person is in a room and they need to hammer a nail and all they have is a screwdriver, so they say can't do it.

I think i heard it in AP Psychology

Micah J. Manary 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The more formal word is expedient, but you can also say make-do, makeshift, stopgap... ect. But is that what you mean?--K.C. Tang 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pragmatic? -- JackofOz 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the word is for a mental block when you CAN'T see another use for an item. Micah J. Manary 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So the word is used to describe the feeling "Hey, I can't make do with that!"?--K.C. Tang 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's two words, but how about "blind spot"? Clarityfiend 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The word is "to utilise"-- which is not just a fancy synonym of "use", but literally means "to turn something into a tool"; Thus, "I utilised a wire coat-hanger for a TV antenna. Rhinoracer 08:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are seeking ... but as I read this post, the phrase "tunnel vision" comes to mind ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Makeshift? 195.35.160.133 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Martin.

By looking at etymology, abuse would be a good choice (ab = "away from"), but at least for your hammer example, it's probably not what your looking for since it has a strong negative connotation.--El aprendelenguas 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• True, "abuse" would be very negative: what you seem to be looking for, is just alternative use. Since this requires creativity, the mental activity needed might be called lateral thinking, the resulting physical act would be improvisation.
• If you fail to recognize the alternative use of the screwdriver, this could, it seems to me, only be described in negative terms: you fail in lateral thinking, you are unable to improvise.
• This is not mental block, which occurs if you cannot even access "normal" uses: e.g., there is a hammer in the room, but for some (emotional?) reason you fail to recognize its use. Bessel Dekker 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're looking for functional fixedness. risk 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Still another word for using something for a new purpose is "repurposing". This is a relatively new word and won't be in most dictionaries. I think it tends to imply that the original usage is being abandoned. --Anonymous, edited 01:43 UTC, October 17, 2007.

Pronounciation??

Looked up Anne Parillaud (actress). How to pronounce her name? WIKI listing shows pronounciation as "an paʁi'jo" Read article on IPA pronounciation, can't figure it out. Is it really pronounced "ANN PARRY JOE" ?? ANSWER.COM has a button so you can hear the word. See here for example: http://www.answers.com/Comedy?nafid=3

That would be a good feature to have on WIKI. Else, use standard english words so we can guess the proper pronounciation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.244.170 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A more accessible description of the pronunciation would be "aan par-ee-YAW". The 'r' is the French 'gargled r'. The problem with English-based pronunciation descriptions is that many of the people who come to Wikipedia have different accents in English (my Australian 'look' is pronounced differently to a New Yorker's 'look' as well as that of a Georgian, a Londoner and also a German who has only just learnt English. IPA is independent of accent, so once you know how one of the symbols sounds, it's the same, no matter what accent or language you speak with. I hope that helps you understand the difficulty. The only other useful option is to attach a sound file to each description, but I don't know that that would be practical. Steewi 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're telling us that yaw and yo are pronounced alike in Oz? —Tamfang 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In my accent, 'yaw' is pronounced [jo]. 'Yo' is pronounced [jʌʉ]. Perhaps I should have been more specific, that I was writing for my accent, as I don't know what accent to write for 76.81. Steewi 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A more useful reference than the IPA page is IPA chart for English which shows the j represents an English y sound (as it would in German). It is pronounced something like Steewi said but the last syllable is more like -oh to me than -aw (or?). See IPA is useful I can't even work out what is meant! Cyta 07:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, adding audio files with the pronunciation of a word is done on Wikipedia, but requires someone to have made the file, uploaded it in the right form and put it in the article. Skittle 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

j as in Latin, Finnish, all Germanic languages except English, and those Slavic languages that don't use Cyrillic (as well as some that do) – any others? —Tamfang 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'Only in London' in Latin

Can anyone suggest a definitive translation of the phrase 'only in London' into Latin? A colleague has suggested 'Londinio solus'. Inter-trans suggests 'Tantum Londinii'. Is one more correct than the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not expert at Latin, but I would think that the best way to render this in Latin would be 'Londinii solum'. The correct form for 'Londinium' is 'Londinii' because in Latin, the locative case was used to indicate location in cities and towns. It should be 'solum' rather than 'solus' because 'solum' is the adverbial form. Typically, modifiers such as 'solum' follow the word or phrase that they modify, hence 'Londinii solum'. 'Tantum Londinii' doesn't look right to me. 'Tantum' can mean 'only', but in the sense of 'only so much', I think. For example, 'I'm only halfway finished'. 'Tantum' might work if you were saying something like, "I'm on my way from Brighton to Cambridge, but at the moment I am only in London." Marco polo 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "modo Londinii." modo means "just" or "only." solus -a -um means "alone," and while it probably could be used in some construction in Latin to mean "only" (since many Romance languages' words for "only" do derive from solus -a -um), I think that using modo just works better.--El aprendelenguas 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the impression that the meaning of modo is nearer to "merely" than to "uniquely" which seems to be what's wanted. —Tamfang 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Women's underwear

What word do Americans use to refer to suspenders? The page at suspenders is, inevitably, all about braces (and, by the way, some of the most unencyclopedic rubbish I have ever seen); moreover, the redirect to garter belt does not help.

"Garter belt" is not a synonym for "suspenders", it is a synonym for "suspender belt". So what do Americans call the suspenders themselves? 80.254.147.52 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If Americans use a different word, then we don't know what your word means, right? Suspenders are the elastic straps that go over the shoulders to hold your pants up. Please describe the thing you're asking about so we can tell you what it's called. --Milkbreath 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't use your word to describe it if I don't know what your word is. I suspect that you are being wilfully obtuse. What do Americans call the bits that hang down from the "garter belt" (if you will) and attach to the tops of the stockings? 80.254.147.52 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Milkbreath has a fair point. You are supposing that he understands what you mean, but if he is American, he might not. He didn't ask you to use the word, but rather to describe the item so that s/he could help you. A suspender belt is a synonym for garter belt as suspender is a synonym for garter. The suspenders are attached to the suspender belt as the garters are attached to the garter belt. It kind of explains itself. Perhaps reading the garter belt article first paragraph again slowly and considering the content would help - to which garters are attached to hold up stockings.

As for finding the suspenders article "unencyclopedic rubbish", why not improve the article rather than complaining? Be bold.

Also don't forget that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you and assume good faith, you may find people more willing to help you. Lanfear's Bane 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a point or a clue. The only dealings I've had with this whole business was the time I dressed in full drag for Halloween (which resolves the s/he issue), and I wore pantyhose, anyhow, which I'm man enough to admit felt nice, incidentally. Tell you what, the experience gave me a new and lasting respect for the athleticism of the average woman. Have you ever tried to look good walking in heels? It ain't easy, and in fact it hurts.

I'd like to assure 80 (may I call you 80?) that I did not intend to be rude and that I am well able to be obtuse unintentionally. What I was there was lazy. Further, I can be one infuriating sarcastic bastard, I've been told (I'm married, you see), and you'll have no doubt about my intentions if I ever do go that way here.

Anyway, it looks like they're called "garters" (AHD) despite the fact that the word also means that thing the best man removes from the leg of the maid of honor. --Milkbreath 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do Americans call garters? I mean the things that go around the tops of stockings or socks, not the bit that connects the top of the stocking to the suspender-belt. DuncanHill 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is simply called the top band (when I look at the stocking page). There is also a garter of course which is a single band seperate from the stocking. I think the heavier band of material around the top of a stocking must also be erroneously referred to as a garter as it conceals a band of plastic tractive material which helps hold the stocking up but is known as a hold-up or stay-up (myself included in this error up until now). I never knew so much about stockings until now. Thank you Wikipedia, thank you. Lanfear's Bane 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there isn't an article on mens garters then - the ones that hold socks up?87.102.12.235 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We used to wear garters in the Cubs. DuncanHill 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad English?

Just checking, is the phrase "I am me", bad English? I would've thought that since the subject and object are the same, it should be reflexive (I am myself). It doesn't sound too strange, but if you put it in other persons (e.g. "she is her" or "they are them") it sounds much more incorrect. Just curious. Thanks in advance. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Prescriptive grammar dictates "I am I". "Am" is copulative, making the second "I" not an object but a predicate nominative. "Me" is in the objective case, and "I" is nominative.

Real-world grammar ignores all that. "I am me" is also right. It is true that "she is her" sounds unnatural; "she is she" sounds better, oddly. But "they are they" sounds really weird. It's my opinion that "me", anyway, is a special case, that we think of it differently than we do the other pronouns.

People talk the way they talk, and grammar be damned sometimes. If you want to start a fistfight down at Ye Olde Quill and Pince-nez, bring this up once everybody's got a few pints in them. Just watch what happens here. --Milkbreath 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Predictably, what happens will be that you lose your pince-nez in the process. Milkbreath is quite right, of course, though I'd amend slightly and say: "Prescriptive grammar be damned sometimes."

Part of this problem, it seems to me, is logical rather than linguistic here. "I am me" voices an identity relation, and seems less logical than "Don't worry, it's me." However, it is hardly less grammatical, if grammar is description of usage. In daily life, how many people would say; "Don't worry, it's I"?

"It is I, LeClerc" Cyta 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is no less interesting that fear of grammatical mistakes may lead to hypercorrection. Thus, a common instance of such grammophobia is a construction like "He looked at my husband and I as if he were going to spit at us." No one, it is hoped, would say "spit at we". Lots of people say "at my husband and I" because of the conjunction and in a wish to err on the safe side (which, in fact, is a very unsafe side here). Bessel Dekker 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'I am myself' is perhaps more natural. Algebraist 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely that has quite a different meaning? Bessel Dekker 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure what 'I am me' is supposed to connote (since to me it's just unnatural), I can't say. Algebraist 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioning

This is a question for those who have never heard this usage before. If you read that State Highway 23 was decommissioned in 1984, exactly how would you interpret that? Thank you. (Yes, this is Wikipedia-related.) --NE2 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would read it to mean that the stretch of road formerly known as State Highway 23 had lost its designation as a state highway with that highway number. Marco polo 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd take it to mean the road was closed permanently. (Or maybe stored underground encased in concrete.) —Angr 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Angr's second comment: I would read it as a bizarre misuse of the word 'decommissioned', the normal usage of which is in entirely different areas. Algebraist 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too :) I was picturing it being carefully taken apart and the pieces taken away... Skittle 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the context: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? Anyone care to help sort it out? --NE2 08:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a British v. American English difference? See Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Just to widen things further, I'd be seriously worried if members of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in Northern Ireland attached different meanings to the word Decommissioning. --ReddyRose 11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a professional vs. "fan community" difference. --NE2 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If a person doesn't know what "decommission" means, they can open up a dictionary. It's really very simple. --Son 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. It's still not clear and could mean either that the road lost it's status, or that it has been closed completely (dug up and carted away being optional). I suspect this is a GB vs US issue. In GB English, decommission often means "switch off", "close", "make unusable"; so when we decommission ships, power stations, armaments (as mentioned above), etc., it means they are no longer usable. From that logic, a decommissioned road is one which is closed and no longer usable. Bazza 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the meaning in the U.S. too: [2][3] --NE2 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I offered my interpretation above based on my knowledge of the United States, where roads are seldom completely removed from service. Instead, highways formerly designated with route numbers become local back roads when they are replaced by a bigger, better highway nearby. Since the expression "decommissioned" seems to be ambiguous and possibly misleading, I would avoid it and instead describe in simpler terms what actually happened: either "the road formerly known as State Highway 23 lost its designation as a state highway" or "State Highway 23 was permanently closed and demolished". Marco polo 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

allowance in spanish

what would the best way to say "allowance" ($) in spanish? and what about "chart" or "graph" what about "utility" i.e. gas, water, internet; and lastly "single family home" and "single familt detached"?Cholga^talK! 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In around 2007

If the precise year of an event isn't known, is it acceptable to say "John Doe was born in around 1390"? Is "in around" cromulent? (nb, I know cromulent isn't cromulent). Or do I have to use "in approximately"? Neil ☎ 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "in about 1390" would sound better. DuncanHill 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, 'around' is more colloquial, and so fine for a record cover, say, but not for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just use "John Doe was born c1390" 84.68.125.254 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would write "John Doe was born c. 1390". (I'd never spell it out as " ... born circa 1390"). If your readership is not familiar with "c.", you could say " ... born about 1390". Btw, "in" should not go with "around/about", because "in" points to a specific year, whereas "around/about" does not. -- JackofOz 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would use c., but if I had to choose, I'd do away with both 'in' and 'about' and simply replace them with 'around'. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, we may be encountering different national varieties of English here. "Around" sounds horribly wrong to me, and I strongly feel the "in" is necessary in "was born in about". As to "c" or "circa", I would either write "circa" or "ca.", never "c". DuncanHill 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz on this. Since he is Australian and I am American, I'm not sure it is a question of different national varieties. I think that it should be either "born around 1390" or "born about 1390". "About" sounds slightly more formal and "encyclopedic" to my American ears. Marco polo 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the...!

I always heard the term "That's the Oldest Trick in the Book" when somebody tries to pull a prank. I've always interpreted this saying as "That [prank] is the most clichéd practical joke" well...my question is simply as such: What is the 'Oldest Trick in the Book'? I can think of a few candidates but, still.....

Thanks!

♥ECH3LON♥ 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(If you're a Christian) The oldest trick in the book is when a snake tricked a dumb broad into eating an apple from the wrong tree. Neil ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See The Oldest Trick in the Book. -- BenRG 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since prostitution is called "the world's oldest profession" and a trick is slang for a prostitute's customer, then wouldn't the oldest trick in the book be the first "john"? — Michael J 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

.....or maybe the oldest 'john', like a 103 year old man with a big urge and a fist full of dollars (or euros or pounds!!) Richard Avery 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

October 17

Overly-extended vowels in IPA

Is there a special symbol in IPA that indicates when a vowel is held for an overly-extended period of time, such as several seconds? Or do you just repeat the vowel symbol several times? I'm thinking of cases where you want to describe how a word is said in a particular instance. For example, when the Yankees win a game, John Sterling says on the radio, "Yankees win! Theeeeeeee Yankees win!" — pronounced /ðəəəəəəəə/ not /ðiiiiiiiiː/. Or, the word insane in the Crazy Eddie commercial ("His prices are insane!") is pronounced /ˈɪɪɪnseeeeeeɪn/, while in the song "Time Warp" ("But it's the pelvic thrust / that really drives them insane") it is sung /ɪnˈseɪeɪeɪeɪeɪeɪn/. Or am I doing it wrong? — Michael J 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For most purposes you can either repeat the vowel, as you have shown, or repeat the colon, as in [ðəːːːːː]. Both are acceptable, and will probably be determined by the language you're working with and what you are doing with it. It's not necessarily useful to repeat the vowel, in many cases, because it may be ambiguous as to whether there are phonologically multiple vowels or a continuation of the same vowel. Context, of course will probably make it clear. Steewi 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

correct or ot not.

Respected Sir/Madam, I would like to know if the following sentences are correct usages of Eglish or not.
1. What beautiful girl!.
2. How beautiful girl is !.
3. If I should fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it should not be very inconvinient to you.
5. I could do so, if I would.
I must tell you that the context of these sentences are not know to me. thanking you with regards sushama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial English would say:
1. What a beautiful girl!
2. How beautiful the (or that) girl is!
3. If I fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it is not very inconvenient for you.
5. I could do so, if I wanted.
SaundersW 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• That last one could also be:

5. I would do so, if I could. or simply 5. I would if I could. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What i want to know is, whether the above given usages by me are correct usages or not. because i know the other colloquial usages suggested by you and i have come accross with these sentence which i wanted to varify. are such constractions possible(grammatically also). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1 is wrong because you need the 'a' between 'what' and 'beautiful'. 2 is wrong because you need 'that' (or 'the') between 'beautiful' and 'girl'. 3 is grammatically correct but the first part is rather formal, you might include the 'should' in formal written English but you would always leave it out of spoken English. In 4, 'should' is incorrect. I would rewrite the sentence as per SaundersW's suggestion, except that I would say 'not too inconvenient' (or, more simply, just 'convenient') rather than 'not very inconvenient'. 5 is incorrect - see SaundersW's and Mgm's possible rewrites. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Number 3 may be uncommon but it is not incorrect, it sounds rather old fashioned and formal though, and will invariably bring to mind Rupert Brooke's The Soldier and its famous first lines "If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England". Cyta 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A better way of writing 4 would be "We will meet tomorrow unless it is very inconvenient". -- JackofOz 10:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, "We'll meet tomorrow if that's convenient for you." to avoid the double negative.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced 3 is even grammatically correct. Shouldn't it be "If I should fail this time, I shall try again."? But then I've tried to work out the intricacies of shall/will before, and failed beyond 'I can hear a difference'. Skittle 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)