Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

September 3

"Case" in ancient languages

In Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Per_aspera_ad_confusion above, and in Greek_alphabet there is the mention of the notion of letter "case". Upper and lower case refers to the location of the pieces of type in a typesetter's type case, that is, his compartmented tray. The capitals were on top and the, uhh, squiglier ones were below. As type didn't move until much later the terms seem anachronistic. Majuscule and minuscule seem a trifle pedantic. Is there a common-usage compliment to "capital" (which, of course, only has meaning post-minuscule) other than "lower case"? Saintrain (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common-usage alternative to "lower case" is "small". However, in relation to Greek in particular, I have seen the two styles of letters called "print" (upper case) and "script" (lower case). --Anonymous, 05:59 UTC, September 3, 2008.

Real typographers dislike "small" used as a synonym for lower-case, since they generally use "small" to refer to small caps (which are not lower-case). There are a whole series of technical terms to describe various medieval handwriting styles (i.e. "uncials", "half-uncials", "Carolingian", "Insular", "miniscules" etc.), some of which were on the line of development of the modern lower-case letters... AnonMoos (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this will be a stupid question, but did classical languages have what we would recognise as a case distinction at all? Uppercase letters were the ones they used in stonemasonry, and lowercase were the cursive ones. Did anyone, before the Middle Ages anyway, ever use both kinds in the same document? Marnanel (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Latin or Greek, at least. They didn't have minuscule forms until the 9th or 10th century. Do any other classical languages even have case distinctions today? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The modern lowercase letters grew out of medieval "hands" (as I said), so ancient Romans didn't have anything closely resembling lowercase letters in form or function. They did have cursive and shorthand. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nynorsk grammar

anyone knows where to find a NORWEGIAN NYNORSK GRAMMARBOOK? i repeat, a NYNORSK(=NewNorwegian) grammarbook where i get lists that are bending the words..

like this:

A song - the song - songs - songs

i relaize I might be asking on the wrong place, but it seems impossible to find anywhere... I need a list of all words being bendt and shaped into different forms. in order to learn the lanuage i must have one... and a common wordbook is not what i am looking for..

Have a look here, especially here and on all the subpages that start with substantiv. In general, nynorsk is very regular - the main thing you have to know is whether a noun is ~~male~~ masculine, ~~female~~ feminine or neutrum (which will be mentioned in any good dictionary, along with a possible irregular plural form) -- Ferkelparade π 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nouns may be masculine or feminine (or neuter), but they are never male or female. —An gr 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I hang my head in shame at my involuntary sexualisation of language -- Ferkelparade π 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And people inside Berlin need to remember that not everything that's characteristic of German English is an ignorant solecism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 September 2008

A full dictionary of Nynorsk (and Bokmål) is here: http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ordboksoek.html . After each word there's a code (like n1 for noun, neuter, type 1) and you click on "oversyn over grammatiske koder" to get the pattern for that word. Jørgen (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazic pronunciation in Israeli Hebrew?

When Sholem Aleichem is discussed in Israeli Hebrew, is the Ashkenazic pronunciation [ˈʃolem aˈleixem] used, or is it "Sephardified" to [ʃaˈlom aleiˈxem]? Are there any other Yiddish words of Hebrew origin that have been borrowed into Israeli Hebrew from Yiddish that retain their Ashkenazic pronunciation? —An gr 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In contemporary Hebrew spoken by the mainstream Israeli population, the author's first name is pronounced SHAlom rather than the Yiddish SHOlem, the accent on the first syllable being typical of Hebrew words (nouns, adjectives) used as personal names; the surname is virtually the same in both pronunciations. For your second question: it's actually Yiddish words used in Hebrew with their Yiddish pronunciation (of vowels, certain consonants, and syllabic stress), which is essentially equivalent to the "Ashkenazic" pronunciation of Hebrew (e.g. SHAbos rather than the "Sephardic"=mainstream shaBAT, TOYre vs. toRAH, BRIS vs. BREET, mishPUche vs. mishpaCHA, EMes vs. eMET, etc.). The insertion of Yiddish words and phrases in Hebrew (regardless of the Yiddish being of Hebrew origin or otherwise), as with their usage in English, is considered jocular. -- Deborahjay (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colon_Township,_Michigan

Whoever thought that one up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontdoorFreddie (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's after Cristóbal Colón? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, it was named because the adjacent river and lake form the shape of a colon (punctuation). Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said "exactly". Judge for yourselves. Looks more like a reflected map of New Zealand to me. Marnanel (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it like that because of irrigation?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChokinBako - go to your room. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that one of the local lakes is Sturgeon. Or to give it its full title: Colonic Sturgeon lake —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapdoorTrevor (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's otherwise known as the a***hole of the world. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other word

Hi, what's other word for harmful? It starts with the letter N? I'm not from English-speaking country and don't have a dictionary now, so I really need your help. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noxious? Fribbler (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noisome? DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon? — OtherDave (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noxious or maybe Narcotic —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontdoorFreddie (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.251 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D sounding like j and t sounding like tch

What do you call the process in which the d in graduate, becomes j when spoken. For example, it would be pronounced like- gra-jew-ate. It may be the same process, but what do you call it when the first t in flatulate, becomes a tch, like this- fla-tchoo-late. This can also be seen in congratulate and constituate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.0.130 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palatalization --ChokinBako (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constituate? Does any such word exist? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Algebraist 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there are a number of processes (both historical and phonological) referred to as "palatalization." In this instance, the alveolar stop (/t/ or /d/) assimilates properties from a following "y" (palatal approximant) sound; I've heard this attributed to the fact that a single articulation tool (the tongue) is compromising between the two target points of articulation. The "ch" and "j" sounds are postalveolar, which is indeed an area between alveolar and palatal. I suspect, however, that for many speakers that this is no longer a phonetic or phonological feature and instead the "y" sound has been altogether deleted in the process so that in speakers' underlying representations, flatulate is /ˈflæ.tʃu.leːt/ rather than /ˈflæ.tju.leːt/. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word we are looking for is affricate? Duomillia (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affricate is the name of sounds like "ch" and "j", it's not the name for the process of changing "d" to "j". —An gr 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could turn affricate into a verb, but that doesn't fully describe the process. turning /t/ to [ts] and /d/ to [dz] would be accurately described as affrication. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It always gets me how it's often assumed that everything that can be described must have a name. I looked up 'affrication' and most sites listed something identical or nearly identical to 'The conversion of a simple stop consonant into an affricate,' which doesn't mention anything about POA, so while Æµ§œš¹'s thought on the subject is understandable, this phenomenon would also fit the definition. I suppose if you wanted to differentiate the two phenomena, you could maybe call this 'retractified affrication' or 'affricated centralization' or whatever. I hope you get my point. In my old phonology class we would simply make a rule that defines the behavior and the environment it occurs in. In this case, just going on our limited examples (excuse my text editor shorthand):

Alveolar Stop [α voiced] -> Postalveolar Affricate [α voiced] / æ(n)_u

Actually, that vowel environment doesn't work because '-ation' brings an /eɪ/ and '-entiate' brings an /ɛ/ and an /i/. Actually, this could turn into quite a project and we might find out that in some or all cases the affricate is actually the underlying phoneme and the orthography just doesn't represent it. I don't have a compelling reason to go through this exercise myself and find out which is the case, but unless you can persuade me somehow then I hope I gave you enough to go on. - Lamba jan 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans

Why do they talk through their noses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.251 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous offensive reply deleted -- SGB

The question is probably an attempt to be offensive to Americans. However if the question is treated seriously then the answer is that they mostly don't, they use their lungs to push air through their vocal cords and the sound mostly passes through their mouth where it is shaped and processed to form words and other sounds. Some of the sound will pass through the nose. A blocked nose obviously causes a differnt type of sound to be made. As for "Why", generally folk learn to speak by mimicing those around them, so if those around speak with a particular dialect or patois then the individual will tend to do the same. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we haven't mastered the art of sounding like we have a hot potato in our mouth? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the book "Deutsch heute: Grundstufe" (1974), page xxxii.

"To make these long German vowels sound right, pronounce them with a lot more energy than the corresponding English vowel sounds. Our English vowels sound lackadaisical and funny to Germans. They say we talk as if we had a hot potato in our mouths--because we pronounce our vowels with so little energy."

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Frenchman I know says Brits talk like they have a hot potato in the mouth and Americans sound like the adults in the Charlie Brown animated cartoons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the question was intended to be offensive or not, it is true that some American accents (e.g. Western New York State) nasalize some vowels (especially /æ/) spontaneously (i.e. even when they're not next to nasal consonants). I remember hearing a local TV news reporter from Binghamton, New York, pronounce his own surname, Catlin, in such a way that I thought he was saying "Cantlin". And I've heard someone else pronounce the name "Patsy" so it sounds like "Pantsy". But it would be a tremendous overgeneralization to say all Americans do that. —An gr 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Nasalization, Nasal consonant, and Nasal vowel. This is common in many, even most languages. Some perhaps more than others, though I don't think English or even American English is all that extreme compared to all other languages. Probably somewhere in the middle. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed information about nasalization in different languages is available at WALS - Feature/Chapter 10: Vowel Nasalization.

-- 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(I made the last comment, but my username did not appear. [1] -- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this question at face value, and comment on it in a serious vein. I am an American, and while in my youth I lived in Finland for a while. I hardly ever heard English spoken, and very rarely American English. However, I could be walking down a busy crowded street in, say, Helsinki, and if someone were speaking American English a block away, I would be able to easily hear it above the babel and noise of the crowd. The reason for this is precisely what the op was talking about - Americans tend to "talk through their nose", so that their speech is "twangy" sounding. This sort of sound, because it is unique and high-pitched, can easily carry through a crowd of people speaking in other languages. I'll leave it to others to go into the finer details about why Americans speak this way (I have a personal theory that we get it from the Scots Irish), but I do have to say that this is indeed a noticeable phenomenon. Saukkomies 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Results" speak

I have observed that if someone enters 5 events, wins 3 and loses 2 that an American (USA) will say "3 and 2" whilst an Englishman will say "3 out of 5". Is my observation accurate? How did it arise? What do other countries do (even non English speaking ones)? Is there a wikipedia article about any of this? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of collectable card game tournaments in the UK is that one speaks of someone as being '3 and 2'. This may be a result of American dominance of the industry though. Algebraist 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Umteen decades, the first time I ever came across "3 and 2" and understood what it meant was this summer. I had heard it before but never realised that it was a report of some results. (I'm UKish.) -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"3 and 2" sounds like a matchplay score. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term for the "3 and 2"-type scoring is Win-Loss Record, although that page currently points to an article on Baseball, which could explain why it is prevalent in the US vs. the UK. You'll also sometimes see the number of tie (draw) results given as a third number, which leads to the pun in the gameshow title Win, Lose or Draw. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reasons why this form would be more common in the U.S. First, soccer ranks teams using "points" rather than strictly by a won-loss record. So while a baseball fan may say the team is 3-2, a soccer fan is more likely to say the team has 9 points through five games. Second, British sports standings use the form wins-draws-losses, so the team in question would actually be 3-0-2. Baseball and basketball have no ties (draws), while hockey and American football put draws at the end: 3-2-0. Ties are so rare in American football that they're usually left out. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mwalcoff. See also Group tournament ranking system. I think soccer usage has influenced British usage in sports like rugby and boxing where draws are rarer. jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino

What are some Filipino words that were included in the International English Dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.52.44 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that dictionary, but we have an article List of English words of Tagalog origin. Fribbler (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

French translation

In music, what would the word dehors mean, as in trés en dehors or fort et trés en dehors? 220.244.104.23 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "en dehors" suggests it means "emphasised". Fribbler (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Musical terminology says en dehors means "prominently" (Musical terminology#E). DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means "outside". In a musical context, a line or part marked "en dehors" should stand outside of the the other parts, which should be inside, or in the background. Thomprod (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

learning french

does anyone know a good teach yourself course/book or anything for learning french from scratch that is based on learning and understanding the grammatical structure of the language as opposed to the seemingly popular system of just rote learning? thank you. Philc 0780 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by "rote learning," but the best French program I've ever encountered is French in Action. It's all in French—no English comparisons, but it's clear and thorough and rarely gets frustrating. The workbook of the program discusses grammar in detail, and there is no rote memorization because each lessons expands off of the last and there is enough repetition that you memorize words naturally..--El aprendelenguas (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rote learning is often used where I come from to describe learning from repetition as opposed to learning from understanding. Sorry, I didn't realise it may not be in common circulation. 92.21.120.224 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People learn in different ways, and often misjudge the difficulty of learning another language, especially after adolescence. One issue is what you mean by "learn a language." Learn to read it? Learn to write it? Understand it when spoken? Speak it? And for each of those: in what context?

So I'll respond to the question with a question: what do you want to learn French for? Do you want to read literature? Understand French films without subtitles? Feel comfortable on vacation? Get a job in a francophone environment?

You might take a look at online offerings like Frenchpod or Coffee Break French. If you already speak some French but don't have much chance to practice, my original research suggests you can get a lot more practice in an immersive online environment like Second Life; I've used more French there (both in text and in voice chat) during the past eight months than in the previous eight years. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to France a few times and I love it, though I speak next to no French and have relied heavily on friends who are bilingual, I prefer it there to the UK and would probably want to be able to stay there for extended periods of time, so really the full whack, learn to read and speak the language in both formal and informal contexts. Philc 0780 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might seek out textbooks used in courses to teach French reading comprehension to graduate students. In such courses, the students are mainly interested in learning just enough of the language to be able to read French-language technical articles in their own academic area -- and the corresponding textbooks make little pretense to teaching conversational skills, and have a higher proportion of grammatical analysis, and a much lower proportion of drill than texts aimed at ordinary undergrauate-level language classes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any college text should be helpful in this regard.` The Jade Knight (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia actually has significant grammatical information available in its articles, there is also a Wikibook on French, and Wikiversity also has a French Department. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Scunthorpe

What do residents of Scunthorpe call themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000kA (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The escape committee? Sorry, couldn't resist it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Steve, Andrea, Alison, Tom, Peter...But more seriously I (and I live around 40 miles from Scunthorpe) refer to the place as 'Scunny' and quite a lot of people seem to refer to it as that. To be fair that's more the place than the people though. I doubt they are called 'scunthorpians' (like mancunians or liverpudians) by anybody. There isn't distinctive enoguh of a Scunthorpe accent to warrant its own name/locational reference, plus it doesn't lend itself to a short-form description (for obvious reasons) as well as some would. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google, the most common form is Scunthorpian, followed distantly by Scunthorper, Scunnyite, and Scunnier. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scunthonian is more common and more correct than Scunthorpian

Translation requested

I'm translating Twinkle for the french wiki. However, due to my null understanding of French language, I'll like to request translation of the next words:

Deletion of articles

Notify if possible (tooltip: Notifies the original author)

General criteria
- Not encyclopedic (tooltip: Pages that do not have encyclopedic importance)
- Pure vandalism (tooltip: Vandalism)
- Blatant advertisement (tooltip: Advertisement in articles)
- User request
- Redirects to nonexistent pages
- Re-created material (tooltip:
- Other reason (tooltip: Choose another reason)

(popup: Please write a reason)

Thanks, Macy 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to go over to the French Wikipedia and ask about this, or find English pages with these words and see if there are French equivalents. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go (might be *slightly* off due to lack of context):

Suppression d'articles

Nofifie si possible (infobulle: notifie l'auteur originel)

Critères généraux
- Pas encyclopédique (infobulle: pages qui n'ont pas d'importance encyclopédique)
- Vandalisme flagrant (infobulle: Vandalisme)
- Publicité flagrante (infobulle: publicité au sein des articles)
- Requête utilisateur
- Redirection vers une page qui n'existe pas
- Re-création d'une page supprimée (infobulle:
- Autre raison (infobulle: Choisir une autre raison)

(fenêtre pop-up: Veuillez donner une raison)

Equendil Talk 23:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a slight emendation in : Notifiez si possible (infobulle: notifie l'auteur originel) ? Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French instruction videos

Hi, I'm just curious about some videos that I had seen. They were for people learning French, and had a 1980s look to them. All the dialogues were in French, and the lessons were episodes with stories. The main characters were a young man and a young lady, and the young man's name was Vincent. He had a cute face and brown hair. The young lady was also cute, and reminded me of the teacher from Carrusel.

There are two episodes that I remember. One was where Vincent was invited to a family with kids. There was a budgie in a cage but Vincent made a mistake and the bird got away. Another episode was where Vincent and the young lady were working at the front desk of a hotel, instead of someone else. Vincent was saying things like "C'est facile!" and he was all smiles. But then lots of people rushed in at once and he ended up saying "C'est tres difficile," or something like that.

I think the video was sponsored by the académie française but I'm not sure about that. Does anyone have any idea what the title could be? --Kjoonlee 03:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be "French in Action", would it? I remember watching that in my high school French classes. I don't really remember the plots of the various episodes, but I do my buddies and I drooling over the cute French girl in it. Dgcopter (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's French in Action. I must admit I've only seen the first 26 of the total 52 episode of French in Action, but the young man's name is Robert, and in the first 26 episodes there's no scenario of Robert and Mireille (the young lady) working at a hotel. Granted, one of the later episodes could feature that I suppose, but the characters wouldn't just be saying "C'est facile" and "C'est très dificile" that late in the program.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted Spanish word for misprinted/overstock clothing worn by impoverished citizens in Latin America?

I have /heard/ this word in casual conversation 2 or 3 times in the past year. It seems that there is a Spanish or "Spanglish" TERM used in the United States for misprinted/ overstock/ teams-that-didn't win clothing that is donated to charities an worn in Latin America.

No amount of Google-ing or other research is giving me any answers...perhaps because I have no Spanish language skills and additionally no memory of the way the word sounds!

Thanks in advance.

221.218.168.101 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)KB_in_Beijing[reply]

As a note, I DID find information about Africa: [2] In Togo, the castoffs are called "dead white men's clothing." Few people in that West African country believe that a living person would throw away anything this good. Consumers in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania call the used clothing mitumba, the Swahili word for bale. 221.218.168.101 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) KB_in_Beijing[reply]

I spent some time on Google España looking at pages in Spanish that talk about mitumba [3] [4], but even though they actually borrow the Swahili word mitumba in the articles, they make no single-word Spanish equivalent. The best they can say is ropa de segunda mano (="second hand clothing"). If there were a popular Spanish word for this, I'd expect one of the article to say "...mitumba, or _________ when it's donated to Latin American countries..." but I haven't found that. I'd guess the word you heard was a part of a jargon limited to the clothing industry. I also found this article, which refers to the clothing as ropa barata de hombre blanco (="cheap white man's clothing"), albeit a translation of what you said above with no evidence that Spanish people would actually use that term in conversation. I also found this page, which refers to "vintage" clothes as ropa de moda tata, but of course I'm aware that "vintage" and "second hand" are not the same thing. The word you heard might very well have been an English word in a Spanish accent (Spanglish, as you mentioned). If so, you might find an English term somewhere online that comes close to what you heard. (If you're interested in any of the Spanish articles here, you can run them through Google translator to read them.)--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Zambia it's called salaula, Bemba for "rummage". That could pass for a Spanish word.... jnestorius^(talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation assistance request

Would anyone be interested in helping me with an English to Latin or Latin to English translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if it's not homework, we'd all be happy to help. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a whole book or something, in which case you're really going to have to pay someone to do it. Algebraist 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse? --- OtherDave (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Czech name

How is the Czech name "Marie" pronounced? I believe it is different from the French and German one, but I am not sure about the syllables. Please do not use IPA, I can barely read it. It should either be pronounced "mah-ree-eh" or "mah-ree-ah". Which one of these is correct? Or maybe both are wrong? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After skimming over Czech_phonology and Czech_phonetic_transcription, my educated guess is ['mariɛ], or per your request, MAH-ree-eh, where that last vowel "eh" is most like the e in bet. Perhaps someone more skilled than I am in Czech phonology can approve my pronunciation or correct it.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Czech, but being a native speaker of a closely related language, I suppose "Marie" is pronounced as two syllables, not three, that is ['ma·rʲɛ] in IPA, or MAH-ryeh. The R should be rolled and softened (palatalized) by the following I. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native Czech speaker but I believe a Czech speaker may pronounce the name as three syllables when speaking carefully and two when speaking quickly. The "r" is rolled as in Spanish. The "e" is pronounced like the short e in English, but since it's in a non-stressed syllable, it may just sound like "uh." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any native Czech speakers out there? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case no native speakers come along, I studied Czech in university for two years and spent some time in Prague, though I am far from proficient in the language. That said, I am confident that Czech writing has a fairly direct correspondence to (standard) pronunciation. In Czech, the only consonants that are palatalized when followed by the letter i are d, n, and t. Other consonants may be palatalized when a morphological ending starting with a vowel other than i is replaced by i as a result of a change in, for example, person or case, but that palatalization results in a corresponding orthographic change. For example, starý is an adjective (in the masculine nominative singular) meaning "old". The same adjective in the masculine animate nominative plural becomes staří. When r is palatalized (which does not tend to happen in words of foreign origin), its spelling changes to ř. So, if Marie were a two-syllable word pronounced with a palatalized r, it would be spelled Maře, which it is not. So the name is pronounced as El aprendelenguas and Mwalcoff have indicated. Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that a Czech woman named Marie may have had a French parent, and the name is intended to be pronounced in the French way, with 2 syllables. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case, I'm assuming that the woman's of Czech parentage, though I am not trying to find out how someone's name I know is pronounced. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker. It is pronounced [ˈmarɪjɛ] (MAH-ree-yeh), three syllables, no palatalization. — Emil J. 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses in french

What is the difference in meaning between the pluperfect tense and the past anterior tense. Thanks. Philc 0780 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my French reference book in which I could have found this answer right away is not with me now. I looked through some of Wikipedia's French-language articles and could not find a definitive answer. If it's anything like Spanish, though (as I suspect it is), the past anterior tense is very rarely used and only under a limited amount of circumstances. Plus, it is strictly a literary tense (much like the preterite in French), and outside of literature with fuzzy-old-style-Shakespearianesque writing, you won't encounter it.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pluperfect (plus-que-parfait) is usually translated as "had done (something)."

J'avais cherché / I had looked for (searched for).

The past anterior (passé antérieur) is a literary form of pluperfect.

J'eus cherché / I had looked for (searched for).

"Used in literature and historical accounts to indicate an action in the past that occurred before another action in the past," it says here. Something like passe simple, also used in formal writing and very formal speech. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I clarified the English translations a bit... shouldn't post when I'm tired. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you both. Philc 0780 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the French past anterior is literary and restricted in use. To be more precise: in a main clause you would only use it with an adverbial of time, in a subordinate clause the past anterior expresses a single past event that occurred immediately before the action of the main clause. So you would come across the past anterior often after quand, lorsque, dès que, après que, aussitôt que. In spoken language, you would use the passé surcomposé instead, or you would try to avoid the construction that triggers this use of the tenses. -- 84.160.18.35 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Coger

The Spanish word coger has many uses, like "grab, get, take." In some places in Latin America, its usage even includes "fuck." Is anyone aware if there is some kind of etymological connection between coger and the meaning "fuck"? Did one of the already-established meanings of coger lead to the meaning "fuck" (much like, I would assume, "screw" came to include the meaning "fuck")? Or does this meaning come from slang of uncertain origin? The RAE doesn't say much about it, but it does recognize the definition "realizar el acto sexual." Thanks!--El aprendelenguas (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I don't know anything specifically about Spanish or Latin America) Surely the meanings are connected in the same way that the verb 'take' in English can mean 'fuck' (ie "she was taken from behind"). The connection would seem to be that sex is often viewed as a possesive action (in the sense that the male is in some way capturing or claiming ownership of the female). I'd expect that that is the most likely explanation. D aniel (‽) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but what's strange about coger is that in the countries where it developed the meaning "fuck," it has lost all other definitions, becoming nothing more than an "f-word." I remember having a Spanish class with a student who recently (at the time) migrated from Mexico (coger = "fuck") to the US and a teacher from Spain (coger = "take, get, etc."). For the first few days of class, every time the teacher used coger in a conversation, the Mexican girl would blush and seem uncomfortable. When they talked about it, it was just as surprising to the Spaniard that coger could mean "fuck" as it was to the Mexican that coger could mean "take." The transformation of the word in some countries baffles me.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As coger took the f-meaning in some countries, speakers began using other similar verbs to represent the catch/take idea [tomar, agarrar...]. This is very understandable, since coger became in the process practically a taboo word.
By the way, Daniel's explanation is quite compelling to me (it's surprising anyway the absence of material about this topic on the internet). Pallida Mors 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

stairs

If there exist words such as these--

acetabuliform shaped like a shallow cup or saucer
acinaciform scimitar-shaped
aciniform shaped like a berry
aculeiform shaped like a thorn
adeniform shaped like a gland

--what would be the word for "shaped like a stair case"/"shaped like stairs"/"shaped like a series of rising steps"? "Stairiform"? Was there a Latin word for stairs/steps? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

Scaliform is possible (from Latin scala, 'staircase' or 'ladder', usually used in the plural), although the OED doesn't record it as an actually attested English word. The word scalar does have a sense "resembling a ladder"—though it has rarely been used with that meaning—and scalariform has a similar meaning; I can't find any evidence that they've been used to mean "resembling a staircase", however. Deor (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone use the word scaliform, I'd understand it just as easily (perhaps more easily) as the examples in the OP. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick Google search reveals that scaliform is a word in Turkish, although I've no idea if it means anything to do with staircases. Anyway, I think scaliform is great, even if no one has ever used it up until now outside of Turkey. Are there any existing (as in, someone once used it) words for "staircase-like", even if they don't end in "-iform"? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

What's wrong with stairlike? One doesn't always need a Latinate word. Deor (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scaliform" certainly is not a word in Turkish! The second hit I find in googling "scaliform" happens to be a Turkish dictionary, but it is giving the Turkish for the English word "scaliform". The word does not appear in the OED, but the various examples Google turns up mostly seem to mean "shaped like a scale" (in particular 'scaliform leaves'); there seems to be a particular use in hypersolid geometry of "scaliform polychora", referring to polychora which are somewhat less uniform than uniform polychora. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Turkish dictionary that comes up, actually, and that's what threw me. Oh well, I guess I'll take Deor's advice and stop searching for a latinate word. If something's shaped like a staircase, it's just shaped like a staircase, not scaliform... (although if scala means ladder/stairs and not scale, isn't using "scaliform" to mean scale-like sort of off?) 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin[reply]

Ancient Greek Question: Plural of Maimaktes

So according to Meilichios, Maimaktes means "the raging one" in ancient Greek. What would the plural of Maimaktes be? - in other words, "the raging ones"? Thanks! --Brasswatchman (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionary, it means "boisterous, stormy", and is used mainly as an epithet of Zeus (rather than an ordinary common noun). However, nominative plural would be Maimaktai... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be Maimaktoi, no, since it's masculine? L&S say it has a genitive in -ου. Deor (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ending -oi is the second declension nominative plural, and if a word has a nominative singular in -ês (eta-sigma), it's already not second declension. In fact, the inflection pattern with nominative singular -ês, genitive singular -ou is 1st declension masculine. Such nouns are inflected like 1st declension feminines, except that the nominative singular has a sigma at the end, and the genitive singular is borrowed from the second declension (replacing an earlier disyllabic long alpha + omicron ending seen in Homeric Greek)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just goes to show what one can forget when one hasn't studied Greek for nearly 40 years. Deor (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something at Ancient_Greek_grammar#Alpha_Declension_.28first_declension.29 -- AnonMoos (talk)

Excellent. Thank you both very much. --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the adjectival form of the word 'library'?

Something other than 'library-like' please - thanks, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some people use the word "librarial", but I'm not sure if that's actually listed in any dictionaries. Maybe you can just use "library", as in "library binding", "library edition", etc. (That would only work in certain contexts, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't list an adjectival form. It does say that bibliothec, bibliothecal, bibliothecary, and bibliothetic can all be used as adjectives for belonging/pertaining to a library. It rather depends on the context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going to those places that lend books for a long time, and I've never seen "bibliothecal" or any of its polysyllabic cousins used for a library having works mainly in English. "Library," as Zagalejo suggests, can be a noun adjunct, a noun that modifies another noun. Library edition, library science, library procedure. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Librarial: "glasses made Babel look like a librarian, but his silence is not librarial." Also "librarial and secretarial functions", "librarial support", "a librarial personality", "librarial assistance", "whose aims and objectives are religious, educational, or librarial in nature." —kwami (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, great stuff. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Problems

This paragraph is from the article about the herbicide Roundup:

"Monsanto firmly denies any negative impact on anything, including wildlife, and has many studies it has funded to back up its position.[citation needed] They would also be quick to point out that any possible negative impact on earthworms and nitrogen fixing bacteria, etc., would be offset by greater yields[citation needed], which have not been proven, due to the elimination of weeds, and also would point to soil benefits from less mechanical cultivation of weeds by using Roundup and similar products."

Aside from the lack of sources, I think there are wording problems. Some that stand out IMO are:

"would also be" instead of "are".

"quick to point out" instead of just "point out".

The location of "which have not been proven", interrupting the main thought.

The length of the last sentence due to packing in too many points.

"would point to". I'm not sure how to describe the problem with this but I think there is one.

"cultivation of weeds" I think people cultivate crops and soil but not weeds.

I think there are also wording problems in the first sentence but that sources are needed before these problems can be tackled.

Comments and alternate wording ideas would be appreciated. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "Monsanto...has many studies it has funded" would be better as "Monsanto has funded many studies". Also, If Monsanto is treated as a singular noun (which I agree with), better not to switch to 'They...' - we could say "The company..." instead. Strawless (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, switching to "they" is standard informal North American usage even though companies are treated as singular. In Wikipedia a more formal tone may be appropriate, though. --Anon, 17:36 UTC, September 8, 2008.

Yes. I would change "They" to "The firm", and I would go ahead and make the other changes that you mention. However, the repeated use of the conditional "would" and the lack of sources together are disturbing. I have to wonder how much of this is the writer's mere guesswork or putting of words into the mouths of others. The best course might be simply to delete the passages in question if they cannot be sourced and try to find documents that allow you to state the company's actual position. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an exemplary "role model"

If someone is described as a "role model", is it redundant to add the adjective "exemplary"? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. A rôle model may be good, bad or indifferent. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but "exemplary" wouldn't be my first choice of modifier. Its first def at Merriam-Webster is "serving as a pattern", which is neutral, and means almost the same thing as "role model". If I wanted to stress that somebody is a positive role model, I'd pick an adjective that's more... positive. (I think most people will take "exemplary" as a positive modifier, and there are defs which support this; I just don't think it's the best choice.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first meaning of "exemplary" given in Chambers Dictionary is "worthy of imitation". DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't the same meaning as role model? Chambers says "a good example to follow" for role model. I say "exemplary" is redundant. --23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)

My Chambers doesn't have an entry for rôle model, but I do not think that it is used exclusively for a good example to follow. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was there a memo diffused?

when people write about "diffusing the situation" i always assume they mean "defuse", but lately i've seen that appear in places and/or by people i'd consider not that illiterate. (frinstance http://www.yourdictionary.com/diffuse) am i missing something? Gzuckier (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just careless. The slide is from de-fuse (with a hyphen) to defuse and then to the similar-sounding diffuse, which as a word is more widely used. It's almost a back-formation, like the use of "I'll be out of pocket" to mean "I won't be in touch" rather than the former "I'll have to spend my own money." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how "I'll be out of pocket" might have come to mean "I won't be in touch". Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I don't think I've ever heard it used that way. Gwinva (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you. It's all the rage among U.S. corporate drones, the kind of people who can't say three sentences without including "going forward" and "at the end of the day." Maybe they're shifting paradigms and leveraging their synergies. Or maybe they need more fiber. I honestly can't remember when in the past 10 years I have heard anyone say "out of pocket" to mean "I'm missing money."

My theory, which like many has no supporting evidence, is that they seize on "out," twist it into "away," (as in "I'm going to be out of the office") and drag "of pocket" along as a sort of verbal hostage. Your mileage may vary; past performance is no guarantee of future return; quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --- OtherDave (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always amazed at how quickly these forms of expression catch on. Like "heads up". The first time anyone hears this, they would surely have not the faintest idea what the speaker's talking about. But before you know it, they've abandoned the habits of a lifetime, ditched "I'll let you know" and "I'll be in touch", and started gibbering "I'll give you a heads up". What's my other favourite? Oh, I know. "I have a 4 o'clock, and then a 5 o'clock, but I'll be free after that". I always assume I'm conversing with an horologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll touch base and give you a heads up before that eventuates." Honestly, most middle managers should be shot for the benefit of the language. Anyone touching my base had better be pretty damn cute, is all I will say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my personal relatively recent irritants: "bum rush" as in, "We're all gonna bum rush the gate, they can't keep all of us out" and of course the perennial "on line" as in "i've been on line at the cafeteria for hours just to buy a cup of coffee" Gzuckier (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On line" is a New Yorkism. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On line at the cafeteria? That's the kind of blue sky thinking which really winds me up. Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventuate

"A film version of the Broadway musical, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and an unnamed World War 1 themed musical co-starring Gene Kelly were also discussed, but the projects did not eventuate."

I think that using the word "eventuate" here is pretentious, but is it actually wrong? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect. I would consider 'actualize'. - Lamba jan 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "eventuate" is fairly common in Australia. I used to hear newsreaders saying it. jnestorius^(talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long before 'actualize,' I would consider (and use) "happen." Film versions were also discussed, but the projects never happened. I can't think of any sensible use for "eventuate." In a spelling bee, maybe, but that's quite a reach for "sensible." "Eventuate" may not be "wrong," but it's pompous, self-important, overly latinate, and implies that the writer doesn't know alternatives like "never got off the ground," "never even started," or "went nowhere." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Happen" is a little too semantically empty for me. I'd say "come into being" or "come to fruition" or "materialize" or "get off the ground". —An gr 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much wrong with "eventuate". I might not choose it straight up, but I wouldn't see any need to change it if I were editing someone else's text. I'd certainly prefer it to "actualize", which, if I ever used it at all, which is doubtful, I'd only ever use transitively or passively. OtherDave's and Angr's alternatives are good, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "eventuate" is actually a very appropriate word semantically, but it's so formal as to be precious in almost any context. In this case, I might go with "result". jnestorius^(talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a local thing. Jnestorius and I are both OK with it, and it wouldn't generally be considered precious in Australia. It's concise, it's clearly understood, and it's quite commonly used here. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack: I've regularly heard it used in quite informal contexts, and wouldn't think to change it in the quoted context, where it works well. Antipodean practice, perhaps. Gwinva (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the inputs. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even I'll freely concede it's likely a matter of style. Stylistically, though, "eventuate" is an antimacassar. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, antimacassar happens to be one of my favourite words in the entire lexicon, so I'll thank you not to denigrate it by associating it with something you consider stylistically infelicitous. :) ( I just wish I could get my hands on some macassar oil, the smell of which is incomparable ... ah, the good old days). But to be serious, if it is simply a question of style, then whether it fits or not would depend on which style one adopts, wouldn't it? You can't say that a word is stylistically inappropriate in absolute terms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The leading results of my Google News Search for "eventuate" are links to websites in Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like eventuate! Anywaym realise is surely the mot juste, no?217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in "... the projects were not realised"? Maybe. I have some misgivings about it, but I can't quite put my finger on why. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News from the front. ABC radio news just now had a report that Peter Costello reveals in his just-published memoirs that he prepared a speech in anticipation of John Howard handing over the prime ministerial reins to him after the APEC Summit. But, as the ABC newsreader said, "the handover didn't eventuate". Normally I wouldn't have given this a 2nd thought, but this discussion has sensitised me to it. Here are 2 blogs where the word is used quite naturally (for us) in the same context - [5], [6]. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and here it is online. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opposite of honorific

What's the opposite of "honorific"? I'm thinking of pronouns such as Korean jane "you" which are used towards people of lower social status, as opposed to honorifics used for people of higher social status. kwami (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-honorific forms are usually described as "familiar" or "humble" or "intimate", but I don't know of a specific term for a form that is explicitly below neutral. "Diminutive" maybe, at a stretch? Koolbreez (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Humble" forms are in effect honorifics, since they elevate to topic by downplaying the speaker. That's very different than a form that is insulting or shows contempt. "Familiar" or "intimate" could work, but only if other "familiar" forms are relabeled "plain". kwami (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane is not necessarily familiar or humble or intimate, though. Depending on context, it could be a bit like "sonny boy" (slightly insulting.) --Kjoonlee 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misread your message. --Kjoonlee 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjoon, is jane really a pronoun, or is it a noun like dongsin? kwami (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane really is a pronoun. I'd classify dangshin as three pronouns: an extremely honorific 3rd person pronoun, a polite 2nd person pronoun with polite speech levels, and a rude 2nd person pronoun with casual speech levels. --Kjoonlee 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe that makes two pronouns, not three. But then there's also dangshin used among married couples, as a casual 2nd person pronoun. Which brings us to two pronouns, used in four circumstances. --Kjoonlee 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, what about Japanese kisama or omae? --Kjoonlee 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're either very brusk or rude. But kisama, omae, and dangsin are all nouns used pronominally. kwami (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand; I've never heard anyone use dangshin in a way other than that which I described, and I'd classify those as proper pronouns. --Kjoonlee 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Many east and southeast Asian languages accept multiple nouns for pronominal use in a way that European languages cannot. I'd go so far as to say that Japanese does not have personal pronouns in the Indo-European sense. It looks like historically Korean na- and neo- are true pronouns, but dangsin for example is a Sino-Korean loan word. It may only have pronominal uses today, but it's possible that it isn't as basic as na- and neo-. Or maybe the original pronouns are no more basic than the new ones in modern Korean, as in modern Japanese—I don't know. kwami (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Kisama' and 'omae' were originally made from nouns, meaning 'important person' and 'honourable person in front', respectively. All pronouns in modern Japanese can be said to have originally come from nouns, with the exception of 'kare' (he) which is cognate with 'kore/sore/are' (this/that) and 'kanojo' (she), which is derived from 'kono (or 'ano')' and 'jo = onna, woman'. Interesting to note, while we are on the topic of honorifics, that the words 'kisama' and 'omae' were perfectly acceptable forms of address at various times in history, but have come to be quite the opposite in modern usage. 'Omae' now is only used between close friends/relatives, or when speaking down to someone, whereas 'kisama' is never used unless one is seriously threatening someone. --ChokinBako (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Korean, and nothing relevant to this discussion about Japanese, but when Kwami states above that jane is "used towards people of lower social status", that doesn't necessarily mean it's rude, does it? If I'm a person of standing addressing a servant, I can still be polite while using pronouns that reinforce our relative hierarchical positions. German speakers used to use the third person singular pronouns "Er" and "Sie" (i.e. "he" and "she") capitalized when addressing someone of lower social standing (roughly, you'd ask the stable boy "Where did He put the currycomb?" or the chambermaid "Would She please bring me the mirror?"), but doing so was certainly polite provided the person you were talking really was of lower social status. Obviously it would be rude to address an equal that way, but using the pronouns the way they're intended isn't rude. Is it the same with jane and its Japanese equivalent(s)? —An gr 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, 'omae' can be used between close friends or relatives, and in actual fact it is very common for a man to use the word to his wife and children - with no connotations of impoliteness (or even inferiority) at all. As for 'kare' (he), I have heard on a few occasions people (notably women) talking to me, about me, using this 'pronoun' with the intended effect of it being extremely polite, but not in the sense of me being of a lower social status (higher, in fact, as I was the customer and they were the bar-owners, shop-owners, etc.). I have also heard 'kanojo' (she) used this way, but much less. I get the feeling that you have to be careful when addressing a lady this way, as it may come across as a terrible insult. On a side note, Japanese is notorious for not being explicit on who the speaker is talking about when pronouns can mean practically anything (and are usually left out anyway), and even native speakers get frustrated with each other, so when someone says 'he' meaning 'you', it can be really confusing (Japanese verbs do not differentiate person). When talking to a very young child, Japanese very often use 'boku' or 'ore' (both meaning 'I'), (and sometimes 'watashi', 'I', to a girl) to mean 'you'. The basic idea here is, use the word the person uses to refer to him/herself, which is also why the Japanese very often use a person's name instead of the pronoun for 'you'.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To possibly answer the original poster's question, the "Bengali" chapter of The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5) uses "despective". Part of the reason why the "thou"/"thee" vs. "ye"/"you" contrast disappeared in English was that the "thou" forms acquired strongly despective connotations in many contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, kisama would be despective, then. But still no term for the German use of Er & Sie for polite address of a social inferior. kwami (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a certain punctuation mark

In the dictionary section of my German textbook it uses a character that I am assuming is a hyphen with an umlaut over it. I am trying to figure out how to get that character into Word 2000. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Laptopdude Talk 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first impulse would be to find out if it's a single symbol. If that fails, my next impulse would be to use '-' together with the Unicode codepoint U+0308, like this: -̈ --Kjoonlee 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that's for denoting umlaut plurals (der Apfel, die Äpfel)? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it uses it. After a little searching, I found that it could be made with 3 spaces then U+0335 and U+0308 in word. Thanks, Kjoonlee; I was asssuming it was one symbol. The only problem with your suggestion was that the umlaut was off center. With a little searching I found the hyphen I mentioned before (U+0335) in Word's symbol dialog. Thanks guys =) Laptopdude Talk 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual symbol is U+2E1A (Unicode PDF chart), but you'd need a comprehensive Unicode font installed to access it - none of the standard Windows ones seem to include it. Bazza (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000 has it. I see that the character after ⸚ is ⸛, the swung dash with a circle over it, also frequently found in dictionaries to indicate the headword with the capitalization switched. —An gr 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a bare umlaut with 'strikeout' style: ¨. In my browser the dash is longer than I'd prefer, but try it in your own document. —Tamfang (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Own the fact

What does "own the fact" mean?

Source: Blue Stockings Society (England) It was considered “unbecoming” for them to know Greek or Latin, almost immodest for them to be authors, and certainly indiscreet to own the fact.

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Own can mean admit, so in the example above, it would be indiscreet for them to admit to knowing Greek or Latin. DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "own up to" in that sense of admit; in the U.S. it has the connotation of being somewhat against your will. "At first Mayor Kirkpatrick strongly denied any wrongdoing, but once the text messages were made public, he owned up to an affair with his chief of staff." That seems like the Blue Stocking usage. Lately, I've seen "you own your words," especially on blogs, which has a different sense: you are responsible for what you say. --- 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Own up to" is current in British English, "own" (as in the original question) is somewhat old-fashioned. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American English too. —An gr 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapists and that ilk talk about "owning one's experience", which sounds a bit dumb at surface level, but it refers to talking about the emotional aspects of ~~your~~ one's own experience in the first person and past tense, and using factual, descriptive language ("When this occurred, I felt betrayed") rather than the 2nd person and present tense, and using general language ("When this sort of thing happens to you, you feel betrayed"). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "owning" my experience or yours? The Queen seems to stick to using "one" unassailably. 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Touché. One is grateful for that correction. Just give my private secretary a heads up if you'd like a knighthood or something, will you. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verb

Trying to find the verb that relates to 'excursion' meaning to go out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a commonly used one - in primary school we would "go on an excursion". I can imagine a theoretical "excourse", but it's not a word I've ever heard used. Steewi (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's excurse, actually. The OED has a few quotes from 1748 to 1891. Algebraist 11:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I hope it doesn't eventuate that people find reasons to excurse with this one. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn used to be a curse, but it's eventuated that it no longer carries the meaning it once had, so it's now an ex-curse. :) (Sorry, I tried to bite my tongue, but that course of action didn't eventuate) (Sorry again). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of this type can be answered by the use of a thesaurus, by which I mean a thesaurus in the original linguistic sense, with nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes other words carefully organized in relation to each other. (I do not mean a dictionary of synonyms and antonyms which has been called a "thesaurus" for marketing purposes.) The index to the fourth edition of Roget's Thesaurus lists "excursion" with seven sublisted senses: circuitousness, detour, deviation, digression, journey, obliquity, and sight-seeing. Those senses have some overlap.

Depending on the sense desired, some possible corresponding verbs are as follows.

circuitousness: circulate, go around in circles

detour: detour, make a detour

deviation: deviate, digress, turn aside

digression: digress, wander, excurse (!), maunder

journey: travel, wayfare, journey, jaunt, peregrinate

obliquity: deviate, diverge, divagate

sight-seeing: sight-see, see the sights

The original request did not stipulate that the verb must be a cognate of the word "excursion". However, one verb related in meaning is "excurse", which is also related in etymology. You can see links to definitions of "excurse" at excurse - OneLook Dictionary Search.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite answer to this question is "exit." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Business letter with multiple signatures

If you're writing a letter with multiple signees, is the correct way to format the signatures in a row horizontally, or one after another vertically? Assuming it's horizontally, should the signature of the highest-ranking person be farthest to the left or to the right?--Anakata (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that horizontal would be the standard arrangement, but I can imagine contexts where vertical might apply. Either way, the most important person's name would come first. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought it would be vertically like a petition, but can't really prove it. Then again, if they sign above each name's printed title, it would be okay horizontally and the key person would be at the left or beginning of the line either way. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both formats. Legally it doesn't matter provided all signatures are present (and the attestation clause is correct). It is not mentioned in "Correct Guide to Letter Writing" by "A member of the Aristocracy". Kittybrewster ☎ 12:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ate" to rhyme with "wet" or "wait"?

Is it correct to say I ate it or I "et" it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.44 (talk • contribs)

It depends on who you ask. "Et" is the usual form in British English, AFAIK. (You need to be careful about what you mean by correct, though. Grammaticality and acceptability are two different things.) --Kjoonlee 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived 7 years in England and I assure you that I have never seen "et" written anywhere there. I also have never heard it pronounced differently from "ate" so I assume people did not mean to say "et" but always means to mean "ate". I think it is a colloquial Southern Americanism. --Lgriot (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not spelled "et", but I have definitely heard "ate" pronounced [ɛt] by Englishmen and -women. —An gr 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "et" was once the standard pronunciation, but it went out of general use. My grandparents used to say it this way. The usual objection to saying "et" nowadays is that the spelling would then become counter-intuitive - the unstated corollary being that as there's never been a single known instance of a counter-intuitive pronunciation of an English word, to make an exception in this solitary case would be wrong, terribly wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I learnt my English in Greater London, where everyone I know said [ɛt], not [eɪt]. --Kjoonlee 09:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a good old englishman (well not old) I can confirm that I switch between the two. Sometimes I 'eight' (ate)it and sometimes I 'ett' (ate) it. I would say the latter seems to be more of a local/regional thing, while the 'eight' pronunciation is what I would expect say a news reader or radio presenter to use. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone pronounced it [eɪt] (like "eight") 200 years ago. It may well be a modern spelling pronunciation. —An gr 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"et" is nonstandard or regional in American English. In British English, both are standard and dictionaries still list "et" first, but I reckon "ate" is gaining and "et" will go the way of "weskit" and "Bartlemy" in a generation or two. jnestorius^(talk) 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some related information in the following.

The article on vowel shift and some of the articles linked contextually from it
The article on dialect and the websites listed under "External links"

Those pages discuss differences over time and space.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Alan S C Ross in How to pronounce it is unequivocal. It rhymes with wet, not wait. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you meant to say was that, in 1970, "et" was U and "eight" was non-U. jnestorius^(talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Ross described it as "paramount and not associated with any particular region. This has been called 'Received Standard English'" (page 9). Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Ross has been dead for 28 years. jnestorius^(talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a preferred authority since his death? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever a preferred authority? "Authority" smacks too much of prescription rather than description. I don't doubt that in 1970 in much of England educated people would have thought less of you for saying "eight" rather "et". I'm sure that is much less true now and that in another 40 years many people will think less of you for saying "et" rather than "eight". FWIW my favourite pronouncing dictionary is Wells' Longman, which is regularly revised. jnestorius^(talk) 19:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and according to the second (2000) edition of Wells's Longman, a 1988 opinion poll of British speakers showed that of those born before 1923, less than 30% pronounced ate "eight"; of those born between 1923 and 1962, a little more than 40% said "eight", and of those born since 1962, around 65% said "eight". But he still lists "et" as the preferred British pronunciation; it's the one written in blue rather than black, meaning it's the pronunciation foreigners learning English should (in his opinion) be taught to emulate. For American English, on the other hand, "et" is marked "considered incorrect/non-standard". —An gr 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this has its roots in regional dialectal differences rather than a spelling pronunciation. Most spelling pronunciations involve words, often from French or Norman French, that were given an etymologizing spelling, sometimes based on a false etymology. This is a one-syllable strong verb derived from Anglo-Saxon. Probably the spelling "ate" reflects a Middle English pronunciation of [aːtɘ] in some region of England, which the Great Vowel Shift would have changed to [eɪt] in modern dialects. These dialects could have become the basis for General American (which includes many features from the old speech of the "West Country" of England). The Middle English pronunciation might have been [ɛt] in some other region (East Anglia, East Midlands?) whose dialect became the basis for the pronunciation favored in 18th- or 19-century England. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this headed "Grammar"? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. Not as bad as "Question", a frequent guest on these pages. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro in 1671

Maybe this belongs under Entertainment – I tossed a mental coin ...

In an episode of Heroes, the time-traveler says in Japanese that he was in Japan 1671. I listened several times to that line in the hopes of extracting something. I don't think he said literally "1671", nor did he say Kanbun (era). Anyone know what he did say? —Tamfang (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it online, and he does (at about 15:00) say "sen roppyaku nanajuu ichinen". For what it's worth, in the approximately 1.5 episodes of Heroes that I've seen now, the Japanese has always accurately matched the subtitles. -- BenRG (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thus we learn that I don't know the numbers well enough to know what to listen for. When is nana preferred to shichi? — It has struck me that the Japanese dialogue often uses pronouns where I'd expect them to be omitted, suggesting an overly literal translation from English, but what do I know! —Tamfang (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've heard shichi was on radio taiso. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shichi" tends to be used before counters that start with "n" (e.g. "shichinin", "shichinen"), probably because three ens in a row would sound odd. I can't think of any other general rules, except that "nana" is more common overall. I think even native speakers get confused, so don't worry too much about it. -- BenRG (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriot

How do you pronounce Harriot's last name? Is it hair-ree-utt, or har-ree-oh? Black Carrot (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the name pronounced, but since he was English, not French, and since his name was sometimes spelled with two T's, my money is on the first option. —An gr 13:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an Englishman, my guess would be [ˈhæriːət]. I wasn't born in the sixteenth century though. Algebraist 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be [ˈhæriət] to rhyme with chariot. --Kjoonlee 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative limerick time! I'll start us off: There once was an old man name Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot. —An gr 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He loved it all right / Was love at first sight! / He even decided to marry it. --Kjoonlee 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final rhyme doesn't work in my accent. Can we get Judas Iscariot in somehow? Algebraist 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it didn't rhyme in mine either. I aimed for an ~~assy-thingumy~~ assonance instead. --Kjoonlee 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] always says his name to rhyme with chariot. Richard Avery (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the pronunciation of "chariot" varies regionally. In much of the USA, it is pronounced [ˈtʃɛriət], though in my own dialect it is [ˈtʃæriət], as in the British RP. The spelling would suggest that the latter pronunciation is the older form, and I don't think that the later stages of the Great Vowel Shift would have affected this much, so this was very likely the 16th-century pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I think whatever one's pronunciation of "chariot" is, one's pronunciation of "Harriot" is going to rhyme with it. —An gr 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot, Harriot and marry it rhyme well enough for me. But for the rest of you: There once was an old man named Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot / When he betrayed with a kiss / They gave him a hiss / For they thought he was Judas Iscariot. Gwinva (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! --Kjoonlee 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, lariat and Garriott rhyme with chariot as well. --Kjoonlee 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There once was young man named Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot / His manner was coarse / He resembled his horse / So they tied him up with a lariat. Gwinva (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A(n) historian crank, name of Harriot,

Fixed scimitar blades to his chariot --

Yet no ticket, no fine

Then, one day, cut in line

And was roundly condemned, like Iscariot.

--- OtherDave (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, much better than mine. But, if we're allowed to abandon Angr's original two lines, then:

There once was a young man named Harriot / Who worked for a large secretariat / His filing was poor, / He was kicked out the door / So he went to work for the Marriott. Gwinva (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for me. I say "Marriott" with a full vowel in the last syllable, not a shwa. —An gr 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. en.wikipedia: a people divided by a common language. (But I must confess, that doesn't rhyme as well for me as Kjoonlee's "marry it".) Feeling driven to produce something which meets approval, I offer my latest effort (which has nothing to do with Harriot, I'm afraid):

There once was a young Wikipedian

Whose efforts were never acedian

As his edits did mount

He began to lose count

But still he fell short of the median

—Gwinva (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...changing both rules and form...

Ee-i-o, ee-i-o

Yorkshire-based Herriot

(Real name Alf Wight, but

Enough about that)

Hyperauthorial

Veterinarian:

Judas's goat, or else

Schrödinger's cat.

(it's been a slow day --- OtherDave (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Issue (periodical and newspaper terminology)

The newspaper article refers to, for example, the "weekend edition" vs. "weekday edition" of a daily. I understand that a single, physical paper one gets delivered by subscription, or purchases at a newsstand, is a "copy." So what's an "issue" and what's being numbered? The case I need to describe is a weekly periodical for which my source (excerpts) provides only the number, month and year. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the definition #5. Oda Mari (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it, thanks; however I'm not convinced that "issue" is entirely synonymous with "a copy [sic] of a magazine or newspaper published on a particular date"—though I've heard the term "Back issues" or even "Back numbers" to refer to older, ummm, editions in stock. Perhaps there's a BE/AE usage issue here? (What I need is US usage.) In my experience, Encarta usually notes variant usage, but here there's no indication. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at a copy of the tabloid periodical for teachers Reading Today; under the title at the top of the first page appears "Vol. 25, No. 4, February/March 2008". In this case, "4" is the issue number—it's the fourth number published in the yearly volume. (One could say that only "No. 4" or "February/March 2008" would be sufficient to identify this issue, but it's customary to give both in bibliographical references.) Not all periodicals, however, use the volume/issue scheme of numbering (if they do, the information is usually found on the contents page or in the masthead somewhere in the first few pages of a copy). If you don't have actual copies of the periodical to consult, I guess you'll have to include only what's available, as long as it's sufficient to identify particular issues. Deor (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then compare the definitions. Oda Mari (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Number may be an absolute sequence across the entire history of the publication, or it may be the sequence within a Volume; volumes are usually one per year. Looking at this source for Der Stürmer it looks like the "Volume" is implicitly the calendar year, with the "Number" being sequenced by week within that year (e.g. Issue 12 in March, Issue 48 in November).

A difference between issue and edition for daily newspapers is that there may be multiple editions of a given issue; the issue for March 3 2007 may have an Early edition, Provincial edition, City edition and Final edition, with minor updates for late-breaking news, sports results, errata, etc. jnestorius^(talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a lot of variations. A local newspaper here (Canada) is published three times per week. Each issue has four editions, one for the south part of the city, one for central, one for north, and one for east. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the difference between "issue" and "copy", you might say that 100,000 copies were printed of the paper's September 10 issue. --Anonymous, 20:01 UTC, September 10, 2008.

The recent wide adoption of incorrect pronunciation

In the last couple of years it has become commonplace to pronounce certain words differently from what we have used all my lifetime.(I am 78 years old) I refer to privacy, pry-vacy now said privvessy; finance (and derivatives), fy-nance now said finnance etc.; kilometre,killo-meeter now said killommeter, all often said by people one would think ought to know better. Wikepedia treats questions on mispronunciation as referring to regional accents rather than the dubious habit of distorting words which appears to be becoming fashionable. Is it already too late to reverse the trend? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.85.234 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But language always changes; you wouldn't want to reverse that trend. --Kjoonlee 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Do You Speak American . What Lies Ahead? . Change . Changin | PBS. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the pronunciations you've used all your life are different from those used by others. For instance, "privvassy" has always been standard in some places. Ditto "finnance," "killommeter," and many countless others. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dialectal differences are discussed in the article on American and British English pronunciation differences. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages always change; perhaps some of the pronunciations you used in your youth were looked on by the older generation as ugly, modern and faddish. We are also be subject to the "recency illusion": the belief that something you've only recently noticed must be a recent phenomenon; often (in language and elsewhere) it can have existed for ages before you noticed it. Others have mentioned dialect differences; modern global communications expose people to a greater variety of accents and dialects than in earlier days. jnestorius^(talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see recency illusion and jamais vu. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question "Is it already too late to reverse the trend?" involves two components: ability and willingness.

To decide whether the trend can be reversed, it is useful to examine what is causing the trend. I can suggest four influences, as follows.

More influence from the entertainment media than from language instruction
Inadequate help for immigrants learning English
Expedient linguistic changes for marketing purposes
Excessively busy lifestyles, with too little time for analyzing language

Can those influences be reversed?

Whether there is a willingness to reverse the trend involves individual and collective attitudes. Possibly each individual person welcomes some changes and does not welcome other changes.

Someone (with limited influence) who wants to make a (limited) difference can promote his/her preferences by both use and mention in daily conversations, calls to radio stations, podcasts, and self-organized enunciation classes; and by enlisting the help of like-minded individuals to do likewise. It can be like holding back the tide. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Western US, privacy is still 100% pry, and finance is 100% fy; the alternatives would simply be viewed as nonstandard (ie, wrong) here. However, I hear both kill-o-meter, and kill-AH-muhter; I expect this last word is changing because we don't use kilometers much out here. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments on privacy and finance. When I was younger (I'm in my 50s now), privacy in Australia was always, always pronounced privvessy. One undressed in the privvessy of one's bedroom, for example. That changed somewhere down the track; and with the advent in the 1980s of the Privacy legislation (which has had far more unintended social consequences than any problems it addressed - but that's another story), it's become cemented in as pry-vasy. Re finance, there was always a distinction between the verb "to finance" (which was pronounced fə-NANCE), and the noun "finance" (which was pronounced FIE-nance) - or maybe it was the other way around. The point of my uncertainty being that this distinction was known to few people, not including myself; and it's become so arcane now that it's virtually extinct. Margaret Thatcher, for example, always honoured the distinction, but her way of speaking was typical only of herself. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way to have influence on English pronunciation is to volunteer for Category:Spoken articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Change and decay in all around I see", and pronunciation is constantly changing. No doubt King Charles II would have sneered at the way Queen Victoria pronounced certain words, and she in her turn would be horrified by what passes for upper class English in the 21st century. It's part of the human condition to regret such change and to believe worse is coming to worst. But even the Queen's own English goes on evolving. She sounds quite different now from the way she sounded in her early public speeches. Strawless (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists always cringe when people describe the results of natural language change as degradation or some other description that assumes that the way people spoke before was better. Really both are equal in quality. Sure, the attempts of institutions to formalize speech and the perceptions of many people that certain forms of speech are better could motivate portions of the population to keep their pronunciation and grammar more in line with earlier forms, and it might be frustrating to such people when changes to the language occur in spite of these factors. But this is all under the false assumption that language change is language degradation.

I would also like to say that I find Wavelength's list pretty unconvincing. There's no evidence that mass media affects the way people speak, the way immigrants speak results in varieties of English not in the pronunciation of a handful of words, and other than made-up words (Paxil, Viagra, Sony, kleenex), I know of nothing any marketing team or teams have done to influence the way people speak. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a list of language regulators. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't these all be questions of dialect, rather than being right or wrong? The same goes for spelling, defence (UK) and defense (USA) is a popular example. You can celebrate the diversity of language, or tell people they have used the wrong pronunciation in the wrong place - which is hardly productive. These alternative pronunciations are all correct in the right dialect. It is simply that you see more of the world now than you did in your day. People always used these pronunciations, just in different parts of the world.78.149.102.146 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the term "language regulators." A language is a dialect with an army and navy. As for l'Academie, as Nadeau and Barlow note in The Story of French, its original members chose to define "only the words used by the 'best of society.' ... The majority of members have never been made up of authors, and real experts such as grammarians (and later, linguists) have always been a rarity. From the beginning the academicians were ... a bunch of amateurs, and they have always remained so."

In other words, no matter how well-intentioned, the usual gang of former hall monitors and linguistic busybodies. --- 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has a usage panel (of novelists, essayists, poets, journalists, writers on science and sports, public officials, and professors) to arbitrate on acceptable usage. (See under "History" and under "Linguistics".) -- Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ь/Ъ?

I know Ъ in Russian is used to pronounce hard /j/ sound in a consonant-iotation cluster (as in съесть). The thing I don't understand is that Ь often replaces it (as in статья). Up until now I thought this was a common spelling mistake like е/ё, but as I saw it in the dictionary and I see it on ru.wiki, I have come to a conclusion that this is some spelling quirk I haven't heard of. Could someone explain what is this used for and how is it pronounced? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) In статья, it signifies that the я is separately pronounced from the т. --ChokinBako (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I've understood things correctly (full disclosure: I don't actually know Russian, but I know a handful of random facts about Russian), ъ before an iotating vowel letter like e or я means the consonant before the /j/ sound is hard (velarized), while ь before an iotating vowel letter means the consonant before the /j/ sound is soft (palatalized). Thus съесть is [sˠjestʲ] with a hard s, while статья is [statʲja] with a soft t. —An gr 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've understood correctly, the salient point being that without the soft sign the я in статья would soften the т while losing its iotation, whereas with the soft sign present the т is softened and the я keeps its iotation. Koolbreez (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that means статъя would be pronounced /statˈja/, right? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've used the symbol for stress in between the /t/ and /j/, indicating the stress is on the final syllable. Maybe it is, but if so, the ъ doesn't tell us that. If статъя were a word it would have a hard (velarized) /t/ sound followed by a /j/. And if статя were a word it would be [statʲa] with a soft (palatalized) /t/ and no /j/ sound. But I must admit it's difficult for me to pronounce the set [atˠja] – [atʲja] – [atʲa] and reliably keep an acoustically salient difference between all members. If I think about it, I can do it, but if I were actually jabbering away at a normal conversational rate I think all three would collapse together as [atʲja]. —An gr 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the normal conversational rate of most Russians is such that the difference is barely audibly discernible, if at all. It then comes down to a spelling rule that learners and slavoscribes just have to remember. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to keep in mind is that hard consonants are not always velarized. Sources I've found say such consonants are only velarized before back vowels (/u/ and /o/). So it may be a little easier to pronounce [sjestʲ]. Though, as said above, palatalizing that s is probably pretty common outside of formal circles. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the substitution of е for ё is no spelling error. Many (most?) printed works don't use ё because you can usually tell what the word is anyway. Strad (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of grey with this question. I was taught that ё is not a formal letter, although it does appear in many lists of Cyrillic letters. It's just that e is sometimes pronounced -ye- and sometimes -yo-. To make it easier for learners, the ё is used where the -yo- pronunciation is required. But I've seen completely contradictory theories about this, so I wonder if anyone really knows the truth, or if, indeed, there is a "truth". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will find information in ru:Ё (кириллица). The letter was introduced in the late 18th century either by Nikolai Karamzin or Ekaterina Dashkova. This novelty was long considered "uncanonical", especially by the Orthodox hard-liners who viewed it as a pernicious lay influence. They still don't pronounce ё when reading prayers. Recently ё-fication has been a fad. See here, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

How would you say "Tell me that thing you heard" in Japanese? Thanks in advance. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiita kotowo hanashite kudasai. 聞いたことを話してください。 --Kjoonlee 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to say it, kotowo is pronounced "kotō" (the final o being long with no w sound).--El aprendelenguas (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly pronounced as in "kotō", because the 'wo' is pronounced distinctly and separately from the preceeding '-o', with a sort of labial glide, almost approximating to a 'w'. This happens only after '-o' (and -u, where it is obviously unavoidable), and normally the 'w' is not pronounced at all.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Quenya

Aiya.

This wonderful site says that "Respective: Sg. -s, pl. -is, part.pl. -lis, dual -tes." This makes sense. But does this transfer over to Black Speech? This guys article on Orkish doesn't really help me there, and I was wondering anyone here knew how much of Quenya is used in Black Speech. Eruhantalë-tesil. ^_^ Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, almost nothing is known about Tolkien's "Black Speech" of Sauron, except the Ring Inscription, the words for "old man" and "fire", and one sentence in the LOTR novel which is in a debased and corrupt form of Black Speech... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien's other books give more detail on all the languages. Black Speech though, as you said, has little known about it. It is copied from Quenya, with some more... hedonistic changes made, but it follows the same grammar system (as far as I know, hence the question) almost exactly. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "hedonistic" is supposed to mean in this context... Within the Tolkienverse, Sauron presumably based the Black Speech partially on Quenya and/or Valarin -- but in a deliberately twisted and distorted way, so that it would not be correct to assume that Tolkien intended any particular feature of Quenya to carry over to the Black Speech. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Speech. There you go. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin: Hierosylma est perditus. Or perdita?

In Hip Hip Hooray, we cite RS that it's perditus. The article Hep-Hep riots has it as "perdita". It's an awfully long time since I studied Latin, and I wasn't much good at it anyway, so I haven't a clue; perhaps both are correct, for different usage? Please can a Latin scholar help out. As both articles seem to be using RS, we might need a "sic" for one. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perdita. Hierosolyma is feminine, so the adjective needs to be feminine too. —An gr 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the RS called it medieval Latin - I know enough about the subject to know that in the medieval period, usage of the language was somewhat, shall we say barbarised. Could this account for incorrect usage, or is the barbarism entirely that of a modern author/subeditor? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely to be modern. Medieval Latin was stylistically simpler than Classical Latin, but since the people who used it were for the most part themselves speakers of languages with fully fledged grammatical gender systems, that aspect of Latin grammar is something they were likely to get right. The error may be in the book cited as the source, or it may be with the Wikipedian who copied the information from the book. Either way, the etymology is extremely likely to be false, as with almost all cases of words alleged to derive from pre-20th century acronyms (e.g. For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, Port Out Starboard Home, etc.). —An gr 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be me, not him. Blast :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some first-declension (i.e ending in -a) nouns that are masculine, classical words like poeta and nauta, and medieval ones like papa and patriarcha, which are all borrowed from Greek I guess. Hierosolyma comes from Greek too, but since it's not an occupation usually held by men, it is just a regular feminine noun like Roma. A quick glance through William of Tyre, who lived in Jerusalem during the crusades, suggests it was always feminine for him. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the poeta/nauta things too, but not only is Hierosolyma not an occupation, it is a city, and cities tend to be feminine even when they end in -us and belong to the second declension (I can't think of an example of the top of my head but I know they exist), so the ones ending in -a and belonging to the first declension are virtually guaranteed to be feminine. —An gr 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having now seen the source, I don't think it looks reliable. This sort of etymology is very popular and is almost certain to be bullshit. —An gr 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've got William open, his own see, Tyrus, is always feminine. I don't like that source either, I really don't see the crusaders running around shouting "hep!" They had plenty of slogans but I don't remember ever seeing that one. It's not very encouraging, so it doesn't even make sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of others (better). Equally there are ones that disagree (while at the same time confirming the notability, if not the accuracy of the assertion!). It'd be good to get some dissent into the article, per its talk page. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval part is probably the word order -- in Classical Latin, the word order "Hierosolyma perdita est" would have been more usual (cf. "Carthago delenda est"). AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "delenda est" a gerundive of obligation, ie it must be destroyed, rather than a statement of fact, it is destroyed? --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't matter because you could also say "Cartago deleta est" and it's the same word order. Est can go at the end of the clause like any other verb, despite being a copula. I've seen est (or other forms of sum, esse) often used both inbetween subject and complement (SVC), and after both subject and complement (SCV), as an auxiliary or copula..--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionaries, it should be Hierosolyma perdita sunt. —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek, "Jerusalem" can be either feminine singular or neuter plural; not sure about Latin. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been skeptical of this etymology. Do you think that semiliterate drunken mobs of 19th-century antisemites were fluent in Latin? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar, isn't it? Mind you, even inebriated, ill-educated mobs can probably handle Latin abbreviated to just three letters in a handy, pre-packaged and pronuncible acronym. After all, they presumably would have easily handled the three letter Hebrew acronym Amen, without knowing its origins. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen is a form derived from a triliteral abstract consonantal root (not an acronym...). AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the Talmud. See our article. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the writers of the Talmud are as likely to succumb to folk etymologies as anyone else. —An gr 10:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the lager louts in a largely illiterate society understand the concept of acronyms? —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is giving me deja vu. --Dweller (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

Hello. Although I speak about 20-25 languages, I need the surname 'Smith' translated into Ukrainian, which I don't speak. Feel free to leave comments on my talk page- not here as I won't be checking here, I'll only ask again. And again. Chris Wattson (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith would be коваль, but surnames aren't usually translated. Сміт is the transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask here, you get an answer here. Them's the rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way to approach someone who knows something you don't, with a request to find that thing out. And following it up with a threat to be a juvenile nuisance? Well, usually, to paraphrase Hobson, one must go to a bowling alley to meet a [person] of your stature. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's rude to make fun, but after Chris's language-dropping intro here, making him one of the greatest polyglots of all time, I can't resist pointing out that he's volunteered to supply the first 25 digits of pi, which he "happens to know", at pi, "if it helps the article". (The article lists the first 50 and links to 10,000.)

Delete that if I've gone overboard. kwami (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. In any case, he won't see any of the above because he's made it quite clear he won't be checking. Not even once, let alone again. And again. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should be honoured, you and I, Jack, that we have been graced by one of our Prime Ministers, and one of the first Labor heads of state in the world. Steewi (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Head of government, shurely? Algebraist 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who by rights should never have been eligible because he wasn't a British subject, having been born of German parentage in Valparaiso, Chile, of all places. Yes, Algebraist, he was a head of government. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, give him his due; he knows the first 32 digits of pi, not just the first 25. Personally, I'm more curious about the five languages he's not sure whether he knows or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some pairs among them are related closely enough that it's doubtful whether to count them as distinct languages; or maybe he can't count that high. —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

avoiding a split infinitive

"I set up a bell to automatically ring whenever someone came in the door" is not grammatically correct because of the split infinitive ("to ... ring"). One way to fix it would be to say: "I set up a bell to ring automatically whenever someone came in the door", but this still does not seem correct. Should there be a comma after "automatically" or should it be written entirely differently altogether? 137.148.204.138 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article you linked? It's hardly a given that a split infinitive is automatically incorrect. Such prescriptivism is something up with which I shall not put. --LarryMac | Talk 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the sentence is very much grammatically correct. It's just bad style if you happen to be talking, for instance, to HM Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Most non-native English speakers would not find anything wrong with it, I dare to presume. JIP | Talk 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not hesitate to boldly say that the Queen probably splits them herself. --Kjoonlee 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to avoid the split infinitive for whatever reason though, I'd say your second proposed sentence is fine, although I'd probably use "anyone" instead of "someone" in both cases. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it "whenever anyone comes through the door". But then, I wouldn't have been troubled in the first place by this Greatest furphy of all time (what? still no article??). More words have been written about the non-existent issue of the split infinitive than about things that really matter. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My exemplar of English-language style, The Economist, splits not never no infinitive, no-how, no-way. I propose we rise up and cast off the shackles of our oppressors - infinitives must always be split! Death to those who would force William Shatner to unctuate "boldly to go"! Franamax (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course their choice, and I would defend to the death their right to make such a choice. But if such a choice were made on the basis that to do otherwise would be wrong, that would have been a very bad choice, imho. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"To go" is not the infinitive form of the verb. "Go" is the infinitive, "to" is a preposition used in front of it. One may as well talk about "The green cat" as being a split substantive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Infinitive says. "To" is a particle (not a preposition, btw), and "go" is the bare form of the infinitive, but the 2-word expression is correctly called the infinitive. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you tell Otto Jespersen that or shall I? DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that no one analytical linguist gets to decide these matters unilaterally. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. R. Lounsbury & Ernest Gowers call it a preposition too, and even if you want to call it a particle, it started out as a preposition, and was often seperated from the verb from the start. Anyway, it's a silly rule. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, at least, is one thing we can agree 100% on. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, me, and Bernard Shaw! DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also consider amending the sentence to read "through the door", or, better, "through the doorway", since generally only people with large mallets come through doors. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Russian question

My two Russian co-workers keep using a word that sounds like "karuchi". What the heck does it mean? JIP | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

короче. It means "basically/ in short/ briefly", and just like those English words it can be and is used just to fill in space in a sentence. You know, like, basically. Koolbreez (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. This raises an interesting additional question - "basically / in short / briefly" is one of the very few words/idioms that I fully understand the concept of, but have not found a way to express it in my native Finnish. It is embarassing to find out you know some concept better in a foreign language than in your native language. JIP | Talk 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, I'm sure there are Finnish expressions for which other languages lack clear equivalents. That's part of what makes other languages interesting: they can be like another form of thinking. (My favorite example is the lack of an exact word for "yes," "no," and "to know" in Scottish Gaelic. Good for overturning preconceptions.) Your comment made me look for Finnish idioms, and I have to say I really like en minä voi siksi muuttua. The site gave an English translation as "I can't change into that," but explained the meaning as "a desired object simply isn't available, no matter how much someone keeps asking for it." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could also be using the word хорошо (pronounced "khor-o-sho), which means "good". Saukkomies 09:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though its last syllable seems unlikely to be mistaken for chi. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of study and capitalization

Should areas of study be capitalized? Such as "John Doe went to Whatsamatta U. where he majored in Underwater Basket Weaving". Dismas|^(talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not, though I can imagine some style guides might disagree. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I've only seen that for languages ("He majored in Pottsylvanian literature") and words derived from proper names ("...and minored in Thomistic theology"). Otherwise, maybe in constructions like "dean of the School of Engineering at Whatsammatta U." -- OtherDave (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you're referring to a specific class, it would be capitalized: Underwater Basket Weaving 101. Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since underwater basket weaving is likely to be taught by (the Department of) Underwater Basket Weaving, I can readily imagine that the university's documents might capitalize it. —Contrarianly, Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure; particples, gerunds... all that sort of stuff

When I read the following sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation form covalent bonds...", I have to slow down when I reach the word 'form' in order to understand its function in the sentence. Alternatively, if I read the sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation are known to form covalent bonds...", I don't have to slow down or stop at all; the sentence flows much more nicely in my opinion. I lack the required understanding of grammar to diagnose the problem myself, but "instinctively", I suggest that the first sentence has a failing. Is it grammatically incorrect? --Seans Potato Business 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing wrong with it from a grammatical perspective. Your preferred version is fine too, although it introduces the concept of persuasion - the facts are not simply asserted, they're supported by reference to some unnamed authority "knowing" them to be true - which makes the overall meaning subtly different. From a Plain English point of view, I'd prefer the former one. The latter one introduces words that aren't essential to the meaning; "are known to form" is in passive voice, which Plain Anglicists like to use as the exception rather than the rule. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Sean is stumbling over 'form' because it could be a noun in the first sentence, whereas in the second it is made very clear it is a verb. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wouldn't that transform 'investigation' into an adjective. Is there such an adjective-noun pair as "investigation form"? I suppose it's possible in that context. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garden path sentence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

latinise this please?

I'm looking for an authentic-sounding taxonomic name for a fantasy plant popularly called the architectural poppy - can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papaver ædificium. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wonderful, so quick! - thanks heapsAdambrowne666 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ædificium means 'a building'; perhaps ædificialis? —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noun papaver (genitive singular: papaveris) is neuter, so aedificialis would become aedificiale (genitive singular: aedificialis) in agreement.

(In Latin, the citation form for nouns is the nominative singular, and that for adjectives is the nominative singular masculine.)

Similarly, architecturalis would become architecturale (genitive singular: architecturalis).

(It seems to me that aedificialis would mean of or pertaining to buildings.)

I have found neither aedificialis nor architecturalis in any dictionary, but I have found architecturalis on the following pages.

Therefore, if aedificialis is used, then the full translation is papaver aedificiale, and if architecturalis is used, then the full translation is papaver architecturale.

(If macrons are used, then the correct spellings are: papāver, papāveris, aedificiāle, aedificiālis, architectūrāle, and architectūrālis.)

In summary, my answer is papaver architecturale (with macrons, papāver architectūrāle).

(For additional information on the grammar, please see Latin declension.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"nannettikafruit" / "nannetticafruit" (nanettikafruit)

I'm looking for confirmation that this is a real word meaning 'pitaya'- the only mention on here is a redirect created exactly one year ago, and I can't find much else anywhere else on the web (it's listed as an alternative spelling on wiktionary because it's listed on here). Also if it is- any ideas on the etymology? 70.162.28.222 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Nothing with a C, though. kwami (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the C spelling, or both? If the C spelling, it may have been intended as a redirect from a common misspelling, though I could come up with lots of ways to misspell this word, if given half a chance! kwami (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find an etymology. kwami (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Can somebody translate this into Latin?

How do you say "That which cannot be questioned cannot be challenged." in Latin?

I've kinda decided recently that this is my personal motto, since I believe that one must question everything, if someone can convince you that something shouldn't be questioned (a lot of religions do this) then that something controls you, so you must question everything. It has a lot of meaning to me. Anyway, I always liked Latin and since a lot of mottos are in Latin, I'd like to know how to say this one in Latin.

Thanks a lot! :D 63.245.144.77 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, very literally how about "quod non potest dubitari non potest provocari". There is probably a shorter, pithier way to say it though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as long as the meaning is still there, I don't care what wording is used. It would be better to choose something smaller and "pithier", though I can't think of any better way to say the same thing. Help would be greatly appreciated! :) 63.245.144.77 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "indubitabile non provocandum est". Perhaps I am trying to make it too pithy...(and now it says "must not be challenged" instead of "cannot"). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changing the wording in that way would take the meaning out of it. I mean to say that if someone convinces you that an idea, organization, or some other entity cannot be challenged (as in dissent against it cannot be tolerated) then that thing controls you.

For example. The terrorists who carried out 9/11. You've probably seen the surveillance camera footage where they walked into the airport to hijack the planes. What if they had stopped and questioned what they were about to do right there? Then 9/11 would never have happened. But they didn't. They just went ahead and ended their lives for a false idea. Why? Because they had been convinced that they COULDN'T question it. They were controlled by a lie.

My point is "must not be challenged" would be wrong here. I mean "cannot be challenged". I suppose if someone can find a better way to word this that'd be great. 63.245.144.77 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work as something like "what is not questioned prevails" (prevail from Latin: praevalere have greater power) but in Latin of course. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might work better. How do you say it that way? 63.245.144.77 (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non dubitatum praevalet". Or you could just make Question Authority your personal motto. —An gr 10:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's not just authority I question, it's everything. The burden of proof is on the individual making any claim to prove that their claim is correct, so any claim must be questioned whether it's a claim that their authority is legitimate or any other claim. Anyway, this is off topic. I think I'm most fond of the first one that was suggested even though it's long ("quod non potest dubitari non potest provocari"). I hope that that's all correct Latin and everything (I know Latin grammar is a pain) because I don't wanna end up looking silly. :)

Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a second opinion, you can refer to Google Directory -Reference > Ask an Expert. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration brick wall

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am trying to find where I can transliterate words from one alphabet (i.e. this one) into a few other languages' writing systems. It's for a fiction, so none of the words can be found in a dictionary; which is where I get stuck as most of the places I've found only translate. Are there places where I can just play with the established writing systems to transliterate words from one alphabet to another? I found places to do so with Hangul, Cyrillic and Hindi but I'm having no luck with Armenian, Persian, Georgian and Thai. Thankies!! Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Persian, do you mean modern Persian (i.e. Farsi, written with a slightly modified Arabic alphabet), or ancient Persian, written in a cuneiform syllabary. For Farsi, you might have better luck using an Arabic transliterator. The drawback will be that p, g and ch will be transliterated differently. If you can't find that, an Urdu transliterator will have a similar result. For Armenian and Georgian, the correspondences aren't particularly difficult, so using an alphabet chart, and then entering the letters manually might work - you'll have to temporarily set up your computer for Armenian and Georgian keyboards, but it's not difficult. Still, if there's an online way to do it, that would be easier. Here's one for Georgian. Put it in the top box and click the button with the Georgian text - the output is unicode. Steewi (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's one for Armenian Steewi (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thai is more difficult - there's not a one to wone correspondence, and some letters change pronunciation depending on where they are in a syllable. You probably need a Thai speaker to help you with that one. Oh, and a note on the other ones, you might want to convert them back into latin text afterwards to make sure it's still good, and perhaps post the transliterations for speakers to check them. Remember that you can't convert, say, Louise, by putting Louise in the box and transliterating it, because the output will be pronounced something like low-iss-ee. You would get better results with putting in "luiz" or "luwiz". That's why you want to get them checked afterwards. Interesting work you're doing though. Good luck! Steewi (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advice has been great so far, thanks :D As to the Thai one, (love that curly lettering) is there some kind of forum or whatnot? I've done a few searches but all I generally find, unless I'm missing what's under my nose, seem to be either dictionaries of actual words or places that translate commercially for business. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would check on omniglot.com, they've got a lot of writing systems explained clearly enough to transliterate (although I would definitely still get it checked). СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some language pairs are rendered into the target language (in your case, the foreign language) by transcription—according to the phonology, how the source language word is pronounced—and not transliteration (letter-by-letter correspondence). A standard uses in texts for publication probably already exists, and is not necessarily the same as a chart of letter correspondences made for language students. Familiar example: the Polish letter "ę" is transcribed/transliterated as "en" in English (e.g. Walensa for Wałęsa), ~~but rendered~~ in Hebrew there's no the letter "נ" to represent the [n] sound. Further with the same example: for the Polish "ł" both English and Hebrew use their letter for the [l] sound even though the sound approaches [w], and the Polish "w" remains so in English (and is probably mispronounced as the English [w] though Polish pronounces it as [v] ). In the past, I've consulted (via e-mail) the regional languages staff at the U.S. Library of Congress for into-English transliteration, so they may be able to provide some guidance regarding the standards existing in the other direction. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Seems I was hasty with the Wałęsa example, which I'm querying below.-- Deborahjay (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And, not surprisingly, Transliteration has several links to just what you ask. Saintrain (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

catarct suregry (phaco)

I was operated for cataract surgery (3rd August 2008) and the Doctor says that he has incurred some complications and that some parts of the lense which he has removed are spread in the eye and I see them in the eye (floating). Please inform me in detail about this compliucation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.19.6 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're a reference desk for questions about languages and language usage. You need to ask your doctor about the medical issues you're having. —An gr 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The singular form of "lenses" is "lens". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical case – sample sentences?

I was just visiting the Grammatical case article. It contains examples of eight grammatical cases said to be common in Indo-European languages: nominative, accusative, dative, ablative, genitive, vocative, locative and instrumental. The example sentences are, however, in English, followed by all sorts of caveats including this one: "it is debatable whether the above examples of English sentences can be said to be examples of 'case' in English."

So, does anyone know which language would actually have all eight of these cases, and would it be possible to construct sample sentences in that language that illustrate the cases much better than the English sentences do? Thanks, WikiJedits (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit has all eight. —An gr 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know enough Sanskrit to come up with eight sample sentences? Or does anyone else? I'm not having luck finding any in our Sanskrit grammar articles WikiJedits (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, chapter 4 at Wikisource for some example sentences. —An gr 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!WikiJedits (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the use of the phrase "head to head" to indicate a contest

How did "head to head" come to mean a contest or battle between two parties? I searched Google and Wikipedia and repeatedly came up with tête à tête, which has a much friendlier connotation. 67.209.3.112 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Rebecca[reply]

Total guess on my part but probably something to do with animals like stags and rams doing battle. - X201 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED tête à tête was first used in English in 1697, while head to head was first used around 1728 to mean face to face with no particular aggressive connotations. It dates the aggressive use first to 1970 which it defines as "A conflict or contest (between two adversaries) at close quarters; a confrontation. colloq. (orig. U.S.)". But it lists in the quotes of the non-aggressive usage, a horse race from 1799 and a boxing match from 1950 which both sound very competitive. I think this is a case of the original French words sounding less aggressive so the English version shifted slowly in meaning. meltBanana 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

frat

Resolved

I am trying to understand where this is coming from, specifically in the world of gay porn: "fratmen", "frat guy", "frat boys" is used for cute guys, usually muscular and straight. I guess it comes from fraternity, but I cannot be sure. And if I am right why fraternity? surely these guys are not really from an actual fraternity? And if they were, why would that be sexy, to be used as a sort of porn advertisement? --Lgriot (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a fraternity are an elect, select elite, so perhaps this affords a certain cachet that would appeal to some viewers. As the saying goes, "For those who like that sort, etc." HTH. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has more to do with the stereotyped image of "frat boys" (college-aged men aged about 18–21 who live in fraternities in the Greek system on American college campuses) as being young, usually athletic and good-looking, reckless, and willing to do anything sexually if they're drunk enough. (What's the difference between a straight guy and a gay guy? About six beers.) Especially at public universities, fraternities and sororities are not particularly elitist anymore, I think. —An gr 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is possibly some influence from the various "top-secret" rituals said to part of the fraternity experience, famously satirized in National Lampoon's Animal House. --LarryMac | Talk 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...as in hazing. And {*ahem*} Greek, how could I forget that element? If not "elite/elitist" (consider current tuition fees, membership dues, etc.), still "exclusivist" in their rejecting unsuitable applicants. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it is definitely Angr who is right. I didn't know that fraternities were accomodations for college guys in North America, but now it seems obvious that all the "frat boys" could be in college. thanks. --Lgriot (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, the group is the fraternity, and at many colleges, the fraternity has a residence of some kind (hence, frat house). Angr's usage ("...who live in fraternities...") is common enough. Since in most states the legal age for drinking is 21, it's possible that from time to time underage frat boys do manage to find something to drink at the house belonging to Tappa Kegga Day. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French pen pal

does anyone fluent in French want to be my psuedo-pen-pal sort of thing, where I send you emails or the like of French text that I have written and you (with your superior knowledge of the language) help me iron out all the the little errors I make to help me improve my understanding of the language. Or failing that, does anyone know where I can find such a person (maybe there are websites for this sort of thing). Thank you! Philc 0780 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't find anyone here, a quick google search found this site. I haven't tested it out, but it looks good. Fribbler (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another site with a lot of discussion by participants is FrenchPod. The basic subscription is free, though they have various options at different price levels. One advantage I can see of participating in the discussions is that you'd get feedback both from other learners and from the hosts, who are skilled speakers. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma after ellipsis in dialogue?

A friend of mine asked me the following question: "When the ellipsis mark comes before a describer phrase, should a comma follow the ellipsis mark?

As in: "Umm . . .," she thought." I'm inclined to think that the comma does belong, but does anyone know for sure, and the reason why or why not? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These guys would leave out the comma -- and, really, how do you know you need one in an unfinished thought? Note they'd also put spaces before and after the ellipsis:

"Um ... " she thought, "Shouldn't he put that plutonium in a container?"

--- OtherDave (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe shouldn't should have a lower case s. But it would depend on whether her thought process was:

"Um ... shouldn't he put ...", or
"Um ... . Shouldn't he put ...".

We'd have to ask her to be sure. And if he'd done the right thing in the first place, we wouldn't be troubled by this thorny question. Damn scientists, I always knew they couldn't be trusted. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil and Chinese words

Moved from the Miscellaneous Desk -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi to all, i have some questions regarding the related words or similar usage words in between Tamil and Chineese ( mandarin).

In "Thirukural" the word " ittidhu" is used to mention small( "aagaru allvittidhayinum pogaru agalakkadai",

in chineese "ittian" means small.

In Tamil to mention hard work using "mangu mangu-ena" --- in chineese mang used to mention busy.
In Tamil" mandham" means slow, in chineese "mantian" as same meaning.
Both in Tamil and Chineese "Ni" or "Nee" means you.
Mango called in Tamil as "Mangai" and in Chineese " mangua".
Chop sticks in chineese called" Quaichu" and in tamil it may be equal to "Kuchchi" or "kavaikuchchi ( double sticks)".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.146.65 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these may be loanwords from one language into the other, or from some third language into both of them. (I suspect that's the case with the word for mango, which of course sounds similar in English as well.) Others may be based on a misunderstanding or misinformation. (I don't know much about Chinese, but I'm almost positive "ittian" is not a possible word of standard Mandarin Chinese. I thought the Chinese word for "small" was 小 xiǎo.) The rest of them are probably coincidences (just as it is a coincidence that the Persian word for "God" is god and that the word for "dog" in one Australian Aboriginal language – I forget which – is dog). —An gr 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ittian is supposed to be yidian 一點. Anyway, we can "discover" these look-alikes in any two languages (even discarding loanwords and onomatopoeia), if we really want to. It's only a matter of probability. In two languages that have mostly monosyllabic morphemes/roots (say, PIE and Chinese), you are almost bound to find out "cognates", and even "regular correspondences".--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And 'mango' is 'mango' in English! Hooray! We are related! and so is every other language that calls mangoes 'mangoes', like Japanese.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Putonghua, yidian 一點 means “a little” or “a bit,” as in “man yidian” (slower). The word xiao 小 does indeed mean “small,” but not in the sense of “a small amount” (which would be shao 少, or "few".) DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Deciphering... Something

Resolved

Could anyone help me figure out what this says? It's part of a series of riddles/puzzles that I'm trying to solve. The letters look like Old English, but I'm not sure. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's IPA, or something very like it. I'm too busy to transcribe it myself. Algebraist 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is IPA, and I'm not too busy to transcribe it. It says:

The mole a foxy and powerful person

But who, where are the clues

I could tell I know who and where

Because I was chosen to cause you trouble

It's me the mole but who's me

Ha ha I like to fool you

Maybe you see a clue maybe you don't

Do you know what's written here

Now you can see

This riddle's over

—An gr 21:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks so much! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

spanish and english

How many words in the \Spanish Language. How many words in the English language? Media:language]] thank you lavac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavac (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many words there are in a language is really not very well defined. You can count the number of entries listed in unabridged dictionaries, but many would consider it to be a semi-pointless exercise... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This website affiliated with the Oxford dictionary says the dictionary includes "171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries." So you could say about 225,000 English words by these stats. This other website and this one claim a 2:1 English:Spanish vocabulary ratio, (therefore @ 112,500 Spanish words) though the reliability of these two latter sites is questionable. Either way, AnonMoos is right about the frivolity of these estimates, and the infeasibility of calculating good estimates. That first website of the OED addresses this issue, if you'd like to give it a read.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the issue of how, in linguistics, the concept word is defined, there are other issues.
The number of entries in a dictionary need bear no relation to the number of words in the language. At best, it indicates at least how many words the language contains.
But how do we define "the language"? Is it the grand total of all idiolects? Of all sociolects, registers, jargons? Do words that have only occurred once or twice count? Should they have been recorded in writing?
Nobody knows the language: we only command segments of it. Hence bitter feuds about what constitutes correct usage and what doesn't.
Which is not to say that in certain well-defined cases, language X may be said to seem to contain more words than language Y. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores del Rio

In cleaning up her article, I ran into something my rudimentary Spanish couldn't handle. Could somebody kindly figure out if the group she founded, Rosa Mexicano, is related to or the same as Estancia Infantil (and what it does)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a little Googling, it appears that she created estancia infantil and "formed part" of Rosa Mexicano. This article implies that estancia infantil is a school for children to teach them about acting. Rosa Mexicano might help manage estancia infantil, and both have gain the approval and praise of La Asociación Nacional de Actores (ANDA). Hope that helps.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency of languages

This is something I've been wondering about for 20-30 years. Which is the most "efficient" language in terms of the expressing a given quantity of information using the least words/letters/penstrokes?

I've often noticed that English seems to be more efficient than other languages based on the Latin alphabet. Is that the case? For example, in multilingual instructions for electrical appliances, the English instructions are almost always shorter than the instructions in French, German, Polish etc. Is English somehow more efficient? And if so, why? (If not, I wonder if things are clumsily translated into other languages, whereas people that translate into English are more capable of expressing things efficiently, if you see what I mean.)

Are the CJK languages the world's most efficient?--92.41.242.174 (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly noticed that in a bilingual English-French text, the French version generally seems to take up more room than the English version (assuming they're both set in the same font, with the same size and spacing). However, I always assumed that this was partially due to French having a lot more silent letters ("ils mangeaient" contains five sounds, but 13 letters!). If you set alphabet letters and logographic characters on an equal footing, then Chinese texts will probably contain fewer logographic characters than corresponding English texts would contain alphabetic letters, but I don't know what that would prove... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of writing, Chinese would probably be the most "efficient" in terms of graphemes. For speech, though, it's very difficult to find a good answer because all language have efficiency issues. In other words, in language A, it may be easier to express a point about X than language B, but language B can more easily express Y than language A. Then you get into the question of what efficiency means in terms of language. Is "I do not know" less efficient than "I don't kmow" because it contains more words? Or is it the same because don't is merely a contraction of do not and when you read it, you think do not in your head anyway? As for the OP's comment about instruction translations, I myself have encountered several mistranslations from English and overly-wordy translations.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a language like Chinese be even more efficient because of the reduced number of characters/strokes? Also keep in mind that there may be a bit of variation depending on topic. There are also a number of terms in one particular language that may not translate well in another; the translator's choice of which word is the least different may be longer or shorter but this would hide the real (i.e. cumbersomely inefficient) way to express the idea would be to define it on the page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When comparing parallel texts like instructions, it's also worth noting that translations tend to be longer than originals, because the original writer (who actually knows the subject matter well) is more likely to have the scope to choose a short wording. (Of course this does not apply to artistic translations or to the sort of thing that you see on Jay Leno's "Headlines" from time to time: "This is the PVC Mobile Phone Case of easy schleping and more function, this case is made with import and defended radialization material. And the appearance is so beautiful. The main characteristic is easy schleping, it can be hunged up at the waist, hunged up at the cervix and free holding.") --Anonymous, 20:52 UTC, September 13, 2008.

Another anecdotal answer, relating to spoken language: For a number of years in my church, on Pentecost Sunday, it was our tradition to read the Gospel text in as many different languages -- simultaneously! -- as we could drum up speakers for (10-12 was a typical number).

The German reader ALWAYS finished last, by several verses.

HTH! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that Don Rosa, who draws Disney cartoons, has to dimension the speech bubbles so that the language with the longest translations fit. This language is always Finnish. No citation here though. Jørgen (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some related pages which I found by excursing on the Internet, with Google as my tour guide.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this index page, one can choose a page with parallel texts in different languages, and make firsthand observations.

Tips for Translators: Multilingual Websites with Parallel Texts

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the interesting responses (and thanks Wavelength for the links - I had tried Googling but didn't get far). Cheers, --217.171.129.68 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (formerly 92.41.242.174)[reply]

Additional external links to multilingual websites can be found at Free dual language Spanish-English books.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the language of mathematics, one symbol can represent one word.

In mathematical tables, one cell can represent one statement.

The same is true of other tables of information.

Saving space => saving paper => saving trees => saving the natural environment.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have tried to devise constructed languages to express things in the most succinct and logical manner possible. They're often called loglangs. A good example is Lojban. Steewi (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean loglangs. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, the letters between Victor Hugo and the British publisher Hurst and Blackett held a world record for the shortest correspondence. Hugo was on vacation and was wondering how his book was selling in Britain; in his letter to the publisher he wrote "?" and received "!" as a response. [sic] (Please see Les_Misérables#Other, point 5.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek is also very efficient from a viewpoint of word count because you can compact lots of meaning within just one or two words (albeit they tend to get long at some point!). NerdyNSK (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prefix Mrs

Can you please tell me when the prefix Mrs, as a womans title, was first used in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croyccooper (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It came from an abbreviation of the word "Mistress", orginally the feminine of the word "Master"; both of these words were at one time somewhat upper-class titles (alternative terms, such as "Goodman" and "Goodwife", were used with names of those in lower social strata). The written form "M^rs" (with superscript letters usual to abbreviations of the time) was used as a general abbreviation of the word "Mistress" in the 17th century, but it wasn't separated out as a distinct word (separate from "Mistress", and used only as a title before the names of married women) until around the late 18th century or so (and "Mrs." was still sometimes placed before the name of older women who had never been married, as a sign of respect, well into the 19th century). AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in old records

In old parish church records dated 1729, it refers to the bride a MS Ann Egerton. Would the prefix MS at that particular time in 1729 indicate MS to mean Mistress, as in an unmarried woman, or could it have indicated that she was possibly a widow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croyccooper (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, I imagine, any word beginning 'M' and ending 's' might be abbreviated M^s, though capitalizing the S is curious. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the pronunciation of "en-" prefix be "en" or "in"? And what is the correct pronunciation of words like "economics" and "essential"?

When you go to the dictionary and check the phonetics, you will find most of the English words that have prefix "en-" should have the prefix pronounced as "in", examples including "enjoy", "encourage", "enroll", "engage"...

However, in real life, you can hear most people pronouncing the prefix as "en". Which one should be the correct one?

And for words with prefix "e-", just like "economics", people also pronounce it like "ek-kon-no-mic". But according to the phonetics in most dictionaries, it should be "ee-kon-no-mic". Similarly, it should be "ee-sent-tial" instead of "ek-sent-tial". Once again, which one should be the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.247.100 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my dictionary (the OED), gives the pronunciation [ɛn] (which I think is what you mean by en) for all the en- words you list. It also lists both the pronunciations you give of economics (and those are just the British options!) and does not list ee-sent-tial as an option. All that complies with my experience of how people pronounce things here in southern England. So what dictionary are you using? It sounds like it's listing pronunciations that are either inappropriate to your regional accent or are just plain wrong. Algebraist 08:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't place much money on "the correct one." In some places, a timetable is a SHEDule, in others a SKEDule. It's a language, not metallurgy. Merriam Webster lists both ee- and ek- for economics. Those with too much time on their hands, here in the U.S., are fond of arguing that the first pronunciation is the preferred one. Often they can also explain to you in excruciating detail why X (any technology that failed to gain mass acceptance, like beta videotapes) is really much much better than Y (the one that did get accepted, like VHS). --- OtherDave (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am the one who asked this question and thank you all for the answers. Well, the one that I was referring was indeed the Cambridge dictionary. And it in fact has the "[ɛn]" phonetic shown as an alternative to the pronunciatin of those words starting with "en-". Reference here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.143.15 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date certain versus certain date

Why "he is opposed to setting a date certain for withdrawal"[8]? Why not "a certain date?"

Is there a general grammatical rule?--71.108.5.71 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a question of grammar, it's a legal term. In this context, it means that he doesn't want to set a date for troop withdrawal that cannot be changed. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--71.108.5.71 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got in first, Captain, because I'd never heard that term before. Inter alia, I was going to say that the original sentence could perhaps be improved by removing "certain". Setting a date means the date is set, so the certainty is already implied. However, this is politics, and announcements of intended actions don't always result in those actions happening on the day they were promised, or sometimes not at all. So maybe he was hedging his bets by trying to introduce a nuance to distinguish between commitments of one kind (the ones that will be honoured, and honoured on time, no matter what) and those of another (the ones that are more ... flexible in both respects). -- JackofOz (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectival phrases may occur as pre- or postmodifiers to a noun.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Adjectival phrase.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly true, they may not be interchanged indiscriminately.
A bin full of toys obviously cannot be substituted by *A full of toys bin. Nor would it be acceptable to replace a toy-filled bin by a bin toy-filled in all circumstances, although more or less far-fetched examples could be constructed: a bin toy-filled is a bin well used perhaps? Rather Christmassy though. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, this being why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.

The italicized portion should read:

(a) do; this fact explains why so many high school students
(b) do, explaining why so many high school students

(a) is the answer, but why? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the participle phrase in B ("explaining why so many high school students...") doesn't modify any specific noun or pronoun. Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three versions are correct. "Explaining why..." and "this being why..." are participial expressions that serve as adverbs modifying the main clause. Some people consider these bad style, but they're not incorrect. --Anonymous, 21:00 UTC, September 21, 2008.

I would regard version b as less than acceptable, for the simple reason that explaining has no subject. The sentence, then, would effectively become
High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.
The sentence is then regarded as elliptical, and the subject gap before explaining is filled, mentally, by substituting either of two subjects from the main clause:
(c) High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, high school graduates explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.
(d) High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, college graduates explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees. Both make for nonsense, of course.

(b) would be correct if explaining were given its own subject: . . . this fact explaining why . . . [By contrast, (a) has a subject, and so does this being why). Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you let us native English-speakers decide what is acceptalbe English? What is "explaining" is not the subjects you are trying to mentally substitute, but the entire preceding clause. --Anonymous, 03:42 UTC, September 17, 2008.

Periods (full stops) at the end of abbreviations

I know that in the UK, abbreviations such as Mr or Mrs, where the first and last letters of the full word are also included in the abbreviation, do not take a period (full stop) at the end, whereas in the US, the period is always used: Mr. and Mrs. Can anybody tell me when this difference began to appear? Was there a common period where both sides of the Pond used the same method? Corvus cornix_talk 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a matter of UK vs. US, but a question of style. There are many different style guides, and these days a particular style guide can be followed in many parts of the world. One company will use it, and the one next door will use a different one. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is indeed a national variation. Most people in North America learn that the period is required, and if there are style guides that say otherwise, they're not ones that are widely followed. (Some special contexts, like highway signs, follow different rules.) Just based on things I've read that were printed at different times, there seems to have been a movement in the UK to reduce the amount of punctuation that took hold sometime around 1970, but you should consider that date very approximate. Until then British material tended to be more heavily punctuated than North American. --Anonymous, 03:49 UTC, September 14, 2008.

I concur with Anonymous. In the UK, the full stop after Mr, Mrs, Dr, St, etc., is now old-fashioned, perhaps very old-fashioned. "Was there a common period where both sides of the Pond used the same method?" - Yes, in the 19th century and well into the 20th century, but it's hard to pin down a date by which the UK had all but abandoned this full stop. You could perhaps look at when leading newspapers did so. I think Fowler's Modern English Usage (which explains why we should use the full stop only when letters after it are omitted) may have been a factor in the change. Strawless (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler may have been a factor, but the fact is that British usage today often does not follow him, instead omitting all periods after abbreviations. --Anon, 00:37 UTC, September 15, 2008.

If we had articles on open punctuation and closed punctuation, we might be better able to answer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to say that maybe it became fossilised at the same time that "Sir Fred Smythe, V.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., O.M., C.H." became "Sir Fred Smythe VC GCMG KCVO OM CH". Which looks cleaner? I'll let the reader decide. (Oh, please don't pick on me if the order of the postnominals is not right; it's just a hypothetical example.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are all getting lazier - just look at the language of texting - and in the UK and the Republic of Ireland we seized the chance to abandon many full stops, liked the look of that, and then started abandoning the rest. I am still at the middle stage of the process, writing "Dr Jekyll" and "etc.", but then I am not so young as I was. Strawless (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't laziness! It came in - yes, in the 1970s - with the "block style" of letter layout. Typists were trained not to indent paragraphs, not to put a comma after "Dear Sir" or within addresses, and not to put stops in abbreviations. Efficiency was the aim, and increased output from the typing pool. Blame Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he deserves a pat on the back. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Partridge in Usage and Abusage, 1964 reprint, "last revised 1957", prescribed Mr and Mrs, since in British English they were regarded as "contractions", whereas in American usage Mr. and Mrs. were considered "abbreviations". This would suggest that it is not a matter of efficiency but of viewpoint. Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, as I understand it, that a contraction contains the first and last letters of the word, but one or more of the others is missing; whereas an abbreviation has at least the first letter and it can also contain one or more but not all of the others, not necessarily including the last letter. If that's the distinction, then it seems that all contractions are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are contractions. Mr and Mrs seem to be both. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about "St(.)" for "Street"? Is it a contraction of "street" or an abbreviation of "street"? —An gr 08:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky boy. If it's perceived as a dropping of the "reet", then it's an abbreviation but not a contraction. If it's perceived as a dropping of the "tree", then it's both. But who can say which perception is the right one, or if there even is a "right one"? I'd conclude that it's valid to consider it an abbreviation and it's also valid to consider it a contraction. Id est, it's both; so the dropping-of-the-tree perception prevails by default. All this hinges on my theory as described above, which is still subject to confirmation or demolition. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, my gut tells me that when I write "St." (and as an American I'd put a period at the end either way), I'm dropping "reet", not "tree". Also, thinking of it that way allows followers of the British rule to distinguish between "St" as a contraction of "Saint" and "St." as an abbreviation of "Street". But what is the actual practice? Do followers of the British rule write "St" or "St." when abbreviating "Street"? —An gr 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back to style. I'm sure you'd see plenty of British examples of both. (And I think we've just come up with a cool new way to separate linguists into camps: reet-droppers vs. tree-droppers. This is something the world has long needed. Reet and tree are anagrams, too, which provides fertile ground for further exploration.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street is a classic example where the dotless form is a no-no (Partridge again), the rationale being that first -t-. British English, according to Partridge, has St. for Street, and either St. or St for Saint.

SOED concurs with JackofOz, citing Exancester > Exeter as an instance of abbreviation. (This, surely, must come as a relief?) However, for present purposes there seems to be an operational difference. After all, the choice between dotting and undotting is a matter of convention. Bessel Dekker (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, thanks to the participants. Corvus cornix_talk 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Plural of prima ballerina/assoluta

At Talk:Ballerina#Plural there's a brief discussion of the correct plurals of prima ballerina and prima ballerina assoluta. The possibilities I'd have come up with, in my personal order of preference, are:

prima ballerina -

prima ballerinas, prime ballerine

prima ballerina assoluta -

prima ballerinas assoluta, prime ballerine assolute, prima ballerinas assolute, prima ballerina assolutas.

All of these fail in some respects, some more egregiously than others, and all will offend some linguists or native speakers of Italian or English. Are there solutions that will please everybody, or is this just one of those perennial problems that we're stuck with forever (to use a tautology)?

I should mention that my interest in this came from reading Tamara Karsavina, who trained what we term "two Prima Ballerina Assoluta" - that is, not changing the spelling at all in the plural. That's another option, I guess, but it seems even more unorthodox than some of the above. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on two years of college Italian over a decade ago, I would go with prime ballerine and prime ballerine assolute if you want proper Italian. If you want to Anglicanize the terms, use prima ballerinas for the first (no idea on the second). --Nricardo (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's just the problem. I'm not after the proper Italian plural per se (which I know anyway); I'm after a legitimate - or acceptable - English plural (which may happen to be the same as the Italian plural, but not necessarily). The stumbling block with prime ballerine assolute is that many people would not realise they've just encountered a term borrowed from another language, and would pronounce the 1st word the same as prime in prime number or prime real estate, the 2nd word "balla-reen, balla-Rhine, bawler-reen, or bawler-Rhine", and the 3rd word to rhyme with absolute or arse'ole-oot. And we couldn't have that, could we. I've thought of the argument that the people who would not be phased by this term would be the only ones ever likely to encounter it anyway; and conversely, those who would hypothetically have trouble with it would never be likely to encounter it in the first place. That's fine if the world operated according to traditional class divisions. But that's no longer the case. Road diggers are interested in such "higher" things as ballet these days. (Well, some are). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're using such a long string of Italian words, I would suggest using 'prime ballerine assolute', because it's not a common word in English, and you're more or less using it in a code-switch situation. Prima ballerina, on the other hand, is a more common English word - most people know it, and you don't have to know Italian or ballet to know what it means. For that reason, I'd use prima ballerinas. It's inconsistent between phrases, but distinguishing between a more common word and a technical phrase might be the answer. Steewi (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steewi and Nricardo. I've reported back @ Talk:Ballerina#Plural, with some comments on my case for "prima ballerinas assoluta". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

If terms like "2nd millenium", "17th century", and "21st century" are used, why aren't terms like "157th decade" and "203rd decade" used? February 15, 2009 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think that's a silly question. What is the reference point for "157th decade"? Decades within a particular century are counted, but decades since the start of the Common Era are not counted in a continuous series. You might as well ask why today is not referred to as "the 733,422nd day" or whatever. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, astronomers do use Julian days for some purposes (it is currently day 2460468). I don't think anyone's ever seen the point of numbering decades though. Algebraist 09:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Julian date numbering system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the word "decade" is used in certain contexts, but not in describing a period of the Christian era. Could that be because we can easily distinguish the different characteristics of centuries, much more easily than for decades, which would make everything much more difficult? by the way, I am not at all sure when the concept of a decade became widely used - didn't the Romans use lustrum (a period of five years) more? Strawless (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decade has a link to online etymology dictionary, which claims it was first used for a 10 year period in 1594, but for groups of ten bits for 100 years before that. Steewi (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see we also have an article on lustrum. Strawless (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As the dispute entered its third decade..." And though I realize it's not used in the sense of time, with regard to the rosary, phrasing like "the third decade" is commonplace. And you've got the olympiads, units of time lasting four years. Similiar, politicians in their fifth term in office. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics could go on forever, and I hope I live long enough to attend the Games of the CLVII Olympiad. But going much (or at all) past 10 when counting decades in a time context doesn't seem to have much (if any) use. You could say we're currently in the 11th decade of the 20th century, if you like. Spike Milligan (God bless him) would probably approve. Anyone who publishes an autobiography part by part, each one announced as "The <ordinal> part of his trilogy", and then follows the 3rd one with "The 4th part of his trilogy" would have no problem with this concept. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Romans, would not they have used decennium rather than decade? The latter is of course late Latin < Greek. As may have been implied above, ten-year bits are just too tiny to subdivide any extended period of time meaningfully. It would be like devising a cataloguing system with categories so narrow that each could hold only ten titles – next to useless. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pad

What is a pad? (a Hangar ?, a place for standing on the tarmac?) In the article Bolshoye Savino Airport I read: "airfield with a small number of fighter and bomber pads" . I want to translate the article for german Wikipedia. --91.61.3.179 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a place where an aircraft takes off or lands. See helipad as an example.--217.171.129.68 (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm wondering now whether I'm right. It could also be a place where an aircraft stands. It's definitely not a hangar though.--217.171.129.68 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German terms seem to be:

Start- / Landebahn (runways), Rollwege (taxiway), Vorfeld (apron) and Abstellflächen (pads). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I will use: Abstellfläche (or Stellfläche) (parking position) --91.61.3.179 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stand" would be a good alternative. Bazza (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Latin translation

Hy there, I need to verify a translation from the "The Twelve Caeasars". It is inside the chapter "Life of Augustus", paragraph 41. A sentence which deals with the required wealth to be a senator. A website which shows Loeb's translation http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#41 gives the figure "one million two hundred thousand sesterces". I bought the translation by Robert Graves and he uses "12000 gold pieces" (I suppose that "gold pieces" are meant to be Aureus): There is a disparity not only of numbers but also of the coin. I have found the original Latin text:

"Liberalitatem omnibus ordinibus per occasiones frequenter exhibuit. Nam et invecta urbi Alexandrino trumpho regia gaza tantam copiam nummariae rei effecit, ut faenore deminuto plurimum agrorum pretiis accesserit, et postea, quotiens ex damnatorum bonis pecunia superflueret, usum eius gratuitum iis, qui cavere in duplum possent, ad certum tempus indulsit. Senatorum censum ampliavit ac pro octingentorum milium summa duodecies sestertium taxavit supplevitque non habentibus. Congiaria populo frequenter dedit, sed diversae fere summae: modo quadringenos, modo trecenos, nonnumquam ducenos quinquagenosque nummos; ac ne minores quidem pueros praeteriit, quamvis non nisi ab undecimo aetatis anno accipere consuessent. Frumentum quoque in annonae difficultatibus saepe levissimo, interdum nullo pretio viritim admensus est tesserasque nummarias duplicavit."

Now I don't know any Latin but I'm guessing that "sestertium" means "sesterces". Still I want to be really sure. Could someone give me an accurate translation? I only need the relevant sentence. Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think there's no error, since as far as I know a sestertius is one/hundredth of an aureus (think pennies and dollars). Thus 12000 aurei (or dollars) is the same as 1200000 sestertii (or pennies). Loeb is more accurate - you're right that sestertium means sesterces - but I think Loeb was trying to make the figure more accessible (one million pennies is a lot!).

The sentence in question reads (a very literal translation): "He increased the senators' [required] wealth, and he taxed the amount, from [what used to be] eight hundred thousand, of twelve [hundred thousand] and he supplied [for those] who didn't have [the amount]."

СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're meaning Robert Graves. I believe that he has been praised for "making ancient sentences clearer for modern readers" (actually I like his translation better). Thanks for the explanation and the translation. Flamarande (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal de Luxe French translation needed please

I have been doing some work on articles related to this one, but am frustrated how little there is on the English page about this French company, as opposed to the French version (reproduced at Talk:Royal de Luxe). Is there any chance some kind soul could (takes deep breath) translate the whole thing and incorporate it into the English page? Please? Pretty please? My French is poor, to say the least! Many thanks Roisterdoister (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to make a translation request at WP:Translation rather than here. —An gr 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it, but are you sure it's not a copyvio? It reads like a press release or official history of the company. WikiJedits (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I can't really read it so I wouldn't know! I was hoping the French page was plum full of information we could pull across into the English one. If copyvios are a problem and its from the official French website, I could re-jig the English version once someone has translated it. Roisterdoister (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried googling a few of the French phrases, but am only getting the Wikipedia pages back. So I don't know where it's from. But since it's a bit promotional anyway I think it's a good idea if you just use the info (I left a longer message earlier on your talk page). Too bad it's all unsourced! WikiJedits (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for you too, WikiJedits (great username). Thank-you so much for all your efforts - so quick too. I'm really grateful. Cheers Roisterdoister (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Steaming" rice

I know two distinct ways of cooking rice. One way appears on most rice packages here in the US, and involves adding a measured amount of water, bringing to a boil, and simmering under a tight cover for a certain time. The other way is discussed here and is totally different because the rice never comes in contact with much liquid water, only steam.

My question is about what people call these two methods. In particular, some people ([9], [10], [11]) call the first method "steaming", which seems very confusing to me because it's not "steaming" in the same way as you'd "steam" vegetables or something (that would be the second method).

What names should I use to distinguish between the two methods and be widely understood? —Keenan Pepper 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use ad-hoc terms like "wet steaming" and "dry steaming", although you'd have to explain the terms the first time you use them. Strad (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first method is called "boiling", and the second method is called "steaming". I have no idea why the sites you linked to should describe boiled rice as steamed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another very good method, which my partner (a Sri Lankan chef) uses all the time and I've now taken to emulating him, is to put a cup of rice in a microwave-safe container, cover with cold water to about one and a half times the height of the rice, and put it uncovered into the microwave for 10 minutes. Stir it, then microwave for another few minutes until it's exactly the texture you like (the timing will vary from microwave to microwave and your preference as to texture). It produces beautiful results. No straining required, and it's quicker and less messy than the pot on the stove method. Basmati rice is the best for this method. It isn't steaming either, but it's something that wouldn't have occurred to me because I've never seen it recommended in cookbooks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I've not done that before and will give it a try. Now, are you sure about the chef part? ;-) hydnjo talk 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeees ... Do you know something I don't? I should clarify: he's from Sri Lanka originally, but he's been an Aussie citizen for half his life now. Does that make any difference? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Er, nah ... Just jokin' around ;-) -hydnjo talk 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite so odd as you think to call the first method mentioned "steaming". The final stage in this method is to turn off the heat and let the rice continue to cook. This is similar to what the French call "steamed" potatoes ("pommes à la vapeur), where the potatoes are boiled and then drained off and left for 10-15 minutes in their own steam/water vapour. So people who are familiar with French cookery terminology would recognise the method as "steamed" rice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of rice, though, this would lead to confusion. I agree with DuncanHill, while owning up to some excitement about the third method just now revealed by JackofOz. My partner being Indonesian, I am disappointed that he has kept this method a secret for the last fifteen years. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, are we getting front row seats to your first fight? And is this the first domestic dispute conducted online? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While having to take issue with your first first, I'd say, "Be our guest(s)!" As to your second question, who is to say? Nicks usually are less than forthcoming about any relationships that might obtain. In a certain other-language wikipedia, there used to be a lady who made a habit of warning us against a certain gentleman. In the end, they were suspected of knowing each other, though not necessarily in the Biblical sense. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

How do you say "weeeeeee" in Latin?

How do you say "weeeeeee" (as an exclamation of thrill or enjoyment) in Latin? ----Seans Potato Business 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "euoe" or "euhoe" is about as close as you're going to get with available data....

AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, before I saw the OP's parenthesis, I was going to say "nooooooos." Deor (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "eu" or "hem". It seems the Romans weren't a very excitable bunch, and left record of a lot more words for lamentation than for enjoyment... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

I'll bet Julius Caesar was excited when he said, "Weni, widi, weeeeeeeeeci." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wery good. --Dweller (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whee! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The surname Wałęsa without diacritics

How to represent the surname Wałęsa when typography (in an archive's electronic database program) does not allow the Polish diacritics?

Walesa
Walensa
other?

In seeking authoritative instances for English language usage, would a leading U.S. or U.K. newspaper (Washington Post, New York Times/International Herald-Tribune, Times of London, etc.) be the arbiter? The U.S. Library of Congress uses the Polish complete with diacritics. Please note that this query does not challenge the name of the Lech Wałęsa page, and I wholly support retaining the Polish spelling in the English Wikipedia. I will post the results of this discussion to the talk page where a suggested Page Move (Rename) was inconclusively discussed in the past. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC [12] and The Guardian [13] use "Walesa", and to my knowledge that's the only way I've seen it written. Fribbler (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Fribbler's response (and also point out that British TV and radio pretty well always (IIRC) pronounce it "Valensa"). Though this doesn't really answer your question about which spelling can be taken as the official non-diacritic representation. I suppose it's a question of whose house style you feel more comfortable with. (The Guardian's manual of style says, IIRC, that French German and Spanish should have diacritics, but other languages shouldn't. I suspect that just came about to make typesetters' jobs easier.)--82.148.54.195 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian, magnificent organ though it is, is not to be regarded as in any way reliable when it comes to questions of typesetting. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've subscribed to The Washington Post for years (decades, even). Even when the former head of Solidarity spoke to a joint session of Congress, the paper printed his name as "Walesa." I don't know that that makes the Post an arbiter, but it's an example. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (Edited to add: on-air news uses the "va-wen-sa" pronunciation, though local newspeople can easily stumble with that.)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I've remembered now that news organisations here in the UK would pronounce it "va-wen-sa".--85.158.139.99 (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (formerly 82.148.54.195)[reply]

The Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1992) says: "Walesa /və'wensə||və'lensə, wə-/, Lech /lek, lex/". — Kpalion^(talk) 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

hello, I was just inquiring about the language tree in yr site you forgot to put latin in the subdivision list of indo-european languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

Greek is there and all the bunch but not latin.

Also could u try to include Armenian in the left list of languages when we want to translate an article and read in that language. There's 6 million around the world who can benefit from yr site. Thanks. Nathalie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.50.223 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is an Italic language; its group is included in the list. Whether an article has a link to an Armenian version on the left-hand side depends on the editors of the Armenian Wikipedia. If they write an article in Armenian that corresponds to the English article, the link will be added. If you are a native or fluent speaker of Armenian, you might like to sign up for an account there and help expand the Armenian-language Wikipedia yourself! —An gr 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges

Do bridges take the definite article before them? Is there any rule based on the bridge's name or the variant of English used/location of the bridge itself? Thanks, --Dami (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd always say "the Golden Gate Bridge", "the Brooklyn Bridge", and "the George Washington Bridge". On the other hand, I'd say "London Bridge" and "Tower Bridge". Maybe it depends what country the bridge is in? —An gr 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're a bit ambivalent about the Sydney Harbour Bridge. In other words, we're a bit ambivalent about Sydney Harbour Bridge. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Menai Bridge seems to refer to the name of the town exclusively, whereas the Menai Suspension Bridge alludes to the structure. If this conclusion is not completely erroneous, the use of the article does not quite depend on the country. However, this might be a one-off (to avoid confusion? because of attributive Suspension?), I don't know. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of British bridges are "The.... Bridge", e.g. The Tyne Bridge, The High Level Bridge, The Royal Albert Bridge, The Millennium Bridge, The Clifton Suspension Bridge, The Bridge on the River Kwai. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a category link for reference: Category:Bridges. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most of the articles on British bridges are mis-named on Wikipedia, omitting the "The". DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a misnaming. Just because it's convenentional to use "the" in a sentence before certain names, that doesn't mean that the "the" is part of the name. I can't think of a rule for whether "the" is used or not, but it does seem to me that every specific bridge I can think of -- and I can think of a lot of bridges -- takes a "the" except for the ones in London, England, which don't. Weird. --Anonymous, 04:00 UTC, September 16, 2008.

Exceptions to your exceptions: I think most people say the Hungerford Bridge and the Millennium Bridge.;)--92.40.98.33 (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Bridge is so called (though I suppose someone must put a 'the' in there, since our article does). Algebraist 11:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misnaming to omit "The" from the title of the article about the Humber Bridge, for example, any more than it's wrong to do so in the articles about the M62 motorway or the British Museum. The best test is whether or not the article (definite or indefinite) would take a capital where it appeared in the middle of the sentence. Thus: "I crossed the Tyne Bridge then went to the MetroCentre to buy The Times and watch A Knight's Tale". Ka renjc 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would (I hope) never say "I crossed the London Bridge". DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider these possibilities:

"We were supposed to meet on London Bridge, but he thought I meant a different London bridge, so we were miles apart"; and
"We were supposed to meet on London Bridge, but he thought I meant a different London Bridge, so we weren't even in the same country". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one single rule to determine which bridges take the definite article: I think it's just a case of learning each convention. As pure speculation, perhaps some are treated as proper proper nouns (if there is such a thing?) and thus don't need the definite article, like Tower Bridge (just as you wouldn't say the Buckingham Palace or the Oxford Street). Others are more descriptive, like the Forth Road Bridge (similar to the North Island, the West Coast). Anyway, you will find those without: London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Mangere Bridge, Grafton Bridge, Framwellgate Bridge; those with: the Humber Bridge, the Silver Jubilee Bridge, the Bridge over the Atlantic, the Bridge to Nowhere; and those where useage differs depending on person and context: Sydney Harbour Bridge, Auckland Harbour Bridge, Skye Bridge. Gwinva (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British football (i.e. soccer) players with names that sound rude in foreign languages?

Whilst it's quite a common pastime for British football fans to make fun of foreign players whose names sound rude when written down/(mis)pronounced in English (e.g. Stefan Kuntz, Danny Shittu, Johan de Kock, Rafael Scheidt, Brian Pinas, Uwe Fuchs, Youri Djorkaeff, etc.), I find myself wondering if there are any British players with names that, when mentioned on the TV or radio would cause football fans in a foreign country to snigger like schoolboys in the same manner. Any ideas?

I apologise if this comes across in any way racist. That is not my intent here at all. There have been quite a few British footballers with names that are/were regularly mocked by opposing fans because they sounded 'a bit rude' too (e.g. David Seaman, David Batty, Marcus Bent). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general terms, the answer is almost certainly affirmative. There seem to exist about 6000 languages, and the odds are tnat any English word (including names) might have a false friend in some language, and that these false friends might have an obscene denotation or connotation in a few of those. Examples for a cognate language such as Dutch are not hard to find.
In more specific terms, could we think of examples? It would be an interesting exercise, but hesitantly I would prefer not to. For one thing, it might offend certain persons, notably the incumbents; for another, I myself seem not to know any football players at all. Wasted life, true. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, there are examples of this thing going back to 1599 or so. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek there are many names that literally mean worm and small worm or orangefruit in Greek itself. They are names, nobody gives any attention. NerdyNSK (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

corporomental

Looking for a better Spanish speaker than me to look at corporomental- would you say that 'psychosomatic' is a valid translation for the quotes given? Just trying to get more eyes on it. Thanks. Nadando (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the IPA, but being otherwise unfamiliar with the word, I'll leave it to someone else to debate the meaning.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2005 example, surely corporomental is not an adverb? Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fine point, Bessel. Though both readings (adjective/adverb) are possible, I am almost sure that the intented meaning makes corporomental an adverb.
Regarding translation, I guess phsycho-mental would be a better choice. I'm told that phsycosomatic was also used to mean acts pertaining both mind and body; However, the first connotation of the word is, nowadays, a process under which mind affects the body (or viceversa). Pallida Mors 15:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sow and Sew

A first time question from me. "My father was in the fields sowing corn and my mother was sitting sewing a button on my shirt. They were both ???" How do we spell sewing/sowing in this case? 203.202.43.54 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. They're distinct words, with distinct meanings, and cannot be combined any more than "harvesting" and "knitting" can be. You need to say something like "They were both busy" or "they were both working". Gwinva (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gwinva. If at least you were talking about phrases like "a clever knight" + "a night full of moon light" and asking how do you spell "both k/nights were bright", it would make sense, but with sow / sew it just doesn't. --Lgriot (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're thinking of the word homophone. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, I am thinking of sentences that include homophones, that can be spoken and that sort-of make sense in a funny way, but cannot be written. --Lgriot (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a homophone is not a gay chat line.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such remark, just because it is Jack and me chatting!!! (just kidding, no offense taken):-) --Lgriot (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Well, I see the problem now. Some linguist must have encountered this issue before now and given this a name. Problem is, a lecture on the topic could include some examples, but by definition a written thesis could not. What a conundrum! -- JackofOz (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually laughing aloud: always fun to read Jack the wizard. --Lgriot (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now all of you get back to work before I turn you into toads. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that Douglas Hofstadter discussed in one of his Scientific American columns a while back how to write "There are three words pronounced [tu] in English" (i.e. to, two, and too) in conventional orthography... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking you'd have to use IPA or some other recognisable set of characters that describe the sound of the unspellable word. Which could be an issue in itself. The sound of sewing/sowing probably doesn't vary much between the different varieties of English, but there must be some homophone pairs that sound quite different when spoken by an Englishman as compared with a Jamaican, say. So the writer would have to take their audience into account - which they should always do in any case - but in this case they might have to make some explicit assumptions; alternatively, provide different sets of symbols for the unspellable word, for different audiences. Then there's the issue of who's going to be left out, and action they might take in the World Language Court. This just gets worse by the minute. Who came up with this problem anyway? I've a good mind to have a word to the King. (Why isn't there a World Language Court, by the way? It would create a lot of employment.) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot it be written?:
They were both s*wing.
As a bonus, wicked minds would find a third option while reading it... :-P. 147.91.173.31 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be written that way (you just did). And it's a nice creative solution; probably the optimal one. But does that fall into the definition of "spelling"? Our article allows letters and diacritics. Things like hyphens and apostrophes are accepted as diacritics in this context, but I see no mention of asterisks. Which raises the question: if "s*wing" is not an example of spelling, what is it an example of? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy reading zeugma, which is so-so related. --Sean 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, "serēbat" means "he/she was sowing" and "he/she was sewing",

and "serẽbant" means "they were sowing" and "they were sewing".

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellll... sero, serere, serui, sertum really means "join, connect", not "sew", but sewing is a specific kind of joining/connecting. —An gr 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a dictionary entry by Collins.

se′r/ō -ere -tum vt. sew, join, wreathe; (fig.) compose, devise, engage in.

It does not mention a third principal part (first-person singular perfect indicative active).

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the third principle part in parentheses, whatever that's supposed to mean. "Sew" is not among its translations. —An gr 06:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most common solution to the "unwritable sentence" issue would be to use a spelling that represents the sound of the word, and put it in quotation marks. "My father was in the fields sowing corn and my mother was sitting sewing a button on my shirt. They were both 'sowing'. I saw a female sheep in the barn and then you went in as well. There were two of 'yoo' in there." If the reader might be puzzled, the writer might include the actual spelling or spellings in parentheses. "They were both 'sowing' (sewing). Two of 'yoo' (you, ewe)." --Anonymous, 18:41 UTC, September 18, 2008.

Is it right?

Is this sentence ok? They've organized a meeting which we've discussed about advantages of life on the village on. Can you please correct it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually "discuss things" (not about things, I talk about things, but just "discuss things") and I do that "in" a meeting, not "on" a meeting. So I would correct the above into "They've organized a meeting in which we've discussed the advantages of life in the village".--Lgriot (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing that struck me as odd ... in my mind, to say "they've organized a meeting" implies that it hasn't happened yet, but have just organized it to happen at a future time; otherwise, it would be "they had a meeting". So I would say "They've organized a meeting in which we'll discuss the advantages of life in the village." Dgcopter (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what the sentence means. Did you discuss a meeting and then organize it, or did they organize a meeting in order to discuss. Also did you mean "advantages of life in the village"? And was the last "on" meant to indicate that a date would follow?

In the first case you want this to be: "They've organized a meeting, which we've discussed, about advantges of life in the village. It's on [1st January]."

In the second you might want: "They've organized a meeting in order to discuss the advantages of life in the village. It's on [1st January]."

DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me identify my vacation photos

Can anyone tell me what language (if any) these are written in, and what they mean? (In the stained-glass window case I'm talking about the Hebrew(?) writing inside the sun.)

Taken in the Church in the Field, Low Ham, England.
Taken in Oxford.

There are more pictures at the Humanities, Miscellaneous and Science desks. Thanks, BenRG (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the writing, but writing in old English churches is almost always in Latin (if it's not English). DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew in the star says "Jehovah" (i.e., the consonants are YHWH and the vowels are those of Adonai). The writing in the alleyway is in Devanagari; I don't know if it's Sanskrit, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, or what, but it says balle balle. —An gr 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Balle Balle, oddly enough, which says that it's "very commonly used in many Punjabi songs to depict a feeling of happiness." Thanks. I'm amazed at how many languages you seem to know. -- BenRG (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (I'm kicking myself for not thinking of the Tetragrammaton, by the way.)[reply]

(The header gave me a chuckle. I had a mental image of someone who couldn't remember where they'd been on their vacation, and it reminded me of what Jeffrey Bernard wrote in a letter to the editor of the New Statesman: "Sir, I have been commissioned by Michael Joseph to write an autobiography and I would be grateful to any of your readers who could tell me what I was doing between 1960 and 1974". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Are you certain that photo was taken in Oxford? Richard Avery (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was somewhere between South Park and Magdalen Bridge. If it helps, I was in front of the "Is there anybody out there? Looking for new worlds" exhibit four minutes and 27 seconds earlier, and in front of this sign 13 minutes and 5 seconds later. -- BenRG (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation in Titles

When writing titles in which all words begin with a capital letter, some letters escape capitalisation (such as 'the', 'of', 'and' etc). How am I to determine whether any given word deserves this special treatment? Why do these exceptions even occur? ----Seans Potato Business 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the usual rule is that the articles (the, a, an) and prepositions of four or fewer letters are lower-cased. I assume the reason is because these words are not stressed in pronunciation and capitalizing them would give them too much emphasis. —An gr 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, ...) to the words usually lowercased. Deor (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the prepositions, it is the number of letters per se, or is it the number of syllables? Is "through", for example, capitalised? "How to Get Rich through Wikipedia" vs. "How to Get Rich Through Wikipedia"? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of relevant guidance on the wikiproject for musical albums, see here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Jack, it's the number of letters, so someone following the style Angr described would capitalize through in your example. (Some style guides, such as the more recent editions of The Chicago Manual of Style, recommend lowercasing all prepositions ["except when they are stressed"] as a reaction against the somewhat artificial aspect of the traditional letter-counting practice—though the exception I've quoted in brackets seems to me just as artificial and even harder to interpret.) What I've found people to have the most trouble with is words that can function either as prepositions or as adverbs: They often have trouble understanding why "Puttin' On the Ritz" and The Mill on the Floss are both correctly capitalized. Deor (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Despite the correctness of "Puttin' On the Ritz", if someone wrote a song about crackers, it would be "Puttin' Cheese on the Ritz". —An gr 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the confirmation, and a good example. Which, incidentally, would be a contender for the worst song title of all time. Right up there with "God Needed an Angel in Paradise, so He Took Caruso Away". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or that great country ballad, "You're the Reason God Made Oklahoma". Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of variations at Capitalization#How to capitalize.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For capitalization in Wikipedia, there is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters).

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most modern style preferred especially in Europe is I think to write titles as normal sentences without capitals at all except the first word. Of course many publications still use the other/older capitalisation style. It may help you to choose the correct capitalisation in the other style if you write as if you were writing German, probably. NerdyNSK (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second paragraph of the English Wikipedia article "Capitalization".

Different language orthographies have different conventions for the use of capitalization. The systematic use of capitalized and uncapitalized words in running text is called "mixed case". Conventions for the capitalization of titles vary among languages and different style guides.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the rule is: make the title look as bad as possible. At least, that's the rule I use when forced to adopt the cretinous affectation of title case and I seem to get it "right" every time. --89.168.154.234 (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is also a man used to having enormous clout.

Does this sentence sound natural? I would say "he is also a man that used to have enormous clout".217.12.16.48 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO both versions "sound" okay. To help settle the wording, I think more information is needed about what is being said. Is the main point "having clout" or is it having an attitude that was developed by "having clout"? Is it about a man who previously "had enormous clout" but no longer does? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences mean two very different things... AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider:

1 He is used to have money. versus
2 He used to have money.

The auxiliary verb "is" makes all the difference. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly more than that. Consider:

1 He is used to having money (this describes someone who currently has money), vs.
2 He used to have money (this describes someone who had money, but no longer has it). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jack. Of course, I'd phrase one version: Also,he is accustomed to having enormous clout. (Expects to have it.) Avoids the dual readings for "used," and "he is a man" is a bit too rhetorical (or redundant) for me.

"He used to be a woman accustomed to having enormous clout," is something else entirely. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is "He used to be a woman with enormous clout, but now he's a man with no clout but an enormous <whatever>". :) JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is just asking for an enormous clout upside the head. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, "he is used to having money" doesn't necessarily mean he currently has money. A moneyed person who's recently become impoverished might say "I don't like this state of affairs. I'm used to having money". So both versions could refer to someone who had money but no longer has it. It would all depend on the context. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My daughter used live a life of luxury, but her present ~~husband~~ partner cannot give her the life / maintain her in the state she is used to [living]. Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian caps

Here's something just out of curiosity. When I'm patrolling recent changes, I very often notice new users from India inserting text entirely written in upper case. Is there any particular reason for Indian users to do this? Like, their keyboards having upper case only? It's puzzling coz 99% of the times I see users inserting text written in all caps, they have Indian user names. Húsönd 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A guess: the dominant script in India (besides the Roman alphabet, perhaps) is Devanagari, which does not have letter cases, so there would be no equivalent taboo against writing in all-caps. --Sean 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's plausible, but wouldn't people learn at school that English is not supposed to be written in all caps? Looking at the rate that this pattern occurs on Wikipedia, it almost seems like English learners in India are encouraged to write in such manner. Húsönd 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is more likely, as I understand, that they (the users, not Indians in general) are new to the internet and haven't picked up the niceties of netiquette yet. If someone politely points out the gaffe, they are likely to understand. The same occurs with users from English speaking countries, but are more often found on youtube comments, gaming forums and so on. Steewi (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's technical. I could easily see someone making a cheap keyboard for India where instead of a Shift key they have a control that produces Devanagari in one position and our alphabet in the other, but if they had lower case as well, that would need three positions -- or they do have another control for lower case, but it's harder to use. --Anonymous, 18:47 UTC, September 18, 2008.

September 17

Upside

What does 'upside' mean? 'On'? Why not just say 'on', considering that 'on' is not exactly the opposite of 'downside'? Also, why do Americans add 'of' to some prepositions ('off of', 'behind of', and, here, 'upside of')? Is this a relic of Finnish or something?--ChokinBako (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the upside of something is its benefit in my eyes (the upside of reducing taxes is more money in my pocket, the downside is [potentially] less money for government to spend on public services). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That definition doesn't seem to apply to "Somebody is just asking for an enormous clout upside the head" (see 2 threads above). -- JackofOz (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread above is actually what I was referring to (even though the 'of' is omitted there).--ChokinBako (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard "upside of", and I've rarely heard "upside" used as a preposition with any object other than "head", or in conjunction with anything other than some sort of violent blow. To me a "smack upside the head" is an upward smack on the side of the head (ear, cheek, temple, that area). —An gr 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how few American words come from Finnish (except, perhaps, in Hancock, Michigan). I'm with Angr; I have a notion that "upside the head" has roots either in the South or in black culture (there's some overlap, obviously). "Upside of the head" would be the kind of thing someone would say while trying to be hip with the kids and the new lingo. That's the downside to careless use of other people's slang. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine the progression was: "up the side of the head" > "upside of the head" > "upside the head". It has a kind of novomundane logic; Clarityfiend's moving hand's relation to my poor old noggin isn't inside or outside or around or through or between or about, but, well, upside. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novomundane. Wow! A Google search for novomundane did not find any occurrences. I guess it will soon. In the meantime, what does this brilliant word mean? (No pun intended.) Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's easy: of or relating to the New World. I would expect "novimundane", though, since the roots are Latin, not Greek, and the connecting vowel of Latin is -i-. Using Greek roots, the word would be "neocosmic", which does already exist, but with the wrong meaning. —An gr 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live and learn. Thank you. I see that Google cannot find occurrences of "novimundane" any more than it could of "novomundane". Do Latinos create words to order as required, or is it the case that novimundane is a "standard" word for which there is very little call? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, double Wow! I am very, very surprised to learn I've just coined a new word. It was the first one that popped into my head, and I thought that surely it must have been used before now, which is why I never even bothered to check. Novimundane is more technically correct, but I like the sound and feel of my version, and since I turn out to be its creator I get to decree that that's the version that will forthwith come into popular usage. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a "Words invented by ref deskers" sub page to record such momentous coinings, and keep track of their rising use. It would save the OED a job in tracing the words' origins (when they eventually make the big time), and serve as a reference for people like me who swear to make use of them, but forget them next week (as in the case of the other ref desk words and phrases which I cannot for the life of me recall)! Gwinva (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since it's now GPL-ed who's gonna be watching for licensevios? Saintrain (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this calls for buying Jack a drink next time one of us is in Oz, or Jack is wherever we are (Canada in my case.) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose now there will be hordes of people with fake Australian accents turning up, claiming their name is Jack. We will have to work out a secret password or such like. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I've forestalled this by putting my pic on my user page. I did that years ago, and I'm a little whiter and more Santa-like these days, but I'm still my clearly recognisable, unique loveable self, and imposters would be very easy to spot. But that drink sounds like a good idea. Whose shout is it? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can work that out. Just keep us informed if you are travelling. I don't want to have to carry your picture everytime I go to a bar. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A smack upside the head is not a smack to the side of the head, it is a very specific type of slap where the palm side of the hand smacks the back of the head (where it joins the neck) in an upward motion. It's used in all kinds of older movies and TV shows as a disciplinary action against an unruly child (it stings, but leaves no visible bruise). Matt Deres (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moving hand, having clouted, moves on. As to why I didn't just say "on", the same reason Jack chose "noggin": for a little variety and flavor. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another example can be found with the Primus song....forgotten its name, but the singer says something along the lines of "I hit him upside of the head with an aluminum [sic] baseball bat". So, this would be around the neck area?--ChokinBako (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but as soon as you move from the literal into the figural or metaphorical, it becomes less and less clear. Consider statements as common as "kick his ass" and "beat the crap outta that guy"! Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, thanks for the explanation. When I was growing up in Texas I was frequently threatened with a "smack upside the head", but since I never actually received one, the exact location of "upside" was left to my imagination. —An gr 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "alongside" ("He maneuvered the dory alongside the yacht") as similar in usage to "upside the head," though not so restrictive. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a term that is used to describe the time wasting practice of pronouncing an acronym that takes longer to pronounce than if one simply pronounced the words that were initialized?

An example of an acronym that takes longer to pronounce than the title would be WWII, World War Two66.228.236.212 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Jen[reply]

That's not an acronym. An acronym is a word formed from initials that is pronounced as a word, such as laser, Nato etc. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false distinction perpetuated by some pedants. An acronym is a word formed from initials. For example, fact that the plural of RBI is RBIs demonstrates that RBI is a word no matter how it is pronounced. --Anonymous, 03:47 UTC, September 18, 2008.

(OK, I'll put my head in the lion's mouth.) There's no doubt that the plural of RBI is RBIs. But that alone does not necessarily mean that RBI is a word, because there's no rule afaik that says that abbreviations can't have plurals. Nobody would deny that it's an abbreviation in the most general sense of the word. Whether it's also an acronym is a matter of debate, and I think it depends on one's definition of acronym. The definition that Malcolm XIV relies on would exclude WWII and RBI. The one you prefer apparently does not. It's not a matter of pedantry. But to insist that one of of at least two accepted definitions is the only correct one is perhaps the real pedantry. No offence. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see World Wide Web#Pronunciation of "www". (no room for edit summary)

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only people would follow my sensible advice and pronounce this sextuple u. <*sighs dramatically*> Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that those of us who have elected to maintain the highest moral standards in the face of turpitude and turgitude profoundly object to the practice of sextupling on a public venue like the WP:reference desk. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPA font

Hi is there any font packages that would allow for typing IPA symbols directly (mapping sounds directly to a letter key or set of keys) instead of forcing me to do the "Alt-###" for every special character?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Windows (>= 2000) then you can create a custom keyboard layout placing the desired IPA characters on keys of your choice. See MSKLC. Bendono (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIL Doulos (available from www.sil.org) has them to a degree, but many commonly used IPA letters are still on non-standard placements. Setting up shortcuts are probably your best bet. Steewi (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're typing it in Wikipedia there's a special symbols tool bar below the "Save page" button, and you can select IPA from there. In Linux with SCIM there's also an IPA keyboard layout. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know India Pale Ale had a specific font. Most of the labels on the bottles always looked different to me.....or was that the ale?--ChokinBako (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Spoken Language Recordings?

Hello...does anyone know of a website or other place that has a list of recordings of languages recorded that are accessible? I'd like to be able to browse through a list of languages and decide I want to hear what a particular one sounds like. Is there any such place? Hires an editor (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind listening to Christian evangelical materials, Global Recordings has samples of hundreds of languages and varieties that can be downloaded. Steewi (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a soundboard that had loads of different farmyard/household pet animals on it and country flags. You chose the country and the animal and clicked - it then played you the 'sound' that that language uses to mimic the animal's noise (like in England "oink oink" is a pig noise but in other languages they don't say "oink oink" they say - well whatever). Unfortunately I can't track it down online anywhere - it wouldn't be more than a line at a time but it's a fun little board. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could play around with the different languages at the BBC World Service [14]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For English see Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Some Wikinews stories are also spoken. Maybe other language editions of our projects also have spoken versions? NerdyNSK (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definite article with proper nound

University of Oxford is the name. Can you say the University of Oxford or the Oxford University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.84 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "article proper name", I selected the page titled "Article" at http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/articles.html. Maybe it can help you.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not quite in the same class, but in the U.S. we say "the University of Kansas" but "K.U." (without an article). I've never heard anyone call it "Kansas University." As for your question, I'd say "the University of Oxford" is fine; "the Oxford University" doesn't sound quite right, but that's just my opinion. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various universities in Australia officially known as "The University of X" that are commonly referred to as "X University" (without any "the"). Those where X = Sydney, Melbourne, New South Wales, Queensland, New England, Adelaide and others, all fall into this category. But where X = Canberra, South Australia, Western Australia and others, they don't generally get this. I have admittedly heard people refer to "Canberra University", but people from Canberra never say this, and it's a good way of identifying newcomers to the city, who may not be aware there are at least 5 unis in Canberra. My experience of international universities suggests there's also a dual approach there. I've never heard anyone refer to the universities of California or Paris as "California University" or "Paris University", but we do hear "London University" and "Prague University". We've all heard about people going to "Oxford" or "Cambridge". In those 2 particular cases, it's generally just the name of the place that's used. When someone says "He studied at Oxford/Cambridge", it's understood to refer not to some other educational institution that happens to be located at Oxford/Cambridge, but specifically to the university there. If the "Oxford/Cambridge University" form is used, it doesn't include the "the". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"California University" is a fictional construct that has been used in a number of TV series and movies to refer to a non-existent school that sounds like the real thing. There is a California State University system which is a different thing altogether. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio State University is very proud of its definite article and uses it at every opportunity. —An gr 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with The University of Western Ontario, even though everyone calls it "Western". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always called it Oxford University (or just Oxford), following the example of Oxford University Press. I guess I'll have to be more careful. My university definitely has an article, but it's exceptional in having more titles - The Australian National University. Steewi (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that case, the "The" is decapitalised in the context of a sentence (except where it's the start of the sentence, of course). It's "I did my Masters at the Australian National University", not "I did my Masters at The Australian National University". The acronym is ANU, not TANU. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Open University is an example of a university which officially and legally uses The, and when used in this style then it is always capitalised even mid-sentence because it is the real name of the university organisation, but in practice or non-legal contexts everyone just says Open University or OU (or "the Open University"), albeit it's probably not a good example as Open is not a place. If in doubt use whichever style preferred by the university. I think the University of Place style is the older more traditional style, while the Place University style is the newer less accurate/desirable usage. Keep in mind that there are many other educational institutions in Oxford, including Oxford Brookes University, which are unrelated to the University of Oxford. Also keep in mind that there is no relation between the name of a publishing house and the name of a university. To my mind, the style University of Place denotes some recognition from the official city or national government or an ancient/old university, and if it is The University of Place then to me it denotes a very good university, while Place University to me probably means a university which is too new or too modern-looking. But these impressions do not necesarily have anything to do with reality. I don't know whether other people have the same mental connections with these name styles. But because I have these mental associations, I find it strange to see a University of Place being named a Place University or a The University being referred as just a mere University as to me it would denote a demotion of status or even some form of POV on part of whoever uses this style. However, I am not so absolute, sometimes even I write or say Place University if I am too boring to type or say the of, without trying to imply a demotion of status in this way. NerdyNSK (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting that there's a whole swag of universities that are not named after a place, but after a person - e.g. Harvard University, Macquarie University, Curtin University, Edith Cowan University. These never take "the", and it would be absolutely wrong to say "[the] University of Macquarie" etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Esperanto humour story

Does anyone know where I can find a link to this humourous Esperanto story? It's about a magic birch tree by the side of a lake, and there is an action day for it, and the result is a long compound word (magic lake tree action day) which in Esperanto is made up entirely of rhyming words ("magolagofagoagotago" or the like) but I can't seem to find it again. Thanks! Duomillia (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, here it is: [15] not thirty seconds later! Duomillia (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

words that should mean the opposite

Is there a specific term for words that would be antonyms if you looked at their structure but are really synonyms? Such as meliorate / ameliorate, flammable / inflammable, one way mirror / two way mirror. Nadando (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False friends? How odd, I've never even heard of 'meliorate'.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "amelioriate" would only be expected to have an opposite meaning if it had a Greek prefix attached to a Latin stem -- but it actually has a Latin prefix attached to a Latin stem. Similarly, "inflammable" has a prepositional prefix (not a negative prefix). AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite examples: "to / unto" and "till / until". —An gr 08:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metric language question

In metric countries, how do they generally refer to people's height? For example, if somebody was 5 ft. 10 in., would people give his height as "178 centimeters" or "1.78 meters" or "1.8 meters"? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may well vary from country to country, but here in Finland, I'm used to "1.78 meters". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, in day-to-day contexts it tends to be "1.78 metres" (that's when it's not "5 ft. 10 in."; the majority of people still can't quite relate to a metric height). But police warnings and Crime Stoppers bulletins etc pretty much always say "178 cm". (In case you were wondering, we do spell it "metre", reserving "meter" for a measuring device.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack, mostly. We usually refer to people's height colloquially in feet and inches, but official contexts will use metres. If I'm talking in metres myself, I'll say "one meter seventy-eight" most often, or "one hundred and seventy eight centimetres". Steewi (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Australians still reckon heights in feet, it seems counterproductive for the police to give suspects' heights in centimeters, doesn't it? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the same. No one ever measures a person's height in metres but you'd see it in something like a police report or some other official document. Everyday use of metric is kind of funny here; height and weight of a person is always pounds and feet, but for anything larger than a person I would only understand metres. I understand if a building is 100 metres high, but I don't know how far 100 feet is. We measure distance in kilometres but I have no idea how long a mile is. For the temperature of a pool I only know Fahrenheit but for the air I only know Celsius. I know litres rather than gallons, but I know cups and teaspoons rather than grams. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mwalcoff: Yes, indeed; I've often thought exactly the same thing. But we've been officially metric for over 25 years now, so I guess it's government policy to always use metric, if for no other reason to discourage people from thinking in the old system. TV reports of suspects at large sometimes appear as "1.78 metres (5 feet 10 inches)", but that's happening less and less. I suppose in a generation's time it will no longer be an issue. If we're measuring a block of wood, it would usually be so many metres or the equivalent number of centimetres. But human heights seem to be a different matter (as are the lengths and weights of new-born babies; a baby weighs so many pounds, but an adult weighs so many kilograms). I'm not sure how we'd go when measuring the height of a blockhead. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had baby measurements in both, sometimes at the same time. When my son was born they gave us both metric and imperial measurements for his length and weight; and the other day the doctor measured his length in inches, but the circumference of his head in centimetres. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with metric, but similarly, heights of people were in feet and inches, and babies weights in pounds and ounces. This is still fairly common in speech and everyday life, although metric is used on health charts and official documents. I can't visualise a 1.78m person, but perhaps people younger than me can. (I visualise other things in metres though.) Imperial terms are still used colloquially: "he stood a few feet away", "penny for your thoughts", "I could hear you for miles", "get plenty of mileage from that idea" (We also talk about a car's mileage too: "What's the mileage?" "Oh, 50,000 K.") But to answer the question: if metric is used, can be expressed either as "1.78 metres", "178 cm" or "one metre seventy eight" Gwinva (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French: Un metre soixante dix-huit. (1 metre 78); Un metre quatrevingt (1 metre 80). --Lgriot (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese: Um metro e setenta e oito (1.78m) . Húsönd 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In South Korea height is measured in centimeters. 178 is baek-chil-ship-pal. or "hundred-seven-ten-eight." --Kjoonlee 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese a person's height is also measured in centimetres. 178cm is 'hyaku-nana-juu-hachi senchimeetoru', 'hundred seven ten eight centimetres.' When talking about taller structures, such as buildings, metres are used, of course (as in Korean), and I believe a person may say 'juu-nana ten hachi-juu' when meaning 17.8m, where the 'ten' means 'point'.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Greece most people probably say "one and sixtythree" (ena ki exintatria) to mean "1.63m". "one hundred sixtythree centimetres" (ekatonexintatria ekatosta) is also a possibility, but would probably be expected only be certain people who want to be exact, like doctors or scientists. NerdyNSK (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Thinking in a second language

I'm an italian and i'm learning the english. I translate every word from italian to english. Are there a method to learn to think in english? Is it a training problem?--Kaspo (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people really only learn to think in another language once they're fluent in it. I'm learning Indonesian and still think in English. Wouldn't say you'd ever need to. Also, literal translations are bad. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to English Through Pictures. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that watching English tv channels with no subtitles is a very good exercise for your brain to assimilate a language, not just learn it. Thinking naturally in a language requires at least some degree of assimilation. Húsönd 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS Kids - Mister Rogers' Neighborhood Home Page.

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will *never* become good in a foreign language if you keep translating in your head. Force yourself not to do it or you'll just end up sounding like babelfish. Read books, watch movies, immerse yourself. Equendil Talk 07:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit, there's just too many differences between languages for which there are no strict rules. Gramatically correct sentences might end up sounding odd while incorrect formulations such as "there's too many ..." that I have just used here (should be "there are too many ...") might not raise an eyebrow. Speaking of "raising an eyebrow" (meaning "shock" or "surprise"), expressions differ wildly from one language to another, I expect that one would not make any sense in Italian. One mistake you made here that betrays your Italian origin is "learning the english": definite articles are frequently (and increasingly so) omitted in english, while (in my very limited experience) Italian people make abundant use of those. It might be hard to tell when you should or should not use them. You can "learn the english language", or "learn english", but you cannot "learn english language" or "learn the english", yet you can equally "learn the piano" or "learn piano".

I am French, I learned english at school, I learned the grammar, learned irregular verbs and so on and so forth. Years and years of it and my english sucked anyway. Don't get me wrong I could read everyday english (and technical stuff as a software engineer) and make myself understood, but it didn't feel right and it was not. One day, I forced myself to read a novel in English rather than a translation thereof, with limited dictionary support. Can't say it was easy, probably didn't understand half of it, but I persisted, I read another, and another and another. On the third book, I could already understand most of it with little effort, and I kept going. Suffice to say that improved my english dramatically, in a way no amount of being taught English at school could have done. I still make mistakes now and then (then again so do native speakers) but I could easily pretend to be american or british on the Internet. Plus I got to read all those nice books in the process :) Equendil Talk 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer. [Side comment: Since we're correcting the finer points like "learning ~~the~~ English", you should know that it's not OK to interchange upper and lower case initials with words such as "English", "British" and "American". They always take upper case. "Internet" generally takes lower case (except where, such as in this sentence, it's the first word of a sentence).] -- JackofOz (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Internet capitalization conventions are a complicated enough issue that we have an article on them. —An gr 13:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be fluent in a language in order to think in it. You may even see dreams while you sleep in another language even if you have not achieved fluency (the grammar and use of the language, of course, may not be considered "correct"!). Same thing with thinking: not being fluent does not mean you cannot think in it, but the way you think in it may not be "correct" usage of the language (sometimes, if you have got used to thinking in a certain way, you may still continune thinking in an "incorrect" way even after you become fluent in your speech and writing!). I know most language learners don't think, let alone dream, in other languages, and I believe this is related to the age in which they started working with a language and to the way they undertake their training. If you first heard a word in a foreign language at 30 years old and your training is focused on grammar then I believe you have less probability to think in it or "speak/hear" this language while dreaming. But if you started learning a language when you were a child, maybe in a bilingual or trilingual family, and your training focuses on vocabulary associations (not necessarily explanations) and imitation (most people probably know this style by the name immersion), then I beleive that you have high probability of actually using this language in your thinking etc. But this is only my hypothesis, I haven't read any research on this field lately. However, I believe that thinking in another language that you are learning may not be always desirable: your thnking may not correspond to the "correct" way that language is used, and sometimes your thinking in a particular language may get mixed with fragments of another language (eg your native one), creating a mixture which could not be identified as any kind of language, and resulting in your having to translate your thinking in "correct" language :) NerdyNSK (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I, as a British English speaker, did to develop my fluency in Japanese was to talk to myself in Japanese around the home, specifically when I was in the bath at night-time and I knew no-one could hear me so I wouldn't feel self-conscious when I spoke (I lived alone in a small apartment in a rural area of Japan). I would have a bath for about an hour and just pick a random topic, whether it be about something that happened that day or something I read in the newspaper. I would then say everything I could about the 'topic' until it was exhausted. One good way I found of getting my speed up was to whisper the words and not actually use my voice. In this way, I was training my mouth to get into the correct positions, without the added effort of actually using the vocal chords, and without the interruption of having to clear my throat. It worked quite well for me and I used to teach it to my students. Also, I found that whispering helped to control my breath, so when I was pronouncing words with p, t, and k in them, I was using less breath than when I would pronounce them in English, a 'requirement, so to speak, in Japanese. Being an Italian speaker, with a similar pronunciation of p, t, and k to Japanese, you may find this useful.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search, I found these websites.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles may be helpful.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article about Simple English Wikipedia, with its external link to the encyclopedia's main page.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can listen to the BBC World Service in English on the internet at [16]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "english conversation" (correct spelling: "English conversation"), I selected all of the first 10 results (of about 4,330,000). Every one of these is a winner. Wow! This looks like the most successful Google search I have ever made. Evidently, there are many people with the skill and desire (and technology) to help foreigners who want to learn English.

Everyday English in Conversation

Focus on English: ESL Conversation Online

English Conversation

English Daily - Learn American idioms, English conversation

English conversation phrases and expressions for speaking practice

Daily ESL: Conversation Starters for English Students

English Pronunciation, Speaking and Conversation Help for ESL

English Conversations - English Conversation Recordings

Speak English - English Chat and Conversational English Practice

Free Online English Lessons with Sound

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To find websites with information about mistakes which Italians make in the English language, I did a Google search for pages with the words "italians english mistakes", and I selected the following.

Typical mistakes of Italian speakers. Learn English with Free English Study Pages from The Language Project UK
Why Italians may find it tricky to master the English language - Times Online
Analysis of Italian children's English pronunciation
English language for Italian Students: some examples of interference
Italian learners of English - Elt World Wiki - a Wikia wiki
Non-native pronunciations of English#Italian (internal link)
Corriere.it "More Mistakes in English Exam: Former teacher of prime minister’s children points out errors and gives ministry fail mark"
Echorouk Online - Why Italians may find it tricky to master the English language
http://www.englishforitalians.com/content/common_mistakes/Common%20Mistakes%20-%2005.pdf

from which I found the main page:

English For Italians | Inglese per Italiani - Carmelo Mangano’s Blog

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find lyrics and melodies of many songs in many languages at http://ingeb.org/.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation of R in old tupi language

your help needed here. Just Omer • Talk 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

synthesis of the state of the art

what is the definition of the synthesis of the state of the art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.20.234 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The State of the Union Address

Does it have a nonliteral equivalent in other languages? Any comment apprecited. --Omidinist (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

Hi, this is something pretty simple I guess, but it's for something important so I have to get it exactly right. In a sentence like "Help us to improve Wikipedia", should the "to" be included or not? That is, should it be "Help us to improve Wikipedia" or "Help us improve Wikipedia"? Thanks in advance. Chamal ^Talk ± 09:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]