Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 28

Marnus

There's an ad on at the moment in New Zealand which uses the word "marnus" (munnace? pronounced munn-iss). Urban dictionary says it is what you call someone after they do something foolish, but this seems like it's just been taken from context in the ad. Someone else said it meant anus in Maori. It doesn't sound like a Maori word though. Does anyone have any insight into its origin and/or meaning? Aaadddaaammm 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's from the Maori language - all Maori words end in a vowel. It looks as though people are using the spelling 'manus', try this search: [1]. Natgoo 10:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "unwonted"

Is there a difference in pronounciation between "unwonted" and "unwanted"? --HappyCamper 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There can be: unwonted but you may pronounce them the same. Is there a difference in the vowel the way you say won-ton and wanted? Pronounce it the way you would pronounce won-ton. -THB 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not for me: I pronounce the first syllable of 'won-ton' and 'wanted' the same, but '(un)wonted' like 'won't'. (I'm in Britain.) --ColinFine 12:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm from California and I pronounce them differently. In IPA, it's [ʌnˈwɑntɨd] and [ʌnˈwʌntɨd] respectively.

Right Usage

Hi, I am confused about the usage of the words 'speak/spoke'in the context of talking to someone. Kindly let me know what is the right way; 'speak with/spoke with' or 'speak to/spoke to'? Regards....

This should probably be the same as "talk", which Americans apparently use with "with" but the British use "to". See Differences_between_American_and_British_English#Different_prepositions_in_certain_contexts -- the GREAT Gavini 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What? I won't address the accuracy of that page, but what you just said is completely false (at least regarding American usage, which is all I know). The following are all completely natural and commonly heard in American usage: "Talk to me!" "Hey, I wasn't talking to you, buddy." "You talkin' to me?" "I will not be spoken to in that tone!" In fact, I'd say that "talk to" is more common than "talk with" in generic contexts in American English.

To answer the original question, both are correct. The idea given below, that "spoke with" is two-way while "spoke to" is one-way, may be helpful but can also be misleading. For example, a man might say to his wife, "I spoke to my boss today about that raise, and he thinks XXX." Clearly the conversation was not one-way, since an employee cannot dictate to his boss; it is the boss's side of the conversation that is important here. One possible implication of "spoke to", as in this sentence, is raising a topic in conversation. A principal to a parent: "I would appreciate it if you would speak to your son about alcohol abuse [because I think he might have a problem].

If you happen to be learning English, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that this is a very subtle and difficult point (as questions involving phrasal verbs often are); there is no simple rule that tells you which to use, and the only real way to use them naturally is to keep learning the language and listening to as much native speech as you can. The good news, however, is that since both are OK, no matter which one you use, you won't be wrong. At the worst, it may sound a little unnatural, but in any situation either phrase might be said by a native speaker.

One final note: if you are only talking about normal conversation, in general "talking" will be more natural than "speaking"; as a tendency (not a rule), "speaking" is used for things that are a little farther from your typical boring everyday conversation. Hope some of this helps. Tesseran 10:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Speaking with" someone implies a two-way conversation, while "speaking to" someone (or even worse, "speaking at" someone) implies one-way communication from you to them only. StuRat 07:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You can also give someone a 'talking to', meaning you'll 'put them straight', during which they are not supposed to say anything back. There's another term; 'talk back', which can mean something like youthful rebellious behavoour. When a father gives his son a good talking to, the son is not suposed to talk back, but even the reverse can be true. When a father (casually) tells his son to do something and the son talks back, the father might give him a good talking to. DirkvdM 07:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A nonnative English speaker giving advice on English ? Well, you seem to have gotten it right this time, aside from your rather unconventional spellings of "behavoour" and "suposed". :-) StuRat 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be biased, but I don't think that that necessarily will lead to incorrect usage. Also, it could possibly be helpful looking at the language with an outsider's eyes. 惑乱 分からん 14:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whereas in American English "with" and "to" can be used interchangeably, indeed, as surmised above by the GREAT Gavini, "speak/spoke to" has a strong preference in British English, just as for "talk".  --Lambiam^Talk 11:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You call Joe's number and somebody else picks up the phone. Do you say "May I speak to Joe, please" or "May I speak with Joe, please"? In Australia, it's probably 95% for to, and 5% for with, even though in most cases you would intend to have a dialogue with Joe rather than providing him with a monologue. Funny that. JackofOz 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Determiner

Please explain the complete definition of using determiner: The Philippines. Thank you

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see determiner. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. .--Shantavira 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mystery insect? Noun?

I'm trying to find out what a certain word means that was scribbled inside a toilet I saw today. It was written in Japanese (赤ジルマ), but I'm quite sure it's not a Japanese word, and from the context I can gather that it is likely a type of insect. Due to the way transliteration works in Japanese, I can only reduce it to the following possible names:

red jilma, red gilma, red geelma, red jeelma, red girma, red jirma, red geerma, red jeerma

None of those appear to be anything real... does this ring a bell for anyone? IYRWTK, the full inscription translates something like "All the aka-jiruma of the world, begone! Filthy parasites!"  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was an 8 year-old in Texas in 1910 named "Red Gilma", but there's no connection : P.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure it couldn't just be germ? (I know next to nothing about Japanese.) Tesseran 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "germ theory" has some merits. How else would you transliterate "germ" in kana? The ジ could be also the transliteration of "zi". Not that that seems to help to make sense of the message.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching for ジルマ on the web gave me info on Mahou Sentai Magiranger. --Kjoonlee 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the hits have some connection with magic. On this webpage of a sushi place blog I find for last Sunday a posting with heading ジルマで塩辛 and text 焼津の定置網のジルマ〔するめイカ〕で、今日は塩辛つくろかな！ Perhaps this gives you a clue. I'm copying it over because I don't know how long it will stay. There is also a company named La Jiruma.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia also gives Mahou Sentai Magiranger, note that everything written in Katakana isn't a loanword from English, though, and I guess Japanese toilet slang could come from just about anywhere... Could be some schizophrene/psychotic hobo scribblings, for what I know... 惑乱 分からん 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it be an anti-communist message, since they are often called "reds". The phrase would become "All the red germs of the world, begone! Filthy parasites !". StuRat 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can be sure it's related to germs. Japanese has 菌 (fungi/bacteria), 細菌 (bacteria), and 微生物 (microbe) but none of them are pronounced like [dʒəm] or [dʒam]. --Kjoonlee 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about "germ" for a minute, but the trailing -ma implies it may be the word "germ" in a language other than English such as German (not a pun, but suprisingly punnish!) or Portugese, though I don't think "germa" is a real word in either. "Red germ" doesn't really make sense anyways. I don't think it has anything to do with Mahou Sentai Magiranger either, or at least I can't seem to make sense with it in such a context. Google searches give up random links to a lot of different things, but nothing to "aka-jiruma", so I'm totally at a loss.

One of my roomates thinks it could be a nickname for someone, but he admits that's only because he usually assumes strange words like that are usually nicknames when he can't understand them; a reasonable strategy I guess.

"Red Zelma" seems to be the name of a racing horse in 1999, and Tokyoites are definitely into horse racing... so I guess this could be a possiblity. It's very unlikely that the graffiti was left over from 1999 though, as it was a very new washroom, and "Zelma" wouldn't even be spelled properly. Ah, this may be too thick of a nut to crack.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the cuttlefish shiokara connection a dead end? I think the sushi blog text means something like: "Shiokara from jiruma / Jiruma (cuttlefish squid) from the fixed shore nets of Yaizu". Not that I could venture a guess why the poor red[2] cuttlefish should be lambasted for being filthy parasites.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They look somewhat phallic... =S 惑乱 分からん 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

nickname pompey

why is pompey the nickname for portsmouth?

You could start with http://www.pompeyweb.co.uk/misc.htm. Google is your friend. --ColinFine 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it's the anclicized version of Pompeius, a popular name among Roman generals and Charles XII's dogs. --BluePlatypus 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

October 29

Dog eat dog

Does anybody know why this is the phrase, rather than "dog eats dog"? It's bugging me. --Estrellador* 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that is normal when its an adjectival phrase rather than a statement. However, I haven't so far been able to think of any other examples of that construction.--Shantavira 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Johnny come lately" perhaps?--Shantavira 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a variation of an old Latin proverb(?) "Dog does not eat dog", with the modern usage originating in 30's USA http://www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterD/dogeatdog.html 惑乱 分からん 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Estrellador* 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtual and Virtue

Is the word "virtual" related to the word "virtue"? The article about "virtual" talks about that "another core meaning has been elicited", but my English is not so terribly good, and I understood no word of that. If the words are related, is the meaning related?

wimdw: 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtue in English means good personal character (implying especially honesty, strength, probity and honor), and derives from the Latin virtus which meant strength (originally it literally meant manliness). Virtual is also derived from virtus but in English has recently gone a paradoxical meaning shift so it means the exact opposite of what it used to mean. In English, until the late 20th century, virtual and virtually were used as an intensive adjective and adverb meaning "truly", but in the last few decades, English speakers ignorant of the precise meaning began to use virtually to mean "almost". Computer geeks seldom have advanced language skills and in the last 2 decades reconverted the adjective virtual in computer jargon to mean "simulated", as in virtual reality (the opposite of true reality). Ironic and annoying to some of us. alteripse 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From etymonline.com

1398, "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities," from M.L. virtualis, from L. virtus 
"excellence, potency, efficacy," lit. "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). 
The meaning of "being something in essence or fact, though not in name" is first recorded 1654, 
probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (1432). 
Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959. 
Virtually (c.1430) originally meant "as far as essential qualities or facts are concerned;" 
sense of "in effect, as good as" is recorded from c.1600.

惑乱 分からん 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The computer usage seems quite consistent with the 1430 usage, meaning "virtual reality" is "in effect, as good as reality" (or at least that's what the advertisers claim). StuRat 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtus derives from vir, man, which gave also virilis, virile, triumvir, &c. (but not virus).

It is interesting to note the possible influence of, or correlation with, might. The meanings are 1) power and 2) could (virtually, as having enough power) ... What do you think ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 惑乱 分からん. The computer term is completely consistent with previous usage, and it is accepted by most authorities. I agree with Alteripse, however, that the use of "virtually" to mean "almost" is a regrettable broadening of the sense, but such is the case with many other adjectives, and there is not much to be done about it. Lesgles (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This virtually answers my question. :wimdw: 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"...have contributed to the production costs..."

A PBS TV program in Michigan, called Off The Record, ends each program by saying "(This week's sponsors) have contributed to the production costs for Off The Record". I think they mean to say that those sponsors helped to PAY for the costs, but it sounds like what they are actually saying is that those sponsors have made the show more expensive. Is my interpretation correct ? StuRat 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are correct. Which one is more reasonable? --BluePlatypus 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

StuRat makes an interesting point. The former phrase is correct, but it's also ambiguous. I hadn't noticed the ambiguity until he pointed it out.--Shantavira 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would state it differently: "Unnecessary and unwanted ambiguity is to be avoided whenever possible". A better way to say it would be: "(This week's sponsors) have contributed financially to cover production costs for Off the Record". StuRat 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "hoik"

I am seeking the origin and derivations of the word "hoik". Normally used as a phrase, "hoiked up"; within the context of "purposely generated or manipulated public interest created in a previously little-known subject or event, sometimes to the extent of causing alarm or dismay in the areas of public discourse, usually for the cynical purpose of publicizing a particular political candidate or philosophy. I heard this word used in various political discussion forums, but I've never seen it in print, so the spelling of the word may not be correct. Does anyone have pertinent information on this word? Thanks for your curiosity. 75.15.156.234 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My edition of the OED doesn't say, but I strongly suspect it's the word "hoist", made slang by adding a glottal stop.--Shantavira 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED spells it hoick and suggests it derives from hike, earliest cite 1898. It is interesting I have not really heard it used in the way you describe, similar to hype, which probably influenced it. I understand it to mean something like "pull up" as in "he hoiked his socks up" but according to the OED hoick also is a variant of "yoicks" said to excite hunting dogs, earliest cite 1607 which also sounds like what you are describing. BTW hoick also means spit probably from "hawk" which is what I feel like doing when I hear some political discussions. MeltBanana 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is probably onomatopoetic, from the sound of rapid moist airflow in the back of the throat, as in "The old man hoicked up a gob of plegm," or "The cat just hoicked up another hairball."Edison 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To check if I get your meaning of the word right; the biggest hoik of the moment must be the attention given to terrorism, the death toll of which is negligible to that of loads of other causes of death that get nowere near the same amount of attention. Is that what you mean? Oh, and thank you for giving me an excuse to ventilate my opinion (am I hoiking?). And thank you for thanking me for my curiosity. :) DirkvdM 09:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobow

What does nobow mean?

It's in that rap song, "you must not nobow me", you must not nobow me.

Urban dictionary isn't hip enough to have it obvio.

Can my nan nobow me if my boyf can't? Can I nobow my nan? My mam or my pa nobow me? Can I nobow them?

I also wanna know is it proper rude like "roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked" or owt like that. You must not Nobow me 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just a guess, but it looks like it's probably "know (a)bou(t)". --Ptcamn 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobow? Nan? Boyf? Roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked? Excuse me for not being hip enough to follow, but what are you talking about? 惑乱 分からん 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

He's just British. Hairs on a bobbin. --Ptcamn 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank god for Google: [3], Btw:

Bullet Tooth Tony: A bookie's got blagged last night. 
Avi: Blagged? Do me a favor, Tony, speak English. 
I thought this country spawned the fucking language, and so far nobody seems to speak it. (Snatch)

惑乱 分からん 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search doesn't turn up much for "nobow", but maybe the song you are thinking of is "Irreplacable" by Beonce. Look at this question on Yahoo Answers. The chorus is You must not know about me / You must not know about me / I could have another you in a minute / matter fact he'll be here in a minute - baby. I don't nobow whether that's the song you're thinking of, but if it is, then I imagine your parents do indeed nobow you... Philbert^2.71828 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah that's the song. I didn't know it was beyonce. I don't like rap music. I want to know though, why if it's "know about" does she sing "nobow"? And what on earth does it mean? If shes singing it to her boyf of course her boyf knows her, duh. (he probably does the thing with the rampant rabbit too). You must not Nobow me 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Her accent is different than yours, probably. It sounds like "know about" to me. --Charlene 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that's a lot easier to understand Beyonce than you... (Nan? Isn't that some Indian bread? Owt?) It's used in the sense "Who do you think I am?", by the way... 惑乱 分からん 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nan = grandmother: owt = anything: they are overdoing it slightly, though. 86.139.237.132 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I googled around and found out that it apparently was some Northern English dialect... =S Also, it seemed like a rampant rabbit was some sort of burrowing bunny, but I still have to find out what "Roger" meant... =S 惑乱 分からん 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger = "have sexual intercourse with". StuRat 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"boyf" = "boyfriend" ? StuRat 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's "Roger" rhyming slang or something?: "Roger Moore" - "Hardcore", "Roger Milla" - "Drizzling Drillah", "Roger Wilco" - "Deep Digging Dildo" @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"You must not know about me" addressed to a boyfriend can't have the literal meaning "evidently you don't know of my existence". Rather, I would take it as "I presume you are not familiar with my reputation, abilities and/or behaviour", and it continues "because I could obtain another boyfriend like you instantly". Now why couldn't she just sing that? Notinasnaid 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't scan -sthomson 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A question about japanese

how is this ヴァン pronounced? 207.118.239.193 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Van", I'd think... But it needs IPA... 惑乱 分からん 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What is IPA? 207.118.239.193 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the International Phonetic Alphabet. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

/vaɴ/ possibly, ヴァ is not really a native sound in Japanese, so I'm not sure how it's pronounced... 惑乱 分からん 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The combination ヴァ was introduced to represent the "un-Japanese" sound /va/ in transliterations of foreign names, so the speaker's familiarity with the sound in general and in the source language in particular, as well as the "ear" to hear this and the ability to contort one's speech apparatus into unfamiliar positions, all are a factor in how it will be realized. It is used in the Japanese Wikipedia in the transliteration of, for example, Albrecht von Wallenstein (アルブレヒト・フォン・ヴァレンシュタイン), corresponding well to how it sounds. The city Van likewise becomes ヴァン, but a Japanese speaker who knows Turkish will presumably ignore this unphonetic rendering and pronounce it as if it had been transliterated ワン. Raoul Wallenberg, on the other hand, simply becomes ラウル・ワレンバーグ, which is quite a departure from the actual sound, also for the final "g".  --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 30

AAVE Bible?

I seem to remember reading there was an old African American Vernacular English translation of the Bible that had been created to help witness to younger African-Americans. Does anyone know what this translation is called, or where I might find it online? NeonMerlin 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A Google search turns up the name "P.K. McCrary". Does that help?--Siva 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's hard to imagine: "So God, he bees axing Adam, 'Wheres you at, foo ?' " :-) StuRat 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, "What up, lord, ya trippin'?" 惑乱 分からん 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Cotton Patch version of the Bible - Google turns up lots of references to it. It's probably not what you're looking for, but it's interesting. --Shuttlebug 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Siva's suggestion of P.K. McCrary pointed right to the Black Bible Chronicles. It seems unlikely that they will be available online, but you can check out the Aussie Bible instead. Lowerarchy 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Make nothing of it"

Im not from english speaking country,so I have a question about phrase "Make nothing of it".

If you saw the movie Pulp Fiction,you may remember when John Travolta say "make nothing of it" after girl thanked him on the cigarete.Funny thing is that I never heard anyone saying those words,neither on the movies,or where I was in England.

So,my question :Is it something that should be said after someone thank you for something? Or is it just something they made up for the movie?

I know its a pretty stupid question,but still I would like someone to answer me.

Thank you very much

212.200.200.65 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In my experience as a native English speaker, "think nothing of it" is more common in the context you describe, e.i., as an alternate response to "Thank you". "Make nothing of it", on the other hand, as in "I can make nothing of it", is used to mean "unable to comprehend or analyze something productively". Although now that I think more, "make nothing of it" might have been an old way of saying "don't make a big deal about it", "don't be obsequious." However, "think nothing..." carries more or less the same meaning and is what one hears 90-95% of the time. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Another meaning is "don't conclude anything from it". For example, if someone notices that the German stock market goes down whenever it rains in Saskatchewan, that can't possibly be the cause, but just a coincidence, so you shouldn't "make anything of it". In the given context of immediately following a thank you, though, it's a modest statement, similarly to "aw shucks, it was nothing, really". StuRat 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot,I though it was something in the line of that.Another question connected to it:Is that phrase used in everyday language in USA,UK,Canada?? I mean,does people really use it,or is it more like "it can be used,but is not really used".Thank you again 212.200.200.65 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not something I (an American) can really recall hearing (although I could gather its meaning easily enough). "Don't mention it" or "don't worry about it" would be what I would probably say to get that meaning across. -Elmer Clark 06:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bit less common than those other forms, in the US, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's rare. StuRat 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an archaism. The two main characters in that movie sometimes spoke in an odd manner. -THB 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was supposed to take place in the 70's. I guess Tarantino might have taken inspiration to the dialogue from movies and other popular culture produced in that era... 惑乱 分からん 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese syntax and translation help

I'm seeking Vietnamese translations (in any dialect) for the following; piecing together vocabulary words from various websites felt too reckless. Much thanks.

"Wasted poetry" "Abandoned butterfly" Wolfgangus 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Verbs of Elimination

Speaking of waste, why is it that we defecate/defaecate but not deurinate? Or why do we urinate but not fecate/faecate? JackofOz 05:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says I don't? DirkvdM 09:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would assume faecate would refer to the creation of faeces or at the very least, used to refer to that (and therefore defaecate would be kind of undoing it). Wiktionary's definition is to empty one's bowels of faeces so I would assume faecate on its own would just mean to fill them up (or again, used to mean that). Why urinate isn't a similar situation, I can't say. Maybe it used to mean the to fill your bladder up, and evolved into the same word, despite being. Somewhat similar to how personne in French means both someone and no one. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 10:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The English language is like that, which is partly why it is so interesting. These are also words that we read and write but never actually say to anyone.--Shantavira 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a fascinating language. But with great respect, telling me that the English language is "like that" is equivalent to telling me you don't know the answer to my question. There is a reason for everything, but we don't always know what the reason is. I'm hoping to discover the reason why one of these words starts with de- and the other doesn't, when they describe similar functions that are often carried out simultaneously. JackofOz 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary is useful for these sorts of queries - check out urine and defecate. Natgoo 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question contains the assumption that all words should be formed consistently, which would require that a committee defines new words according to a strict set of rules. However, words are just made up, on the fly, by anybody and everybody. English, in particular, borrows words and rules from many different languages, so you frequently get inconsistencies, for this reason. StuRat 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "inconsistency" already existed in medieval Latin: defaecare and urinare. The latter verb is not attested in classical Latin, which had a deponent verb urinari, "to dive", "to submerge oneself"; hence, an urinator was a diver.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Feces are "waste" or "dregs" (this meaning predates the meaning "excrement"). Fecation would perhaps be the precipitation of dregs or the generation of waste, which is quite different from the elimination (defecation) of waste or dregs so produced. Consistent with this interpretation, OED gives a sole citation for fecation: "1884 Syd. Soc. Lex., Fæcation..a term in the older chemistry for the separation of a deposit from a fluid." This line of reasoning is only so satisfactory, but if you accept that we think of the production & passage-through of urine as part of one single process, but we think of feces as possibly staying around quite a while before the act of defecation (the alternative being the pathological condition of "dia-rrhea" or "through-flow," which is exactly what urine does in a healthy person), you could get some mileage out of it! Wareh 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the contributions. Thanks. JackofOz 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese name

How would the names "Sato" and "Toshiko" be written in Japanese? I can see that in Katakana it would be along the lines of "サト" and "トシコ", but would the name usually be written in Kana, or would they use Kanji, which I don't yet know, for proper names? A BabelFish translation gives 佐藤 for Sato, but can;t find anything for Toshiko. Laïka 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Names such as those are almost always written in Kanji. Names can be given different kanji for the same pronunciation as they can be pronounced in different ways in different contexts (unlike kana). I don't know exactly what the most common kanji compounds for Sato and Toshiko are, though. I can see them being written in hiragana in a personal letter or something, but certainly not in "daily life". EDIT: After running that kanji compound through JWPCE, it can be pronounced Kisato, Saiu, Satoa, Satoo (probably the one you're looking for!) or any other number of ways. There are about 200 entries for Toshiko alone - you're going to have to pick one :) --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, the IPA for these would be /sɑːtəʊ/ and /tɒʃiːko/ respectively. Laïka 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but because kanji can be pronounced differently in context (think English times a billion), there are a lot of different kanji for one pronunciation, and a lot of pronunciations for a kanji compound! Perhaps a context would be nice. Basically, if you're doing this in some sort of story or program where you have flexibility with the names, you can choose 智子 or 聡子 or whatever for Toshiko. The differences primarily reside in the meaning behind the first kanji - you can choose a pronunciation of "Toshi" with a meaning that you find fitting. Sorry for any confusion - kanji is like that, unfortunately, I much prefer kana. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... direct googling result: [4]. In addition, for you convenience, quoted from this page (and most of them can be found in my ATOK),

• トシ子
• 季子
• 歳子
• 寿子
• 十糸子
• 叔子
• 淑子
• 俊子
• 捷子
• 聡子 (Satoko reading is much frequent)
• 智子 (Tomoko reading is much frequent)
• 登志子
• 敏子
• 稔子
• 利子
• plus, I believe there probably are hiragana names としこ and とし子

Note, however, any of Toshiko above is felt a name of middle aged or so woman, as of 2006 (at least so I feel). And you know they say "--ko" naming itself is not that familiar these days. --marsian 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Marsian has much more patience than me for writing all of those out. ~ko is indeed old - used to be almost standard for names but it's dying out now or so I hear. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

démerdes

Doews anyone happen to know what this word means? I believe it is french. ALso the word gesticules?

My dictionary says that démerdes is the tu (informal "you") conjugated form of to figure things out. According to my dictionary, it's a reflexive verb so I imagine you would see this in a context like tu te démerdes which means you figure things out for yourself. Gesticules is the tu form of to gesture. Philbert^2.71828 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very good at French, though, so take that information with a grain of salt. Philbert^2.71828 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good thing to say in extremely refined company. Se démerder literally means something like to manage to get yourself out of the shit, although in French it is not quite as strong as the English suggests.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I always use "crap" instead of "shit" for "merde". -THB 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merde means shit. Atleast that's what my old french teacher used to say. --The Dark Side 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary translates merde as shit. If it means crap then they don't have a word for shit because that's as vulgar as French excrement words get. Why were you taking an Old French class? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do you people think "crap" means?  --Lambiam^Talk 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it meant "rubbish" until I read The Vicar of Nibbleswicke. --Kjoonlee 06:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant an old "French teacher," an old person who taught French, or an "old, French, teacher," an old French person who taught classes. --Kjoonlee 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he meant that the teacher used to teach him, instead of saying that he/she was old. --Kjoonlee 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that merde is closer to crap than shit on the offensiveness scale. -THB 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So is there a word in French that is closer to shit on the offensiveness scale? I was under the impression that that was the top. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression has always been that body and bodily functions aren't as capable of being offensive in Europe as in the US, and perhabs UK. -THB 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kjoon was right. I meant old as in previous, former, past, étc. Honestly, Old French? Didn't anyone take French in school here? --The Dark Side 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it in college. Did I waste people's time with a lame joke? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

October 31

Cigarettes

"What's in a cigarette? Those which we call toxins, by any other word would be as deadly." Does that modified quote make sense and is gramatically correct? If so, what does it mean? Jamesino 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a play on Hamlet's "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" (paraphrasing here!). Insert a comma after word, because it's a clause by itself, and it's fine grammatically. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 01:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet? I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but isn't that a Juliet quote? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes it is WKQT. Whew, I thought I had been wrong all this time! Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be "remove the comma after toxins". The word order is a bit poetic (as you'd expect) but grammatically fine. Tesseran 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the sentence make sense though? Or is it like...redundant? Jamesino 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that toxins are lethal—whether we call them poisons or something more obscure and exotic like nitromethane or o-Toluidine, they are still deadly chemicals—then yes, it makes sense. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Those" doesn't sound right to me. I would replace it by "That", and replace "word" by "name" if you want to be closer to the original:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet;

--Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

 --Lambiam^Talk 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask not just about the grammar, but also if it makes sense. The problem with toxins is that anything is potentially a toxin. The poison article says 'Paracelsus, the father of toxicology states-- "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison".' It would make more sense to speak of toxicity or toxic dose. Even water can kill you if you drink enough of it. So it is at the very least misleading to say that toxins are deadly. It completely misses the point of toxicity. So no, the phrase does not make sense. Not to scare you, but if you use this phrase in the US you should be careful not to get sued - tobacco companies certainly have the money for that. Also note that the toxin article says that "Toxic substances not of biological origin are more properly termed poisons" So are you talking about additives and are they biological in nature? Depending on how and where you are going to use this, be very careful what you say. DirkvdM 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a paraphrase, it's not a good one. The original is making the point that names are just labels - it doesn't matter what you call something, it's still the same thing. (The context being Romeo's family name) But the paraphrase is doing something altogether different by equating two names for different things. "Cigarrette" doesn't mean the same thing as "toxin", so it does actually matter what you call it. All in all, it doesn't make its point well, and it sounds very strained and even pretentious - if you paraphrase Shakespeare you should know the text, and if you know it, you shouldn't have a problem finding a more suitable quote. --BluePlatypus 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "O Cigarettes, Cigarettes! Wherefore art thou deadly?" Jamesino 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a word I can't remember

I'm trying to remember the word for the flat metal plate that can be installed on the outsides of doors to prevent the locks from being pried open. I've already looked at a bunch of lock security sites but they don't seem to even have them. I am pretty sure the word ends with 'al' and I think it might start with 'f'. I'm in Canada, and I guess the word could be local. I used and heard the word a bunch of times when I was on my Strata Council, but it's slipped my mind now. Anchoress 08:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean like a Security Door Reinforcer? or a latch guard? Maybe it is a regional word. --Andrew c 17:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like a latch guard, only longer. But weirdly, we called it an astragal in our Council meetings, and that word (which I found thru one of the links, thanks) has a different meaning from what we give it. Don't know if it's my property manager's mistake, or if it's a regional thing. Anyways, right or wrong now he'll know what I'm talking about lol. Anchoress 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The doors have metal plates,

fitted to the inside of the exit alleys to the front gates,

Security's expensive,

it can cost a fortune if you buy your locks

(duh-doo-doo)

from the wrong place

(duh-doo-doo) (Sorry, was reminded of that song :)) --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fetocide vs. feticide

At feticide, an editor has changed "(sometimes referred to as fetocide)" to "(sometimes mistakenly spelt fetocide)". I pointed out that we had cited sources of medical professionals using that spelling, and for us to call it a mistake, would not only be POV pushing, but also be spitting in the face of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. So I am here to ask for a third opinion at Talk:Feticide to weigh in on these matters. Is it ok to call common variant spellings used by professionals in the field of study in question a spelling mistake?--Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other party in this, and it is clear to me that fetocide is a misspelling for linguistic reasons given at Talk:feticide. It is certainly not a matter of national varieties of English. It is an exaggeration to say there are "cited instances of medical professionals" using this spelling, and it does not appear in any dictionary.. at very best it is a recent and uncommon neologism. It is much more likely to be a mistake. Zargulon 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there are 11,000 google hits for 'fetocide', including extracts from this clinical study, so I think it's fair to say that 'sometimes referred to as "fetocide"' is more accurate than 'sometimes mistakenly spelt as "fetocide"'. Also, the former is less POV. Anchoress 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes it a commonly misspelt word. There are 1,040,000 google hits for the misspelt "comittee". Zargulon 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You said right above that it was an 'exaggeration' that there are 'cited instances of medical professionals' using the spelling; there are clearly numerous instances. How about we find a compromise? If you can find a legitimate reference stating that it is a mis-spelling, you can say that in the article. If Andrew finds a legitimate reference (not necessarily a dictionary) stating that it is a variant, he can say that it is. Otherwise it stays out of the article. How do you two feel about that? Anchoress 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is a common misspelling, the fact that it is a misspelling is conclusively proved by its absence from dictionaries, and strongly supported by the strict pattern of other -cide words. Zargulon 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Sometimes a misspelled word becomes so prevalent that it eventually becomes an accepted variant, at least in some parts of the world. Appendectomy, license (noun), fetus, defense ... there are thousands of them. But I wouldn't accept fetocide, not just yet anyway. The fact that a medical professional misspells a word does not of itself give the alternative spelling legitimacy. JackofOz 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other problems with that article. it's at Feticide, but it uses Foeticide throughout, making one wonder which version of English should be used throughout. As in, should it be "spelt" or "spelled"? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know there are different views on this, but I would argue for "spelled" and "misspelled" (or "mis-spelled"). Spelt is a grain. "Spelled" is sometimes pronounced "spelt", but even that might be a mis-pronunciation depending on where you're from. JackofOz 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer that concern, an editor who was drawn to the page due to my request changed the spelling in the article to 'foeticide' and proposed a move. Before today, feticide was used consistently throughout.--Andrew c 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat widespread use doesn't automatically get you to "accepted variant." Ph.D.'s and academic journals don't automatically produce well-edited prose free of misspellings. Any word spelled feto- or foeto- (except for fetor, a rare word for "stench" related to "fetid") is a barbaric misspelling. At a certain point, of course, what started out as an ignorant misspelling may make it into the dictionary. Cultivated users of the English language (including any medical researchers, etc., who happen to have the extraneous qualification of being literate) will still look down on it. A good example of a misspelling that made it into the dictionary is parallelopiped. But this one hasn't made it into the dictionary. All that said, I don't mean this as a comment on what the Wikipedia article should say. Obviously, a neutral tone is appropriate to an encyclopedia. However, if what's written doesn't tell the reader that it ain't in dictionaries, and ain't gonna be soon, then I'd say some information is missing. Wareh 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When I page through the Google hits for "fetocide", they seem to almost all be citations from medical journals. This is hardly a singular misspelling. I fail to understand the opposition to mentioning this spelling. Rmhermen 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Google gives 79,000 hits for feticide, but only 11,000 for fetocide. Clearly the latter is not uncommon, but that alone doesn't make it a correct spelling. Apparently there is no lexicological reference we can use to support a claim that fetocide is an alternative spelling. Without such a reference, we'd be breaching the no original research rule. Millions of people use effect and affect interchangeably; or their, they're and there; or its and it's; or to, too and two; or your and you're - but despite the increasing incidence of such errors, they still all fall into the category of misspellings, not acceptable alternative spellings. Maybe in 20 years it will be different. Until then ... JackofOz 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The formation "fetocide" is an illiterate abomination, suggesting a non-existent Greek origin fetos instead of Latin fetus. I also find some hits for "fetacide", and they are not about the slaying of cheese.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, it would suggest derivation from Latin fetus (2nd declension) rather than Latin fetus (4th declension). You might as well have "domocile" for "domicile." Interestingly enough, there is a 2nd declension Latin fetus, the adjective meaning "pregnant, fruitful, productive." So "fetocide" would refer rather to the killing of persons or things that are pregnant, fruitful, and productive. "Feticide," on the other hand, is the killing of the young, the brood, the fetus. Wareh 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Lambiam is right and I'm wrong. -ocide is even pretty barbaric for Latin second declensions (though such barbarisms are not unexampled in the dictionary). It follows from general principles, but fungicide is a good example (not fungocide). Wareh 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

old polish words??

I am reaserching my Polish family history and my grandmother has the word 'freblanka' written as her occupation. I am told it may mean nursey teacher but cannot find a way of confirming this. Does anyone have any ideas please?

• Sure -- look it up on the Internets! Now, I don't speak Polish. However, a search led me to this: Freblówka (Europa) (naz. F. Fröbl, pedagog niem., 1782- -1852) nauk., daw. typ przedszkola prowadzonego wg metod F. Fröbla, w którym zwracano uwagę na wszechstronny i harmonijny rozwój dziecka, zgodny z jego cechami indywidualnymi.

So I then figured out this refers to Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel, German educator ("pedagog niem."). "Przedszkola" appears to mean nursery school, so, yeah, looks like you're right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I think "Przedszkola" is (partially through borrowing) cognate to preschool. Polish sound shifts include z's popping up a lot in unlikely places... 惑乱 分からん 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my guess but I didn't want to go so far. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

S letter

Do you have to have an (s) after the following words: Afterward, inward, toward?

You don't have to, but you can. dictionary.com definition Laurən^whisper 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it depends.

1. *Afterward, I was terrified.
2. Afterwards, I was terrified.
3. It came toward me.
4. It came towards me.
5. I was in the inward chamber.
6. *I was in the inwards chamber.

This is how I would "star" some sentences. The starred sentences are the ones I find awkward. --Kjoonlee 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out what the Wiktionary has to say on the subject. Laurən^whisper 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, the preferred form of these words does not have a final 's'. (That said, a final 's' is not unusual in spoken American English.) In British usage, the final 's' is preferred for these words, except for "inward" (or any compound ending in -ward) used as an adjective, as Kjoonlee's last example shows. (The adjectival exception also applies to spoken American English.) Marco polo 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "afterwards" is more common in the US than "afterward", which (unlike in British English) is also quite acceptable. Note that this is typically an adverb. In contrast, "toward" is more common there than the quite acceptable "towards". A simple rule that gives an acceptable form everywhere is: Use "-ward" for adjectives; "-wards" in other cases.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that "afterwards" is more common in spoken American English than "afterward." However, in U.S. publications, "afterward" is the norm. In my day job, I am an editor in the United States, and every company where I have worked has preferred "-ward" without a final "s" in every case. Marco polo 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a remnant of the English case system, where you'd sometiems have the genitive "s" ending, so you can correctly use it wherever you'd have a genitive preposition, such as the ones given. Usually it's the ones where you can imagine an omitted 'to' or 'of', e.g. "Afterwards (of the event), I was" and "It came towards (the location of) me". But you don't say "tops", you say "on top of" or "to the top". Whereas in Norwegian, "to the top" can be both "til topps" ("to tops") and "til toppen" (and also "til toppa"). And you have similar things going on in Swedish and Danish as well. So it's not specific to English, but a shared trait of all the Germanic languages that have thrown out the case system. --BluePlatypus 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhyme

Hi all, Can some one plz tell me a noun that rhymes with jazz? jazz here is a name not the music type. As i want to say "Jazz the ...?". Thx

196.218.50.29 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Jasmine

Bass (fish)? 惑乱 分からん 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spazz? --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spazz is your best bet. The only other common words that rhyme with jazz are "as" and "has". Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx but words that rhyme with jazz wasnt very helpful, also i found that spazz means stupid. I really dont think that my nickname should be jazz the stupid, right :) ?

Jasmine(Jazz)

Spazz means more like "crazy". --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say more like clumsy. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from, spazz is generally understood to mean spastic. I'd go with razz if I were you! --Auximines 10:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jazzie the razzie, Jayzie the crazy, Jazzie the juicy, Jazz the lass, Jazzy the sassy, Jazz sexy-ass? =S 惑乱 分からん 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

La Paz.  :) JackofOz 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to know a guy who was proud to go by "Spazz." But the question, Jazz, is this — are you a spazz? If so, Jazz the Spazz, provided you don't have a complex about it. If not, keep lookin'. Wareh 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A little Vietnamese, please.

I was doing a bit of work on this article and I was translating some of the song titles. Most were fine, but for the Vietnamese "Búp Bê Không Tình Yêu" was difficult. What I got when looking up dictionaries was "Bud Carry Without Being in Love" which I'm sure is not that close, since Tình and Yêu both seem to mean 'love' (with the latter being a verb?). Búp was difficult as well. So can anyone help in translating the title? Thanks in advance --Bearbear 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Búp-bê" is actually one word meaning "doll". The word comes from French "poupée", so it's just a two-syllable wordt. In Vietnamese all syllables are written as separate words (because of the language's monosyllabic nature), so you can't just search every single syllable in a dictionary and expect to find anyting sensible. "Tình yêu" is something of the same, except that it's a compound word. Vietnamese uses duplication quite a lot, and just using two words for "love" means "love" again. So the entire title translates as "Doll without love". Greets, David 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a footnote, I think Chinese is similar, words often turn two-syllabic because of clarity, if you understand what I mean... 惑乱 分からん 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was helpful and interesting! Vietnamese makes a lot of sense. I kind of thought it was strange that the two terms sounded so alike. --Bearbear 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Should earth by caps, also is newscasts correct? or is news casts

This is for a publication.

Usually words like "Earth", "Moon", "Sun", of which there is only one, are capitalized. See for example how this is done in our article Earth. "Newscast", with plural "newscasts", is spelled as one word (just like "broadcast"). See for example the use in our article News broadcasting.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, there are many earths, many moons, and many suns, and in a general context you should not capitalise them. But if you're talking specifically about our planet and its satellite, and the centre of our solar system, then I agree, there is only one of each and they should be capitalised. JackofOz 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and when I moon somebody on a sunny day then fall and get earth on my butt, that's no cause to make a capital case out of anything, either. :-) StuRat 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, flashing by night, mooning by day. I'm pleased that you display a well-balanced approach to this sort of thing, and that your time is fully occupied when you're not loitering around Wikipedia. At least it keeps you off the streets, and in the park where you seem to feel so much at home.  :-) JackofOz 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kangofu

Would someone please give me the Japanese character for nurse/kangofu? To be clear, this is a nurse like in a hospital, not breastfeeding. Thanks! -THB 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Til next time, check out Jim Breen's dictionary Kanji is 看護婦 , Hiragana is かんごふ (Katakana is spelled the same as Hiragana, but I'm too lazy to write it out). 惑乱 分からん 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get that link to work right now. Thanks for translating. -THB 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

November 1

Is this saying present in other languages??

After you answered my last question so fully,I decided to ask another thing which was on my mind for some time.

I want to tell you not to get it wrong,it has nothing to do with politics,it is just a sayin which Im interested to..

In my country during 1990s there was a saying :"They dont attack Serbia because of Milosevic,but they attack Milosevic because of Serbia"

Nowdays it became a normal in the everyday speech to say this,off course changing words "Milosevic" and "Serbia" to another words to fit the context

Basicly,I wonder if this is specific to our language,because I think it might be used in another languages,off course little changed to fit another subject,but with the same meanging.

My english is not very good,so if you dont understand the question I may explain it again,its basicly "Is there a saying similiar to this one in other languages",because I think I heard it somewhere else,but Im not sure,my friends say its our invention,but I kind of doubt it... . Thank you

212.200.201.169 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely follow, but wasn't sentences like "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" common long before Milosevic? It's hard to see anything special about that sentence... 惑乱 分からん 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the OP asks if that phrase is commonly found in other languages. I don't think it's an idiom, so I see no reason for it not to exist in other languages. Syntactically, it probably can exist as well in languages that use complex grammar. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar sentence structures are chiasmus or antimetabole. MeltBanana 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are asking more about a different saying with the same meaning, than a saying with a similar sentence structure. I don't quite follow the meaning myself. Attacking Serbia because of Milosevic makes sense, because he was the leading force behind Serbia declaring war on most of it's neighbors. But why would people attack Milosevic because of Serbia ? StuRat 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's like the same line of thought that i hear frequently in regards to America: People will say, 'We don't have a problem with Americans, we have a problem with America.' (Meaning, of course, that their dispute is with America's government rather than individual American citizens.)

Applying that to this situation, the statement might mean that people are not decrying Serbia for Milosevic's actions, but rather are decrying Milosevic for Serbia's actions (which presumably he had a hand in).

I'm not an expert in the politics of that region, though, so that's pure speculation. If that is what it means, though, then the answer to the question is yes, variants of that statement are present in at least (but probably more than) one language. ~ lav-chan @ 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not what you mean, but there is an English expressions with a similar structure. To parphrase your example it would be "You can take Milosevic out of Serbia, but you can't take Serbia out of Milosevic". I don't know if that would be applicable here, but it would mean that Serbia will always be on Milosevic's mind. DirkvdM 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the original saying was a way of the pro-Milošević camp to put a spin on the international criticism, using the paranoid tendency of Serbs to believe the rest of the world is against them: We are under attack, and our enemies use Milošević as a pretext.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont quite understand Serbophobia attacks seen here by Stu Rat and Lambiam.I dont know what I said or wrote to provoke such disgusting hate speech,and so many lies in just a few sentences by some of you.

My question was simply about the line "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" (i just used words "Serbia" and "Milosevic",as they are most common in this sentence,but other words are also used),it had nothing to do with the politics,but some of you are just so full of filth and hate that you just cant resist telling some lies.

Anyway,thank you to everyone who responded to my question,I guess there is no similiar saying("They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X") in other countries 212.200.201.174 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? How can you have misunderstood our answer so completely? 惑乱 分からん 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In English this sort of X/Y/Y/X construction is called chiasmus or antimetabole. --Anonymous, 00:55 UTC, November 2.

Wakran,not you,your answer was OK.I just dont think that lies(like "Serbia declared war on most of its neighbors",while in fact it didnt declare war on anyone) and insults(like "paranoid tendencies") have anything to do with my question...Wakran understood my question right,and responded to it,but insults like those I`ve just mentioned are really not necessery...

Thank you once again

212.200.201.174 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant by saying "no similar saying"? 惑乱 分からん 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the phrase has turned into more of a cliché in the Serbo-Croatian languages (a term I will continue to use until I get a better alternative) and perhaps it has connotations there that is difficult to transmit, but it surely doesn't sound like something corresponding so closely to the culture, that it'd be difficult to translate. 惑乱 分からん 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that Serbia waged war on many of it's neighbors, and support that assertion with the following info from our Wikipedia articles...

From our article on Slovenia:

"Present-day Slovenia was formed on 25 June 1991 upon its independence from Yugoslavia, defeating the Yugoslav Army in the Ten-Day War."

From our article on Croatia:

"Along with Slovenia, Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, which triggered the Croatian War of Independence. The Serb population living in Croatia revolted, supported by the Yugoslav army and paramilitary extremist groups from Serbia."

From our article on Bosnia and Herzegovina:

"International recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina increased diplomatic pressure for the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) to withdraw from the republic's territory which they officially did, however, in fact, the Bosnian Serb members of JNA simply changed insignia, formed the Army of Republika Srpska, and continued fighting. Armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia, supported by volunteers and various paramilitary forces from Serbia, and receiving extensive humanitarian, logistical and financial support from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska's offensives in 1992 managed to place much of the country under its control."

From our article on Kosovo:

"On 16 January 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. The victims had been executed by Serb forces."

Also, Serbia's refusal to hand over some wanted war criminals to the International Criminal Court makes me think that the Milosevic pro-genocide era hasn't yet ended. StuRat 05:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not understand the differences of meanings of "Yugoslav National Army", "Serb population living in Croatia", "Bosnian Serbs", "Serb forces" and "Serbia", but the fact remains that all of those have nothing to do with the question. Zocky | picture popups 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it relates to the original poster's follow up statement: [5]. StuRat 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat: 300.000. Serbs have been ethnicaly clensed from Croatia in 1995....10 precent of the returned....

As for Bosnia,type "Merkale" and search on google or anywhere else...It was the begginging of war,when Muslims shot their own market and blamed Serbs for it...Now its widly recognized that they did it.

Croatian War and Bosnian War,THOSE WERE CIVIL WARS,BEETWEN SERBS IN CROATIA AND BOSNIAN AND CROATS AND BOSNIANS....SERBIA AS A STATE WA NEVER IN WAR,AND ITS ARMY NEVER CROSSED THE LINE...IN SLOVENIA,YUGOSLAV ARMY WAS MULTIN NATIONAL,FROM ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DIED IN 10 DAYS WAR,MOST OF THEM WERE CROATS IN YUGOSLAV ARMY KILLED BY SLOVENIANS...You claimed that Serbia "Declared war on its neighbors..."I`ve just proved you wrong...

But you want to know what genocide is? More then 1000 civilians killed in criminal NATO bombing in 1999...Little 3 year old girl Milica Rakic who was killed in her own house by NATO bombs...Explain to her parents that its not a war crime...14 people killed in Serbian National Televison in belgrade...Explain to their families that they were guilty for working as camermans,jurnalists,make up staff...THATS SOME REAL GENOCIDE FOR YOU!!!

"Serbia's refusal to hand over some wanted war criminals to the International Criminal Court"

WHAT THE HELL???? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WE GAVE TO THEM ALREADY...FIRST OF ALL MILOSEVIC,BACK IN 2001...(now look how they killed him,not allowing him to go to the Hospital ater he begged them to allow him to).........SLJIVANCANIN,PAVKOVIC,LAZAREVIC,SAINOVIC,STANISIC,FRENKY,PERISIC,ZELENOVIC,OJDANIC...ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE SENT IN HAGUE TRIBUNAL BY SERBIAN GOVERMENT....THERES ONLY ONE LFT,RATKO MLADIC,WHO IS AT LARGE,BUT POLICE IS LOOKING FOR HIM....YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT,DONT YOU.....EVERYTIME YOU POST,YOU JUST POST MORE AND MORE FILTHY Serbophobia LIES...YOU REALLY SHOULD APOLOGIZE....

212.200.202.241 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the shouting and talk in a civil manner. Have you seen the film of the Srebrenica massacre by Serb forces ? Here's a video that contains some footage, although the audio is in Turkish: [6]. Both Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić are still in hiding and quite likely being assisted in hiding by the people and government of Serbia. While there were certainly also massacres committed by Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, and Albanians, and the people responsible for those massacres are also to be tried in The Hague, that does not excuse Serbia. The JNA was controlled by Serbs, and changing uniforms to those of the Army of Republika Srpska doesn't excuse their actions, either. While it is regrettable that civilians died in the NATO bombing to end the war, Serbia left no other option, that was the only way to stop the genocide. Many innocent civilians also died in the defeat of Nazi Germany. StuRat 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica?!?! DONT MAKE ME LAUGH....Kravice,East Sarajevo,Knin,Pristina,Pec,Gorazdevac....Do I need to go on? Serbs are the greatest victims of all wars...Bombing of Serbia,MORE THEN 1000 (one thousand!!!) civilians,thats the greatest war crime in histrory of Europe after World War II.....78 days and night of bombing...Tell the parents of 3 year old Milica Rakic that she was also a Serbian killer....NATO commited war crimes and thats a fact....Its not the first time USA did such a horrible things,let us not forget Nagasaki,Hiroshima,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq....Srebrenica,the biggest estemation is around 8000(much too large number)...All of them were males,ALL OF THEM....None of them were under the age of 16....So they were basicly captured Muslim soldiers(mujahedins and other terrorists...) So now its a crime to capture and shoot the terrorist...None of them were under 16 and they were all male.... But look at Nagasaki,Hiroshima ect. How can you even compare it...

And how many Serbs were killed by Albanians since the NATO agresion in 1999??? There are almost no Serbs left in Kosovo....Alongside Croatia,the biggest ethnical cleaning since WW2....Why dont NATO stop that genocide on Serbs...Or why dont they let us go to Kosovo and stop it ourselves...How come Kosovo may get independence,while Republika Srpska cant??

Who will explain the killing of little 3 year old girl Milica Rakic to her parents...Were they also "war criminals"....Serbs extradicted more then 20 people....Everyone but General Mladic....How many people faced charges for destuction of Dresden,for Firoshima,for nagasaki,for NATO agresion back in 1999....ZERO!

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Mladic_i_Clark.jpg ^^^^^^^ Ooop,IS THAT GENERAL CLARK ALONGSIDE RATKO MLADIC....WHOS THE REAL "WAR CRIMINAL" ON THIS PHOTO? 212.200.200.26 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NATO isn't just the US, it's most of Europe and Canada, too. They were implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. They all agreed that Serbia needed to be stopped, as did most of your neighbors. Do you think the whole world was wrong and only you are right ? If you believe that prisoners should be massacred, I see we will never agree on anything, so there is no point in trying. StuRat 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs also murdered children and raped women at Srebrenica, according to this UN report: [7]. StuRat 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha,funny way you Americans look at things...

Let me quote the report you mentioned:

"[W]e saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy"

What he saw was two Serbs with a Muslim hooker.They probably paid it to her,or she gave it to them for free,but from this report you can see that he enjoyed it "She went totally crazy"...So you see that she liked it,she got crazy out of joy.As for blood,maybe she was a virgin,maybe she kept herself for the Serbs soldiers,so you see that even Muslim girls can keep themselves for the right man.How can you blame those two soldiers for giving it to the woman that probably begged them to do her...

But as for kids,even this so called "UN report"(made out of testemonies by paid witnesses and so called "experts"),but even these reports dont mention the killing of the children...No children under 16 years old were killed....

But let me ask you something,if you captured Muslim soldiers that raped you mother,wife,sister,that cut of your children or parents heads,that burned your houses.what would you do? Do you even know how many people died by the hand of Naser Oric and his terrorist group...And he was sentenced to what,2 years???? More then 3000 Serbs civilians died in the area of Srebrenica during 1992-1995 period...So what Serbs did was revenge...Is it any worse then Hiroshima or Nagasaki....Or NATO agression back in 1999(AND NATO DOESNT HAVE "MOST OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTIRES IN IT",AS YOU SAID,BACK IN 1999 IT ACTUALY HAD ONLY 19 MEMBERS,AND RUSSIA,CHINA,IRAQ,CUBA,ZIMBABVE,LYBIA,EVEN SOUTH AFRICAS THEN PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA ,THEY WERE ALL STRONGLY AGAINST THE BOMBING OF SERBIA).....

And please,dont say that Serbs killed children...How can a 16 year old person be a children...He can carry a gun,cant he? He can shoot at Serb soldiers,cant he? So,when you capture a 16 year old muslim that was drugged out of his mind,shooting at you,what would you do? Let him get away with it? Let him go so he can come back and rape and torture more Serbian civilians? Get real,it was a war,not a game.

YXYX 11:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The UN report (not the "so called" report) does indeed contain reports of child murders:

44. As evening fell, the terror deepened. Screams, gunshots and other frightening noises were audible throughout the night and no one could sleep.76 Soldiers were picking people out of the crowd and taking them away: some returned ; others did not.77 Witness T recounted how three brothers – one merely a child and the others in their teens – were taken out in the night. When the boys’ mother went looking for them, she found them with their throats slit.78

158. ... One Dutch Bat witnesses summed it up in this way:

[Y]ou could see the total fear, and I never thought that it really existed, but you could even smell death there because it was total fear, what you saw on the faces of the men and the young boys.368

348 - Witness F, T. 1503 (soldiers in camouflage uniforms were looting houses); Ademovic, T. 1589 (soldiers wearing camouflage (but without insignia) threatening to slaughter the Bosnian Muslim refugees and a soldier wearing camouflage killed a baby with a knife);

448 - By the evening of 13 July 1995, the Drina Corps must have been aware of the VRS plan to execute all of the thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys captured in the area of the former enclave following the take-over of Srebrenica (para. 295 ).

Your statement that girls who are brutally raped "must have wanted it" is obscene. The rules of war do not allow for ANY prisoners of war to be killed, as they can't possibly pose any threat after they become prisoners. The Serbs went beyond killing captured combatants, however, and killed men and boys of, or near, military age, whether there was any evidence they were in the military or not. They also killed and raped a few children, elderly and women. It's almost inevitable that some of this will happen in war, but the soldiers responsible should be tried and punished by their own nation. Serbia, however, as reflected by your attitudes, holds these brutal murderers up as heroes, thus the need for the International Criminal Court. StuRat 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There might have been couple of civilians kids,but most of that is,excuse my french,bullshit...It is similiar to the thing that was done to Germany after WW2....They were even blamed for Katin massacre!!! Its still nothing compared to the crimes that Croats,Albanians and Muslims commited on Serbs....If you are really interested in the subject,I may find the pictures of thousands of Serbian houses that were burnt down to the ground....For example,Serbian population in Croatia at the beggining of 1990s was 15 precent...NOW ITS ABOUT 3 TO 4 PRECENT...On Kosovo pretty much the same situation since the arrival of NATO aggressiors...Look just on all the crimes commited during the March 17,2004....During the single day,about 100 Serbian churches were set on fire,and in days after in many thousands fled away...

Anyway,Serbs never commited crimes masive and disgusting such as Nagasaki or Hiroshima...Who was sentenced for that? No one....American to this day celebrate Nagasaki,Distruction of Dresden,Hiroshima and all other crime as their victories....

Then look at Guatenamo base...Horrors that are hard to imagine for someone from Serbia...But Americans not only can imagine,but they also did it....

the bottom line>>>>>>>Guatanamo=people who did it are being punished,not the General or the President.............So how can you blame President of Republika Srpska Karadzic or General Mladic for Srebrenica......Crimes are done by individuals,there is no "command responsibility".....If there is,who will be sentenced for the brutal and criminal killing of 3 year old girl Milica Rakic,who died from NATO aggressiors bomb....Who will go to International Criminal Court....

p.s.Serbs already extradited Milosevic and about 20 other....They killed Milosevic there and no one of them 20 returned....Albanians,muslims and Croats are ruturning in bunches from Hague Court........Can you please explain that???????????????????????? And now we are guilty for not extraditing our GREATEST WAR HERO GENERAL RATKO MLADIC.......Arent 20 people enough.......Now they have stopped negotiations with EU untill we arrest General Mladic too........So they are punishing the whole nation for just one man that is hiding.................

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Mladic_i_Clark.jpg ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Neither one of these two Generals ordered the crimes himself....Some Serbs killed Muslims...Some NATO soldiers killed Serbian civilians(including 3 year old girl Milica Rakic that was killed in her house while getting ready to sleep).........Now,which one is a war criminal....Niether....Or maybe both???

YXYX 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have absolutely no concept of what war crimes are. It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations. It DOES include civilians intentional executed while in custody. And no, you don't get to decide you've extradited enough war criminals, so are allowed to protect the ones you have left. The EU should absolutely have nothing to do with Serbia until they decide they will no longer support genocide or protect those who ordered it. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba holds a few hundred detainees, none of whom have been executed, many of whom have been released. This hardly compares to the thousands executed by Serbs. As for the atomic bombings of Japan, that ended a war, by killing thousands, that otherwise would have killed millions, had it continued. Similarly, the bombings of Serbia prevented much larger casualties, had NATO allowed the genocide to continue. StuRat 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations. It DOES include civilians intentional executed"...Right,but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were intentional...It killed tens of thousands innocent civilians.....If you think America have right to INTENTIONALY kill civilians,without it being considered as war crime,then how come other countries cant do it...If we had a nuclear bomb,maybe we would have dropped it on Sarajevo or Zagreb...But we didnt...So Srebrenica happend......Is there any difference...Besides that in Srebrenica only males over the of 16 died....Not to mention that they were mostly muslim terrorists...

"atomic bombings of Japan, that ended a war, by killing thousands"...Ok...Srebrenica also ended a war,by killing few thousands males over the age of 16....otherwise many more people would have been killed.

But lets see another fine example of western rethoric:"you don't get to decide you've extradited enough war criminals, so are allowed to protect the ones you have left."

WHAT? How can you call General Ratko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic "war criminals"...In Serbia we have a saying "innocent until proven guilty"....It seems USA is closer to "guilty until proven innocent"....They were indicted,they are not "war criminals",they were indicted for it

But lets see for the International Court...How come we extradited so many people,including President Milosevic and President Milutinovic...How come USA have a strickly policy of no extraditing its citizens to no foreign countries OR international courts...It wont even sign the treaty for the new International court that is going to take place in next few years...Lets say that an american soldier is accused of war crime....THERE IS NO WAY THAT USA WOULD EVER EXTRADITE ITS OWN CITIZEN.......Never ever happend....

And I only have one more question that I would really like you to answer: "It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations."///WHEN NATO AGGRESSORS BOMBED SERBIAN NATIONAL TELEVISION,WAS THAT A WAR CRIME....WERE THOSE PEOPLE "ACCIDENTALLY KILLED"....EVEN THOUGH THE TELEVISION ITSELF WAS A TARGET.......THEN HOW COME GENERAL MLADIC AND RADOVAN KARADZIC ARE BEING ACCUSED OF BOMBING OF SARAJEVO...BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ALSO DIED ACCIDENTALY.....SO IS A NATIONAL RADIO TELEVISION A LEGITIMATE TARGET???????

YXYX 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time, there was no way to target the soldiers and factories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without also hitting the civilians, whether conventional or nuclear weapons were used. So, yes, the civilians were not the targets, but were still hit. The Serbs had absolute control of Srebrenica, however, so would have had no trouble whatsoever in destroying military facilities of the enemy without killing civilians, if that was what they wanted. However, their goal was to kill civilians. As for the US not extraditing to the International Criminal Court, it isn't necessary, as those US soldiers who murder civilians will actually be tried and sentenced in the US, unlike in Serbia, where they get treated as national heroes. StuRat 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You have an interesting circular logic going on MLADIC and KARADZIC:

• They are innocent until proven guilty by court.

• Since they are innocent, we won't provide them to the court for trial.

• Since they will be never be tried, they will always remain innocent.

StuRat 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok,then answer me this:

Vojislav Seselj arrived in Hague Tribunal at february 2003.....Now its November 2006....His trial havent even started yet!!!!! Is that justice?

And another thing...Lets sey we provide Mladic to Hague...Will USA ever provide Bill Clinton to Serbia,since he was sentenced to 20 years in jail back in 1999???????? ......Excatly.......

YXYX 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

They are slow, all right, but that's because they like to research all the evidence thoroughly. Better that than a quick, fake, show trial, like the one in Serbia for Clinton. Apparently they don't even feel the need to have the accused in the country in Serbia to try them and sentence them. I suppose this is an improvement over the usual Serbian method of just killing anyone they don't like. StuRat 06:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour? Read what greatest living intelectual in the world Noam Chomsky think about Tribunal in Hague and about wars in ex Yugoslavija.

Also read what respected american intelectual Ramsey Clark thinks about those wars...And Clark is to be trusted....Then we`ll talk again YXYX 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles on a French calendar

For my niece who is just starting to learn French, I am making a calendar of the year 2006 for her. Should the holidays identified on it have articles or not? That is, should it say, for example, Fête du Canada or La Fête du Canada? (Or is it La fête du Canada?) How about Équinoxe d’automne or L’équinoxe d’automne? If it’s one way or the other, are there any exceptions? I’m leaning toward omitting the articles, but I’m not 100% certain. In case it means anything, the months and days at the top just say janvier, février, mars, etc. and dimanche, lundi, mardi, etc. — Michael J 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be articles on these already. On the French Wikipedia, there's fr:Fête du Canada corresponding to Canada day. Looks like equinox maps to fr:Équinoxe too. Oh, by the way, check out the French resources on Wikibooks: wikibooks:Category:French and the award winning wikibooks:French. --HappyCamper 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of taste (and how much space you have). This calendar leaves out most articles, whereas this calendar sports them. Omitting them seems a bit more "modern", but wanting to appear modern is so 20th century...  --Lambiam^Talk 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambiam. I think it looks better without the articles, so I’m going to leave them off. ... Thanks too, HappyCamper, but I think you took the wrong meaning of “article” in my question. I was referring to grammatical articles, such as le, la and les (the), not Wikipedia articles. I appreciate the effort, though. — Michael J 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

done, through, and finished

Is there any difference when you say "Are you finished?" "Are you done?" and "Are you through?"

thank you.

I think you have them listed from most to least formal, but it's a rather subtle difference. StuRat 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'Are you through?' is very rarely used in a context of finishing something. I'd say it's more likely to be said when the person being asked is crawling out of big tube or something, than in a context of asking about completeness. The other two, however, are pretty much the same. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from, but 'very rarely used' is not how i'd describe it. It is used fairly commonly in my experience, however it holds a connotation that 'done' and 'finished' don't have. Specifically, i think 'through' is reserved for two cases: (1) sarcasm or hostility, and (2) frustration.

In the first case, it's usually kind of a smart-ass thing people say when they think the other person is being annoying or long-winded. You might say 'Are you through?', in a sarcastic manner, when somebody is done lecturing you. It gets across the point that you don't really care to hear their arguement.

In the second case, it usually expresses finality in regards to a frustrating situation. For example, 'I'm through with being picked on!' (to express standing up for oneself) or 'I'm through with doing the dishes!' (to express giving up on something).

I haven't very often heard it used to mean 'done' any other way. Like, i might say 'i'm done with my essay', but i would never say 'i'm through with my essay' (unless i meant i was giving up on it). That's my experience anyway. ~ lav-chan @ 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken English is, and always will be, 'have you finished?' in all contexts. The other forms are American-isms.

I have to disagree with Wooty. "Are you through?" is certainly a well-known phrase for finishing. "Are you through with dinner?" "Are you through with your test?" User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all three are acceptable American English and that "finished" is more formal, though I would not go so far as to say "incorrect". The accompanying tone is important. -THB 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

German :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" or "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen"

Hello,

I am surprised to see that both of these :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" and "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen" result in many results on Google. Which one is correct? I'd say "etwas" is direct object, and the person you ask something in the indirect object, so I'd go for a dative--> Ihnen.

What do you think? Thanks! Evilbu 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos you are asking a question to them, Definitttaly Ihnen. Englishnerd 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" is correct. The person you ask something is the direct object. I don't think "etwas" is the direct object because I can't think of any constructions where you can directly replace "etwas" with the topic of your question. *"Darf ich Sie Weg fragen?" is incorrect, it's "Darf ich Sie nach dem Weg fragen", with an inserted prepositional phrase (which requires dative "dem Weg". With more elaborate questions, it's similar: "Darf ich Sie fragen, ob Sie den Weg kennen?". Again, the content of the actual question is in a different clause. I'd say "etwas" in your examples is something like a placeholder, kind of like a case-less stand-in for the indirect object. I hope I didn't confuse you anymore than was necessary. Rueckk 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sie and etwas are both direct objects. German is far from being the only language in which the verb "to ask" takes two direct objects, of the thing asked (internal direct object), and of the person asked (external direct object). (I link to cognate object because it is the closest equivalent covered here. There is no grammatical difference between "I talk the talk" [cognate internal d.o.] and "I strike the blow" or "I ask the question" [non-cognate internal d.o.]) Wareh 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what explains the many results for 'Ihnen'? I would have used that. Is it the many bloody foreigners like me getting it wrong or aren't Germans themselves too sure either? DirkvdM 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I get only 24 results for "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen" (with quotes), almost all of which are from Dutch sites or in a Dutch context (one site is Estonian). So, yeah, I'd say it's just you guys. Rueckk 10:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But when I was watching Kundun on German television(dubbed of course), an Indian border guard walked up to the Dalai Lama and said "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen", well I would have sworn he said that! Oh well. I'm still surprised.. in Dutch we would have considered it an "indirect object"="meewerkend voorwerp". But Germans also say "Folgen Sie mir" and "Helfen Sie ihm"... so they use a dative while an accusative would have made more sense. I guess this is one of the downsides of languages that are spoken by so many other people. (I wouldn't call them foreigners, because German is spoken in Switzerland, Austria ... and by 70.000 people in Belgium as well.)Evilbu 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

French-English translation

What is the translation of the following French piece?

• Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting."

Does "viennent confirmer" indicate uncertainty in the statement being made? Viennent could have been omitted as well, making the "thèse" certain in that case, not? Thanks! Los Intangibles 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My French is bad, but my impression is that you have misunderstood completely, my rough interpretation is something like:

The satellites movements* (subclause) shall confirm this thesis as one "manoeuvre of lifting."

*(Something seems missing from the French example)

Note, however, that I only have two semesters of French studies behind me... 惑乱 分からん 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"The satellite movements..., which continue their actions without modifying their ancient political line in anything at all, come to confirm their thesis of a "lifting manoeuvre"." This is as close as I can get to the original. Greets, David 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but shouldn't the first clause read "Les mouvements des satellites" or something? 惑乱 分からん 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I read satellites as an adjective modifying mouvements in the sense of "accompanying" and manoevre de lifting as "face lift procedure" but can't make good sense out of the sentence as a whole. -THB 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my first impression, as well, but neither my old French dictionary, nor Wiktionary gave "satellite" as an adjective, so I began thinking that some word was missing... 惑乱 分からん 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite is an adjective, it means non-mainstream. Like the English Satellite State, see my response below. --Cody.Pope 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In English, satellite doesn't mean non-mainstream. A better definition would be subordinate. A satellite state is not one that's not mainstream, it's one that's under the thumb of another one.--Prosfilaes 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

True, I guess I was trying to emphasize that the phrase has nothing to do with satellites in the sky. So "satellite movements" could be the actions of a satellite state etc. Although, French may be more loose in the definition of satellite in this context. Without a source it's hard to say what exactly their talking about. I would guess that it is probably talking about an action of a French speaking African nation, but that is pure speculation. --Cody.Pope 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a quick search of google.fr seems to confirm that the sense here is actions of a non-mainstream political party. --Cody.Pope 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this particular phrase is a bit hard to translate out of context but the English equivalent would be: These satellite movements (which is to say non-mainstream political movements) who pursue their own actions without changing their ancient political lines at all (i.e. en rien) come to confirm this thesis of a "face-lift" (which is to say they're trying to change their appearance artificially since they are still following their ancient political lines). --Cody.Pope 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies. I could have provided a little bit more context (I thought it was already enough):

• Les mouvements satellites de ce parti tels que le ****, qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting."

But I'm more interested in the meaning of "viennent confirmer" here. If the "thèse d'une manœuvre de lifting" is certain, why would you want to make use "viennent" (to come)? It could have been omitted, not? Los Intangibles 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think it is a little stylistic. Without it the text does make sense, but with it the conclusion more clearly follows. It's functions like: "the conclusion "becomes" clear", if you will. --Cody.Pope 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Viennent" has no real meaning. To me "viennent confirmer" and "confiment" would generate the same meaning. There is a slight uncertainty if you add "viennent", but very slight , basically it is a bit like saying that these movements are bringing into the context confirmation of, rather than saying that they are confirming. --Lgriot 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of names in Kurdish to English.

I am an English woman married to a Kurdish man and we are expecting our first child, and wish to name our child with a true kurdish name, but I would like to know the meaning of the name we chose, is there anyway I can find these out, apart from asking my husband all the time? Thanks in advance

195.93.21.69 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Kurdish given names would be a start, although most of the name entries do not include the meaning. I hope that is some help, and congratulations to you and your husband! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You live in the US I believe? You could try looking for some books. I know here in NZ there were various books in the libraries about Chinese names (with English translations). Unfortunately Kurdish names are probably a bit more specialised but you could still take a look. Even if there's nothing in the libraries, you could try a bookshop. Perhaps look at Turkish and Iranian name books as well. They might have a section on Kurdish names. You could also try contacting any Kurdish associations you know of and see if they have any recommendations. Also, I don't know if this is viable in your circumstances but have you considered asking your in-laws for help too? It could way to improve relationships (of course it could be impossible or a bad idea) Nil Einne 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After you have selected one or a couple of candidate names, you might also try asking some Kurdish-speaking 'pedians if any of them happen to know the meaning. Not all names have a well-understood meaning, but additionally they may have connotations, such as a peasant name, or suggesting an old spinster. In selecting a name, I'd also consider how badly it is likely to get mangled when rendered by an English speaker, as will inevitably happen with Helale; some names will hold up better than others. And in terms of spelling in the English 26-letter alphabet a name like Aştîxwaz may be less felicitous.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you and your husband can't agree, use "Benaw". -THB 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on the birth of your child ! (Small Kurds are whey cool). StuRat 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Help a Korean-speaking wikipedian (not me)

It might be helpful if a Korean speaking wikipedian can help here. User talk:Jimbo Wales#A question about gathering in Korean wikipedia. The user appears to be asking a serious question, although I'm not sure if it's something for Jimbo to answer or even to be considered at the English wikipedia at all (as opposed to them considering it themselves). However, although I think I can guess what the question is as can Jimbo probably, it will IMHO help if we can be sure so a Korean speaking wikipedia should try and contact the user and try and provide a better translation. Nil Einne 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Korean, but the link you gave isn't in Korean, in an case (with the exception of a single word, I believe). As near as I can figure, he has formed a group of 13 people who felt there was some type of systemic bias in the Korean Wikipedia, and are devoted to creating articles with an alternative viewpoint. This group has been rebuffed by the Korean Wikipedia establishment (Admins and such), and he is seeking the opinion of Jimbo on this matter. Sub-issues include his signature and a group template, both of which are apparently objectionable to the establishment. He never says just what the bias is that they are fighting against. The obvious issue would be a North Korean/South Korean schism, but somehow I doubt if enough North Koreans have access to the Internet to have much of any effect of Wikipedia. Perhaps the argument is between South Koreans who favor a policy of accommodation with North Korea and those which favor confrontation, although this is pure speculation on my part. StuRat 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Korean editor's User Page, and see he believes in Intelligent Design. If his group is trying to add articles which explain things using the ID perspective, as if they are "equally scientifically valid" with accepted scientific theory, then I can certainly see how this would cause conflict. StuRat 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes go to the Korean Wikipedia, and I can tell you the group Han-O-Baek-Nyeon is against "no fair use" and "NPOV". Fair use is not allowed under Korean law. Other than that, I'm not interested in their goals. --Kjoonlee 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

November 2

Plural of häuptling?

What is the plural of the German word häuptling? Thanks! 210.239.12.93 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The nominative and accusative plural are (die) Häuptlinge. Ein Häuptling, zwei Häuptlinge. The genitive plural is (der) Häuptlinge, the dative plural is (den) Häuptlingen. Please note that, in German, Häuptling (in every case and grammatical number) is always spelled with a capital initial letter. ---Sluzzelin 07:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (I was the anonymous poster.) So, for an article I'm working on, "The Germans called such individuals Häuptlinge (chiefs) . . . " should suffice? — BrianSmithson 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Your suggestion sounds good to me. Another, possibly less ambiguous, English translation is chieftains. (You would never translate chief, as in highest rank of an office, with Häuptling. Häuptling always refers to the leader of an indigenous tribe or variety thereof.) ---Sluzzelin 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just a hint : this online dictionary is pretty good and it usually gives the plural as well : [8]Evilbu 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a standard declination for all nouns ending in -ling? 惑乱 分からん 12:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Most are masculine and follow the same declension, yes. Some words, however, such as das Peeling, or das Feeling, are borrowed from the English present-participle form, and are neuter. They follow slightly different rules, and are usually not used in their plural form. I couldn't think of any feminine German words ending in -ling.---Sluzzelin 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Although that ending clearly has another origin. (The cognate ending to -ing, German -ung, such as in Fühlung and Hoffnung is feminine, btw.) Theoretically, if German would borrow some English word ending in -ling, such as "underling", which declination would be likely used? 惑乱 分からん 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of der Underling, it would most likely be masculine, because it refers to a person, and the German language is sexist enough to usually give nouns for people a masculine case by default. And of course you're right, das Peeling is neuter because German speakers recognize it as a present-participle, and nounified(?!) verbs are always neuter in German (e.g. das Schälen (the peeling)).---Sluzzelin 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just ranting, but in Dutch "stem of a verb"+"ing" (like "opening"="opening") is always female. The equivalent of that rule in German is for nouns ending in "ung", like "die Verteilung". However, I recently discovered that blind trust in a German-Dutch correspondence can be catastrophic.... Evilbu 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a small addendum. After a few hours of sleep I did think of a feminine German word ending in "-ling": die Reling, borrowed from nautical English (or possibly Dutch?) and meaning the railing. So we've come full circle now, regarding Wakuran and Evilbu's posts.---Sluzzelin 12:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay! As a digression, "reling" has also been loaned into Swedish. 惑乱 分からん 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange plurals

• 1. We often say "Mary is friends with Ben", rather than "Mary is a friend of Ben". Why?

• 2. Cigarettes usually come in packets of 20 or 30 these days. If you ask for a packet of X brand, you'll probably be asked "Do you want 20s or 30s?". Why is the plural of these numbers used? There's only one lot of 20 (or 30) in a packet, not many lots of 20 (or 30). JackofOz 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the first example is a variety of Mary and Ben are friends, in other words, put together they are friends, or Mary is friends (together) with Ben? In this case it wouldn't be all that illogical, after all it takes at least two for a friendship, but this doesn't help explain your second example, I'm afraid.---Sluzzelin 13:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could 2 be in genitive, instead of in plural? 惑乱 分からん 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1 I think that "to be friends with" is an idiomatic expression derived from "X and Y are friends". It describes a relationship, like the expression "to be in love with".
• 2. I think that this is a kind of verbal shortcut used by cashiers with a long line of customers rather than "Do you want a 20 pack or a 30 pack?". It works fine to say "Do you want 20s or 30s?" when the customer is ordering multiple packs ("Give me 4 packs of Marlboros."). This then becomes the automatic quick response to any unquantified request for one or more packs of a brand.

Marco polo 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe Wakuran is right, neither are plurals, they're in the genitive. It's another example of retained genitive "s"es in English (see above on genitive prepositions). "Mary is a friend of Ben", becomes "friends with". "A packet of 20" becomes "A packet of 20s". --BluePlatypus 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this really doubtful, at least for the second example. The retained genitive "s" is a historical vestige and not a productive feature of the language. The second example is clearly a recent development that can only be as old as cigarette packs, which long postdate the productive use of a genitive in English.

The first example is less clear. To my ear, it has a modern feel. Blue Platypus gives "Mary is a friend of Ben" as the modern equivalent of "Mary is friends with Ben." But in this example, it is Ben that is in the genitive. If there were a retained genitive, the expression would be "*Mary is a friend Bens", which doesn't make sense, though you can say "Mary is a friend of Ben's", but this is not related to "Mary is friends with Ben", and the two sentences have different focuses (the first one on Ben's friendships, of which the friendship with Mary is one; the second on the relationship between Mary and Ben). If "Mary is friends with Ben" involved a retained genitive, then the meaning of the sentence should be close to "Mary is of friend with Ben". This is not implausible, if the genitive carried an attributive sense, so that "of friend" could mean "friendly". But for this to be a retained genitive, the expression "friends with" would have to be quite old. There would need to be a citation from the 15th century or earlier, when the genitive was productive in English, for this to be convincing.

Marco polo 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Would BluePlatypus's suggestion mean that the possessive 's' can be added to the possessor noun (20s) as well as to the possessed noun (friends)?---Sluzzelin 15:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is certainly not true for English. Furthermore, to a native speaker, "20s or 30s?" with reference to packs of cigarettes does not make sense as a "retained genitive" purely on grounds of anachronism. (This use of the genitive died out long before there were packs of cigarettes.) However, I have taken a look at OED, and there are examples of "to be friends with" as well as "to make friends with" in Shakespeare. Shakespeare is much closer to the time when the genitive was productive. Also, the expression "to make friends with" looks likely to be a retained genitive, especially considering that the expression already existed in Shakespeare's time. So, I think that the suggestion of a retained genitive is plausible after all for the first example. The original meaning could have been "Mary is of friend (friendly) with Ben". "Make friends with" would have meant originally "make of friend (friendly) with". Marco polo 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts so far. Interesting, but I welcome further debate. (PS. I'm retiring from my job today (Friday here), and am taking an enforced 3-day wikibreak while I move to the country.) JackofOz 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I looked at this, but don't cigarettes normally come in 10s and 20s?

Dangherous sadly died in 2080?

In Wikipedia, would I be right to assume we don't say "she sadly died". I've had a look on the Style Guide, but couldn't see if there was a bit on saying "sadly". Without getting into a philosophical discussion about how sad or happy death may be, am I right to remove the adverb "sadly" wherever I see it describing a death in a Wikipedia article? --Dangherous 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say "sadly, she died", as it is presumably the fact that "she died" that is sad, rather than that she died in a sad mood. However, given that the vast majority of deaths are, to some people, sad, "sadly" is somewhat otiose. I wouldn't necessarily always remove "sadly" in relation to deaths. Some deaths can reasonably be said to be more tragic than others.--Shantavira 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove them, period. We don't need to think or feel for the reader. For almost a year now, an otherwise pretty useful editor has been tweaking Eleanor Roosevelt by adding such language (for example, changing "...died at the age of 78" to "...tragically died at the age of just 78"). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apart from the split infinative, this is an encyclopaedia; we should be non-biased, and thus not have such an emotional adverb. Englishnerd 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well with over 7000 Google hits for "sadly" in Wikipedia, someone is going to be kept quite busy. I hope the editing doesn't depress anyone, especially with such moving statements as "Walter was, sadly, unable to control his bladder,".... (I see no split infinitive, though). --Shantavira 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one case where "sadly" might be appropriate; where describing an uncompleted great work. For instance "...planned to complete her revolutionary thingamaflip on return from Tahiti. Sadly, she died in a yodelling accident before this was possible." Flows better with the sadly connecting the sentences. Notinasnaid 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that "tragically" can also be snipped out the article. I've seen the likes of "Sadly, Firstname McGeneric-Surname tragically lost his life due to a terrible illness. His kids and pet dog will miss him dearly. "--Dangherous 20:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Chiffonade

Is this term a noun, a verb, or an adjective? I'm trying to figure out how to describe a vichyssoise I made with potatoes and a chiffonade of bitter greens. Is that correct, how I just wrote it? Could I say 'chiffonaded' bitter greens? Anchoress 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Chiffonade" is a noun. In analogy to how des verts amers sautés becomes "sauteed bitter greens", you could go with des verts amers chiffonnés becoming "chiffoneed bitter greens". In analogy with "marinaded" you get indeed "chiffonaded". Either would be a neologism, though, although the latter form has some 429 unique Google hits. What is the problem with using "a chiffonade of bitter greens"?

Thanks for the detailed reply! I don't like 'chiffonade of bitter greens' because it's waaay too formal when I'm describing it to my mom and my friends. Sounds like something The Galloping Gourmet would say, or Batman's butler. That's all, lol. Anchoress 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

English pronunciation of Kant

I've been wondering about this for a while now. Do English speakers pronounce Kant's last name like can't, or do they approximate the original pronunciation? Rueckk 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, English speakers usually pronounce the philosopher's name roughly as a German would pronounce "*Kahnt" (except that English speakers may end the word with a glottal stop rather than a "t"). To my ear, this is similar to the pronunciation of "can't" for speakers of British English, but for Americans, this pronunciation is very distinct from the pronunciation of "can't". Marco polo 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

word search

what are the three words in english finishing in ...gry. Angry, Hungry and ????

I've come across this before, and I needed to look at the way the original question was phrased. Perhaps this link will help you.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It explains everything. now i must try and confuse others as I feel it has been answered.:-)

There is actually a Wikipedia article on this: Gry Wareh 01:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. ARTFL allows you to search an unabridged dictionary with all kinds of operators, so you can search for word-endings, alternate word-middles, etc. (example). And the Regex dictionary is very similar. Wareh 01:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[9] may be relevant. --Ptcamn 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

November 3

Translation meaning

What is the direct translation of Veniete Adoremus Dominum? It is Latin and I need it to know what it means in English.

Heh, found it in Wikipedia no less! At Adeste Fideles#Latin lyric it says it means Come, let us adore the Lord. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanings of alternate conjugations of Anochecer (spanish)

The Spanish word Anochecer confuses me a bit and I have yet to find a good online explanation... so here goes the question: I know that it means 'nightfall/to get dark' but when it becomes conjugated to something like the future tense, el form to 'el anochecera', does this mean that it means "He/it will grow dark"? Or does the meaning change when it is applied to people instead of dusk? --69.255.250.201 05:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WordReference, the verb anochecer can have two meanings. One is to get dark, the other is to be somewhere at nightfall. So your example, él anochecerá, presumably could also mean he will be (at a certain place) at nightfall. ---Sluzzelin 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The profession of neurology

I was wondering if there was a professional term for one who is a neurologist. (What would be written in a medical degree?) For example, one can be a secretary, but the professional term is an "administrative assistant." Are people that are neurologists just neurologists? Thanks. --Proficient 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think neurologists are considered professionals enough in themselves, so nobody has bothered having the term rephrased in fancy mumbo-jumbo... 惑乱 分からん 11:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Words beginning with 'C' in German

I've noticed that there are very few words in German that begin with the letter C, and those that do seem to be borrowed from another language, e.g. der Computer, das Curry. Is there any reason for this, and are there any 'real' German words beginning with C? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't come up with any, though some borrowings, such as Christentum (from Greek), are much older than Computer and Curry. If you count proper names, there's Calw, Hermann Hesse's hometown, the spelling of which dates back to the 11th century. German orthography wasn't codified until relatively recently, and back in the 19th century words such as Zentrum and zivil (both with Latin roots, of course) where often spelled Centrum and civil.---Sluzzelin 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of place names also changed since the 19th century; Köln (Cologne) used to be Cölln, Kassel used to be Cassel, just to name those I can immedially recall. I assume this was to mirror the general replacement of c by k. Most of what remained unchanged at the time must be words starting with ch. All examples I can come up with are of Greek origin, I think: Charisma, chronisch, Chronik, Chimäre, Chirurgie, etc.

I think it's a bit like the most recent orthography reform. ph can be replaced by f in most cases, except when words of Greek origin are affected: Physik and Philosoph, for example. —da Pete (ばか) 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the question about "the reason for this," as Sluzzelin implies, is that Germany orthography has been reformed since the 19th century to move toward a one-to-one correspondence between phonemes and graphemes. In German, the letter 'c' does not correspond to a unique phoneme, and so it has been removed from the orthography except in borrowed words. (Before 'e', 'ä', 'i', and 'y', it is pronounced like 'z' and has generally been replaced by this letter in orthographic reforms. Reforms have similarly changed 'c' to 'k' before other letters.) The one exception is the combination 'ch', which does correspond almost uniquely to a phoneme (albeit with two allophones). However, the 'ch' phoneme does not occur initially in standard German (Hochdeutsch), except in a few Greek borrowings. Marco polo 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph alignment

Can somebody tell me which the most widely used format for aligning paragraphs is? Does the first sentence of a new paragraph always begin a few centimetres from the margin? If so, what exactly is that system of punctuation called? Thanks for your time.--202.164.137.73 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is usually indented by half a centimetre or so. (Another method I've seen is to skip a line.) The main reason for this seems to be to signal the start of a new paragraph clearly when the previous line finishes at the right hand side of the page. Thus, the first paragraph of a new page or section doesn't need to be indented. I don't think it has a name, it's just a convention. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard return may be of some use. As may Indentation. Hope these help.--Andrew c 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Phonemic disctinction between /r/ and /ɹ/

What languages distinguish between /ɹ/ and /r/, /ʁ/, or any of the other "r sounds"? Mo-Al 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)