August 1

Chinese translation

What is zh:帛金 in English? Or, how is it best translated into English? Many thanks, --HappyCamper 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather in the Cantonese version of the article, when a person dies, his friends give money in envelopes to the deceased's family to show respect for the dead, as well as his family. The first character means "silk", and refers to valuable material. The second word means "gold" - self-explanatory. So I guess one way you could call it is "funeral money." Pandacomics 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purely fictional money given to the dead is sometimes called "hell banknotes"... AnonMoos 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "funeral money" (or "funeral succor/relief"?) is real money given to the families of the deceased, not to the deceased. The term seems only occur in the southern dialects (Cantonese, Hakka), and has no standard translation.--K.C. Tang 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Chinese co-worker of mine recently died, and we collected money in the office to give to her family. When my father in the U.S. died, though, what friends of the family brought us was food (things that were easy to freeze and re-heat later), which was probably more useful. None of us was really in any condition to cook. —Angr 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce: Temescal ? Choices: TE-mes-cal, Te-MES-cal, etc.

Please post the answer, somewhere, in the Temescal entry.

Thanks.

Only a local answer is likely to help you. You could try calling the Temescal Branch Library in Oakland, California, on 510 597-5049. Xn4 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyon and Knott has the stress on the last syllable: [ˌtɛməsˈkæl]. --Cam 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: [ˌtɛməˈskæl]. --Cam 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to Xn4 that we ('Merkins) make calls at a certain number, not on one, just as we live on such-and-such a street, not in it (unless, oddly enough, we happen to be homeless). +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in Malibu, California, where there is a Temescal Canyon. We always said "te-MES-cal"--for whatever that's worth! I have no idea if that is the "correct" pronunciation.--Eriastrum 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marked nouns in English

Our article on Marker (linguistics) includes the following example of markedness (which is of course a different notion):

"A marked form is a non-basic form, such as the singular of nouns in English (e.g. 'cat' versus 'cats')."

It seems to me that the singular is decidedly unmarked in English. Am I being dense? Tesseran 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that sentence in the article I've replaced "marked" by "unmarked" and "non-basic" by "basic". --Lambiam 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are Delation and Zele

These are a couple of words in the article on Indignité_nationale (a legally defined offence, created at the Liberation of france during WWII in the context of the "Épuration légale"). I found this definition of Delation on the French Wikipedia, but I don't read French. From the Article:

La délation est la dénonciation faite dans le but d'en retirer un avantage personnel (ou inspirée par un motif méprisable, selon la définition du Robert). Un délateur est une personne pratiquant la délation.

Dans le langage courant, délation paraît de plus en plus utilisé pour une simple dénonciation. Cette assimilation trouve sans doute son origine dans le cas de délation le plus connu : les dénonciations pratiquées sous l'occupation par les collaborateurs.

I was also thinking Zele may be a French spelling for Zeal?

Thanks, --Czmtzc 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"La délation is a denunciation made with the aim to draw a personal advantage out of it (or inspired by a contemptible motive, according to Robert's definition.) A délateur is a person practicing délation.

Colloquially, délation seems to get used increasingly for a simple denunciation. This assimilation, without doubt, finds its origins in the best known case of délation : the denunciations under occupation made by collaborators ."

WordReference.com has zeal for "zèle", and "good will" for "bon zèle", but "zealous", "officious", and "eager beaver" for "zélé". For "délation" it has "denouncement" and "tattling", while "délateur (dénonciateur)". is translated as "canary (informer)" . ---Sluzzelin talk 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! thanks! Czmtzc 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pottery translation

Can someone please identify/translate the symbols found here. (sorry for the low quality pic. the symbols were pretty faded as is.) They were found on the inside of the bottom of a broken piece of pottery. 69.123.113.89 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but I think it's either running script or grass script. Please see East Asian calligraphy. The first character is probably 京, [capital] city. --Kjoonlee 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second character vaguely reminds me of 汚 (wikt:汚), but I'm not at all familiar with cursive scripts so don't take my word for it. The last character reminds me of Hiragana ら a bit, which was derived from 良 (wikt:良), but again, I could be totally wrong. --Kjoonlee 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I photoshopped it a bit, adding cyan lines to show the characters (parts were too faint to scan properly). It can be viewed here. 69.123.113.89 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are you sure they're Chinese characters at the first place?--K.C. Tang 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitly characters of some kind, but I don't have the slightest idea if they're Chinese. 69.123.113.89 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual

I pronounce manual differently depending on whether I mean something like a manual gear stick (sounds like manyil) versus an instruction manual (sounds more like manyul). Is this a recognised difference, are there other words like this, does this phenomenon have a name?

Aaadddaaammm 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but I pronounce both the same, and different from both of your pronunciations: "man-yu-wool" in three syllables. —Angr 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it as "MAN-yu-al". You didn't give any stress markers, so I'm not sure, but you could be using a self invented Initial-stress-derived noun, where "manyil" is your adjective and "manyul" is your noun. HYENASTE 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are other words like that. In American usage, "offense" and "defense" are often accented on the first syllable when referring to one of the two sides of a conflict, as in sports, but on the second syllable in other senses such as "an offense against human decency" or "a defense against viruses" (see e.g. at www.m-w.com). I'm not aware of a name for the phenomenon. --Anonymous, August 2, 2007, 04:03 (UTC).

In both the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary and in the American Heritage Dictionary (both on line), "manual" is given only one pronunciation for all meanings: "man'yoo-el". As an American, I don't recall hearing any difference in the pronunciation of the word for different meanings.--Eriastrum 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but I pronounce Manual in the same manner as AAAdddaaaammmm. For reference, I'm from Texas. -Czmtzc 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Thanks for all the info. I'm from Noo Zealand FYI and I think the initial stress derived noun could be what's at play here. Keep it coming, if you have more to contribute. Aaadddaaammm 21:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

Logical fallacy.

I'm sure I've seen it here so sorry but I've been googling it for half an hour and I just can't think of it!! What's the logical fallacy that is something like : it is very unlikely a new discovery is made within a field by someone who is not an expert. ?

sorry forgot to sign, Vespine 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to authority? --Reuben 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps we can coin something like "distrust in amateurs".--K.C. Tang 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are qualified enough to coin a new word. Leave that to the dictionaries. HYENASTE 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

just for the convenience of this discussion, not for any "original research" on the Wikipedia, to be sure...--K.C. Tang 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary writers aren't supposed to coin words. --Anon, August 2, 04:05 (UTC).

In many cases it is very unlikely – depending on how well studied the field is, and how much effort it takes to become an expert. So I'd say this is, in general, not an actual logical fallacy. It would be one for a new field in which there are no experts yet. The argument is vaguely reminiscent of Appeal to tradition. --Lambiam 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you reason that "it is very unlikely for a new discovery to be made by a non-expert; therefore this claim that there has been a new discovery by a non-expert is wrong", that is the fallacy of appeal to probability. --Anon, August 2, 04:10 (UTC).

The context is I have technophobic friends, who know next to nothing about computers or the internet who sometime come up to me telling me they have this great idea to make heaps of money on the internet; (me working in the IT field have default become the local expert) mind you I don't know much about internet marketing. What I do know is that the IT bubble burst a long time ago and there are a lot of people trying various things to make money on the interent and unless you are getting into gambling or porn, you have to be somewhat internet savvy before attempting to start online business. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere, they knowing NOTHING about the internet think they have a better idea about making money off it then a million people who are trying to do nothing but that. The same thing applies to just about any field you can think of, not just the internet, Vespine 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the logic behind your friends' thinking "they have a better idea about making money off it"? There can be no logical fallacy if there's no logic at all.--K.C. Tang 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambion sorry your post didn't quite sink in, I didn't word myself correctly, the logical fallacy is the opposite of what I wrote, like you said, it IS, as in see my internet example above. That argument is used to oppose the logical fallacy I'm trying to think of. Vespine 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional bias or Wishful thinking? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's a world of difference between an unlikelihood and a fallacy. In this instance, if someone had a new and brilliant idea for making a lot of money (unlikely, perhaps, but possible), then it might be one which could be projected on the internet. Complex though the internet is, no one needs to be a technician to use it as a tool, any more than it takes an aeronautical engineer to fly a helicopter. Xn4 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question was discussed a bit (without resolution, but at least there's some Mencken) over here. --TotoBaggins 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked List of fallacies? 152.16.188.107 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Dunning-Kruger effect? --Reuben 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, that must be what I was thining of because it's exactly right.. Sorry for the run around! Vespine 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian vs English Accent

How come Americans cannot seem to distinguish between an English accent and an Australian? Being an Australian, the two are totally different and can be distinguised within a few words! I know plenty of Australians who say they were often mistaken as being English whilst in America. Do the two accents really seem the same to their ears, or is it because they assume we all speak like Steve Irwin, and anything else is an English accent? :D

Also, just curious, can Americans and English people tell an Australian accent apart from a New Zealander's? I know that I cannot tell an American from a Canadian (except perhaps that Canadians speak a bit less 'harsher', for lack of better word), even though Americans insist that they are way different.

I'm British and have friends from all of these places. I am generally able to recognise the difference between a New Zealand and an Australian accent, and between a Canadian and a US accent. I find the distinction quite small from my point of view, and I know that most other British people cannot tell the difference between them. For me, the Australian and British accents are quite different. Looking at the vowels in the IPA chart for English just shows how clear the difference is. However, I imagine that many Americans do not have the opportunity to hear these accents, properly labelled, regularly. This might be one of the reasons why the NZ/Oz and Can/US accents are difficult for Brits, but I maintain that these pairs are closer than Australian/British. — Gareth Hughes 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can tell Australian from English, but from South African is harder. Not sure if I can tell Australian from New Zealand, which probably means that I can't. Watching TV, I can often detect a trace of Canadian accent and sure enough at the end of the show it turns out to have been filmed in Canada. Gzuckier 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American and can tell all the accents apart (Kiwis from Aussies, Canucks from Yanks etc.). However, I lived in Australia for over a year and can often tell regional accents apart quite well too (Adelaide vs. Sydney vs. Cairns). That being said, I'd say the reason why the "average" American can't spot the differences is simple exposure. Most Americans will never leave America or have a passport. Additionally, our pop-culture representations of the various accents is often off (with Australians playing Americans, Americans playing Brits, and Canadians playing South Africans -- to varying degrees of success). The best example of this is the "accent" of the guy in the Outback Steakhouse commercials in the states -- I've never heard anyone anywhere talk like him. Moreover, the typical northern Queensland-like accent (and to a lesser extent a central "outback"-like accent) is almost the only version of an Australia accent represented in our media (think Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin etc.). So when an American that thinks all Australians sound like Steve Irwin, hears someone from say Adelaide, then they often can't place the accent and default it to British. --Cody.Pope 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're spot on, Cody. An example of this regarded as a classic over here, is Dick van Dyke's ridiculously awful attempt at a Cockney accent in Mary Poppins. Just laughable. As an aside, a comedian I once saw at London's Comedy Store, did a routine about how Sean Connery never plays Scots, making a living playing Englishmen (e.g. James Bond, or King Richard I) and sometimes Irishmen (e.g. in The Untouchables). Then imagine - one day his agent calls and says "Sean, I've landed you a role in a film about medieval Scotland!" "Really?" "Yes. You'll play a Spanish nobleman! --Dweller 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And wasn't he really ancient Egyptian? Corvus cornix 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but his current pseudonym at the time was Ramirez. -Czmtzc 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original question, I think the reason why British and Australian accents sound similar to American ears is that they have a major common feature: the absence of an American accent. I have heard that to British ears, American and Australian accents sound similar: this would be because they both involve the absence of a British accent. What specific phonological features might be involved, I can't say. --Anonymous, August 2, 2007, 21:40 (UTC).

I had a friend from Texas who hated her accent and overlaid it with phony British. She has been mistaken for Australian. —Tamfang 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English and don't have a bad ear for accents. I have no trouble spotting Canadians, South Africans, Barbadians, and even the broad variations between the US regions, but I do have trouble separating Australians and New Zealanders.

With Australian English, the variations in pronunciations between that and what we could call BBC English are no greater than between BBC English and most UK regional dialects (several of which are regularly heard on TV in the US), and on the whole Australian turns of phrase are much nearer to English English than to American English. So if some Americans think Aussie is an English accent, it doesn't surprise me.

I can't agree with Anonymous that there is such a thing as a 'British accent'. Would anyone from the UK use that term? I wouldn't, myself. Xn4 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell,no! There's a difference between a Salfordian accent and a Mancunian one and they are neighbouring cities.hotclaws 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it seems that many Americans use the words British and English as if they were interchangeable, and intuitively pick the word that is incorrect for the context in which they use it. Thus they might describe Gordon Brown as the prime minister of "England", before going on to suggest that he has a "British accent".

Put simply, to talk about a "British accent" is nonsense. People from Britain have English, Scottish, Welsh etc accents. Anyone who can't distinguish between the accent of someone from Kirkcaldy and the accent of someone from Truro would probably think an Australian accent was "British" too. 64.236.80.62 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, see? --Anon, August 3, 21:16 (UTC).

Actually, to Australian ears, often, when Americans try to do an Australian accent, it sounds like Cockney, which might be what the questioner means by an 'English accent'. I think it's indicative of how many working class Londoners were transported here as convicts. Adambrowne666 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Cockney is most similar to the Australian accent, although certainly not the same. But with Dick Van Dyke and Bart vs. Australia as references no wonder the Yanks can't tell the difference. Incidentally, I can't tell Canadian from American unless they say aboot (which I learned from the South Park movie) and sometimes they sound a bit Irish. To tell New Zealanders from Aussies I need to hear the i sound (e.g. fish and chips vs fush and chups), but they do sound similar. Maybe it's my experience but there seems more variation between regional British accents than in other Anglophone countries. Compare Scouse, Brummy, Geordie, Mcncunian, Cockney, West Country and Yorkshire (and many many more) not to mention all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland! Cyta 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it may also be that folks in the U.S. don't often hear Australian and English accents side-by-side, and it's difficult to make the comparison. I'm certain that if I were to hear an Australian person and an English person conversing with each other, I could tell the difference; but to hear them individually a day apart might be more difficult. It's just because we don't have the experience in identifying such accents. (On the other hand, I can easily tell by an accent where in the U.S. someone is from, probably because I'm more familiar with them. It's easy to distinguish accents from Texas, Boston, California, the Midwest, Pennsylvania, etc. And I've noticed different Canadian accents that I assume are regional, but I don't have the experience to know what region is what.) — Michael J 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, whilst generally this discussion has been very good at not saiying english when you mean british, do we know that james bond was english? any reason why he couldn't be scottish?welsh? northern irish?

Non-Surety Bond

Definition of "Surety Bond" is here, but read an article with a "Non-Surety Bond" and cannot make sense of it without the proper legal definition... --Binkywright 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation can be found here. Not being familiar with the notion, I can't guarantee its correctness. Furthermore, the precise meaning may be jurisdiction-dependent. --Lambiam 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to play catchup

In the letter I came across such phrase: "I'm playing catchup here". What does it mean?--Seaweed71 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means you're having to "catch up" with other people - like for example if they know something you don't. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphor is of people running, one falling behind and needing to catch up. —Tamfang 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of English

When a judge finally disposed a case, what is the right expression: disposed off, or disposed of?

Disposed of, although personally I am not familiar with the term - is it a legal term to signify the end of a case? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a general English term. The meaning of "to dispose of an issue" is: "to deal with the issue" – in a conclusive way, so that no further dealing will be needed. A quote from the Nebraska Administrative Code: The Hearing Officer disposes of any pending motions, petitions or stipulations and other matters that need to be dealt with before evidence is taken. --Lambiam 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs adding to this is that in the systems of common law, disposing of a matter isn't in itself final or conclusive, as most decisions are subject to appeal, within whatever time limits may apply. This is sometimes true even of interlocutory decisions. Xn4 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop that idiom!

Is the term "butterfingers" used in British English? For the record, that would be used for someone who is prone to dropping things, and I want to use an adjectival form in an email I'm sending to a friend in Birmingham (e.g. "should be safe from butterfingered neighbors.") --LarryMac | Talk 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those who are buttefingered are neighbours. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the writer is American, he would drop the 'u' even if he is writing to an English friend. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will parenthesize the u, to make a colo(u)rful statement. :-) --LarryMac | Talk 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free dictionary for download

Is there a free dictionary of the english language available for download in a readily accessible database format (e.g. excel, access)? And if not, why? Who owns my language!

Nobody may own the language, but dictionaries are original and copyrighted works, so it would not be surprising if they weren't available for free download. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one dictionary which has lapsed into the public domain which has been scanned and OCR'd, although I've lost track of it. I'm sure google would turn something up without too much effort. 65.91.98.102 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Compact Oxford English Dictionary online here. Xn4 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.91.98.102, I had done some googling before wasting wikipedia helpdeskians time, but was using the wrong search terms: "free" and "dictionary" weren't getting me anywhere. Thanks to your post, I have searched for "public domain dictionary" and have found what I was looking for (see [1]). I suggest that a link to this is put on the dictionary page as this is a useful resource.

As far as I am aware, no one can copyright any definition of a genuine word in a dictionary. The trick they use to catch plagiarists is to include made up words, the definitions of which are copyrighted. When someone dumps the whole text of the dictionary somewhere, the extra word is included as a sneaky little legal virus (or trojan horse if you prefer), and they get into loads of trouble. Same with maps - they include a bogus country. So I've read. 203.221.126.206 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other open/free dictionaries and word lists:

Our own multilingual Wiktionary
Grady Ward's "moby lexicon"
The Princeton WordNet [2]
The Project Gutenberg 1913 Webster's Unabridged
The Project Gutenberg Roget's Thesaurus
A /usr/dict/words-style list based on the 1934 Webster's Second International

—Steve Summit (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trick words 203.221 refers to are fictitious entries (in maps they are known as trap streets), although they can't actually be used to prove copyright infringement in court, at least in the US (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). Laïka 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to pronounce, but I did it

Hi. I was reading the guiness book of world records, and I saw a list of the longest word in 14 languages. I parcticed saying each word many times, then started recording the time on a stopwatch, until I got the fastest time. I'm not sure if there are any world or local records for fast speech of certain long words, and I doubt I broke any of them, but here is a list of words, their language, and the fastest time I recorded of me saying them without making errors (although likely I said them with a heavy accent). Here goes:

Japanese: chinchinmogamaga (transliterated): 0.5 secs
Castilian: superextraordinarísimo: 0.82 secs
French: anticonstitutionellement: 0.84 secs
Italian: precipitevolissimevolmente: 1 secs
Portuguese: inconstitucionalissimamente: 1.03 secs
Icelandic: hæcstaréttarmalaflutinsmaður (the o accent actually looks like a slightly bent cross): 1.03 secs
Russian: ryentgyenoelyektrokardiografichyeskogo (transliterated): 1.5 secs
German: Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften: 1.5 secs
Hungarian: megszentségtelenithetetlenségeskedéseitekért: 2.07 secs
English: pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-coniosis: 1.69 secs
Dutch: kindercarnavalsoptochtvoorbereidingswerkzaamheden: 1.62 secs
Danish: speciallægepraksisplanlægningsstabiliseringsperiode: 1.96 secs
Welsh: llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch: 1.9 secs
Finnish: lentokonesuihkuturbiinimootoriapumekaanikkoliupseerioppilas: 2.84 secs
Swedish: nordöstersjökustartilleriflygspaningssimulatoranläggningsmaterielunderhållsuppföljningssystemdiskussionsinläggsförberedelse-arbeten: 5.28 secs.

So, if there are any records for quick pronounciation of these words, did any of my times come close? What does a test to see how quickly one can say words in a given language tell you about the participant? how quickly, in theory, would the world's fastest speaker say each of these words? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Icelandic word should be "hæstaréttarmálaflutningsmaður". The letter you find hard to recognize is eth. As for your questions, I have no idea. I doubt there are recorded or well-defined records for this. Haukur 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dutch and swedish words also contain minor mistakes, (dutch: ...bereidings... and swedish: ...spanings...) and I wonder how on earth you can pronounce these words without knowing these languages and their rules for pronunciation??? Lova Falk 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just fixed the words you mentioned and the letter eth. Since they are very long, it it easy to make typing mistakes. Basically, I just guessed how to pronounce them, and I realise I may have made a few mistakes because I might not have looked over some of the words hard enough. I also memorised a few of them, although likely still with a heavy incorrect accent. How fast do you think an average person could say them in a way they think is correct? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guess the pronunciation of this place name, and how long does it take you? Xn4 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Bwa ha ha. Some of us speak (some) Welsh. I actually have a song with that place name memorized. I can pronounce it accurately in about 2 seconds (I don't have a stopwatch, so I can't be exact). The Jade Knight 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Russian word, all the ys indicate palatalization of the preceding consonant; they don't have a vowel sound. The g near the end is spelled as g but pronounced as a v. --Reuben 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tried to look at the word and figure out a pronounciation, but it made my eyes hurt (mainly because it was on a computer, and I didn't wan't to print it). So, I went to the article (which you linked), and looked at the englishicisediversionatriously written form with the conveinient hyphens so my eyes don't hurt as much. It look around 15-20 minutes to learn the pronounciation, which is about the same amount of time it took to memorise the approximate pronounciation of the other words around this length. Part of the time was spent trying to look for a stopwatch, but I couldn't find it 8-[|= . So, I decided to use a digital clock. I estimate that the fastest time on that word was around 1.85 - 1.95 secs. In fact, once I learn the pronounciation of a long word, I seem to remember it. For example, without even looking, I'll try to type out the approximate spelling of the long swedish word (without accents because they may cause memory loss and eye damage because I would have to scroll up all over and look at the word that I've typed thourougly). Here goes: nordosterjokustartillerifygspanningssimulatoranlaggningsmaterielunderhallsuppfoljningssystemdiskussionsinlagsforberedelse-arbeten. So, how did I do? (Is it possible to use speech and memory tests like this to detect IQ, personality, diet, etc?) Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can pronounce "inconstitucionalissimamente" in about half a second. Keep practicing. :-) Hús ö nd 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, but that's because you just happen to be Pt-n, en-n, sv-2, and ru-2, and I just happen to be en-4 and fr-1, so I can't really pronounce all of them that well, as can you. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.85 seconds for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch is acceptable. Your picture is now on the Welsh flag. Xn4 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is misspelled too. You're missing an "l" in the "volcano" part near the end. Mike Dillon 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Oops, How did I miss that? Anyway, I found the stopwatch this time, and without actually looking at the spelling or the pronounciation this time, the welsh word took 1.9 sec or so at the fastest, and where did you get my picture?! Also, I can now actually memorise the approximate pronounciation and spelling of practically all of these words. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good job on pursuing this, but I suggest you do a little more research before launching off so ambitiously. "ð" is nothing like "ò", and Swedes, especially (nothing against), will thrash you if you mess "å" with "ä"! ALTON .ıl 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I updated the times, fixed a spelling error, and tried to pronounce them more accurately. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes instead of Da in a Russian movie

I just finished watching the Russian movie Night Watch and noticed that the English word "Yes" was used instead of Russian (twice in the scene where the boy Yegor asks his mom about vampires). Is it common for "Yes" to replace "Da" ? Is it perhaps used to indicate the family's origins, or maybe something else? TresÁrboles 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not say yes instead of da in Russia. I think it has something to do with the nationality of the family. But we usually say yes if we want to show that we are very glad and satisfied with something. So, if you learn somethng pleasant, you say Yes!

Is it possible they were saying "Есть" (yest’) and it just sounded like "Yes" to you? —Angr 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on why this is likely: if Yegor asked "Mama, do vampires really exist?" and she answered "Yes", she might well have used the Russian word есть (yest'). In this context, the word means "there exists", in the sense of "Do vampires really exist?" "They exist." Tesseran 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably it -- a happy coincidence "they exist" in Russian sounds like "Yes". I uploaded a (fair-use I believe -- delete if not) small audio sample so the context can be checked. The English subtitles were:

(Yegor) Mom...

(Irina, talking to someone on the phone) You can't?

(Yegor) Mom? Are vampires real?

(Irina) Yes, Yegor.

(Irina) They're little boys who suck the life out of their parents. TresÁrboles 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is есть used in plural as well as singular? —Tamfang 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing detail: I wrote the above question in MSIE on Windows, and the т looked like m; now I see it in Firefox on MacOS, and it's a slanted T. —Tamfang 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian hand-written lower-case "T" does indeed look like "m," and that can be reflected in script/Italic typefaces. Not always, though. They're both variants of the same letter. --Reuben 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I knew that. Tamfang 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. It's interesting to note that yest' is a cognate of English is and Latin est: Indo-European copula. Not obvious whether it's also a cognate of yes: [3] --Reuben 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true of modern Russian, but originally there were different forms of the verb for all the different conjugations, including different forms for plurals (there is a list at Indo-European copula#Slavic languages). I don't know if these would even be understood by your average Russian speaker today. Tesseran 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also used to express possession, like we would use "have" in English. So if Yegor asked "Do you have a pen?" the answer might also be yest'. --Reuben 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, here's the transcription of that audio sample:

(Егор) Мам...

(Ирина) Вы не можете?

(Егор) А вампиры есть?

(Ирина) Есть, Егор.

(Ирина) Это трусливые мальчишки, которые пьют кровь своих родителей.

q:ru:Ночной дозор (фильм) --tyomitch 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish: ryńskich

What is the literal meaning of the word ryńskich, which occurs on XIXth century Austrian banknotes (like this 500 Gulden banknote from 1806)? It stands for the denomination of the banknote, but Gulden is złoty in Polish as far as I know. Timur lenk 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the term. Rynek means "market" which sounds like the root of the word, if that's the case "ryńskich" would literally be the possesive form of the noun, as in "of the market", which makes sense I suppose to use as a word for currency. Googling the term, it looks like in other places the word is actually used with złotych, as in złotych ryńskich, golden currency. My Polish is probably only about as good as a 10 year old's, so I could be completely wrong. Vespine 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you're close to the solution: an 1866 one Gulden bill says (on its reverse, lower right hand side corner): Jeden złoty reński. Złoty must stand for Gulden, the currency name, not for gold, since the Austrian Gulden (Gulden österreichische Währung) was a silver-standard currency (however both złoty and Gulden means golden and designated a type of golden coin originally). The denomination is indicated in 9 languages on this bill, but only the Polish version has three words, that's why ryńskich or reński is interesting. The Czech version says Jeden zlaty on the same note, while the Ukrainian says (roughly) Оден реньскіи which also contains rensky. Timur lenk 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a "Rhenish zloty": [4]. There may have been a few different kinds of zloty at the same time, since Poland was partitioned several times, and I think this was to clarify which kind was meant. --Reuben 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe than "ryńskich" is an old spelling – or simply a misspelling – of "reńskich" which would be short for "złotych reńskich" or "Rhine guilders" (in genitive). — Kpalion^(talk) 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hamlet in Poland called Ryńskie as well as a large Ryńskie Lake – which might be the source of the (mis)spelling. --Lambiam 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the hamlet and the lake are connected with the banknote but it is etymologically connected to the Rhine. The name Ryńskie comes from the nearby Ryn castle built in the 14th century by the Teutonic Knights. The local landscape probably reminded them of the Rhine valley and hence the name which was later Polonized into Ryn. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translation problem seems to be solved. I still don't see why the Austrian florin (Gulden österreichische Währung) is called Rhine guider (ryńskich/reński złoty) in Polish (and the other language that uses the cyrillic alphabet). Any idea? Timur lenk 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article [5] (unfortunatly in Polish but the pictures are interesting) after 1857 in Galicia the old name of the Austo-Hungarian currency was kept. Why it was done is not explained. Mieciu K 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slimeball

If we say that a person is a slimeball, what does it mean?

It means we see him or her as "a despicable or disgusting person". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

Ancient Greek

Is

ό την εφορος όλιγορχηιν

grammatically correct for "the overseer of the oligarchy"? - using Ephoros as overseer (is it correct to do so?). Thanks ΦΙΛ Κ 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look correct to me. Where does this come from? Should this be modern Greek? In that case I would use ο έφορος της ολιγαρχίας. Google searches tell me that έφορος is also used in modern Greek.[6] Disclaimer: my knowledge of modern Greek is limited to what I've picked up on occasional visits. --Lambiam 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Ancient Greek I'd use the word order ο της ολιγαρχίας έφορος. —Angr 06:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address whether or not using "ἔφορος" is correct for overseer, but I believe the correct form in Ancient Greek would probably be something like "ὁ ἔφορος τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας". The lack of breathing marks and accents makes "ό την εφορος όλιγορχηιν" look to me like modern Greek, but the use of "την" doesn't look like a genitive to me (it's accusative) and "όλιγορχηιν" also looks weird. I believe the accusative form of "ὀλιγαρχία" is "ὀλιγαρχίαν". Mike Dillon 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was normal in Ancient Greek to stick the genitive modifier between the definite article and the noun, thus "ὁ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ἔφορος". —Angr 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your comment before I made mine. I agree that your word order seems more natural. Mike Dillon 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Period in numbers

According to full stop, "In most English-speaking countries, the full stop has the former usage while a comma or a space is used for the latter"

"In much of Europe, however, a comma is used as a decimal separator, while a full stop or a space is used for the presentation of large numbers"

Why the difference? 68.231.151.161 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question leaves out the beginning of the quotation, which is needed to understand it -

“

The same glyph has two separate uses with regard to numbers, the one applied being determined by the country it is used in: as a decimal separator and in presenting large numbers in a more readable form.

”

The difference simply represents the survival of different traditions in accounting and in writing numbers which have grown up over about the last two hundred years. These usages became standardized at each national level, and not at a pan-European level, though in practice the French forms came to dominate much of continental Europe, while the English-speaking world held onto its own quite different ideas. Until recently, much the same was true of the systems of measurement in use in Europe, though the metric system is now in the ascendant everywhere. Xn4 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even within English-speaking countries, the use of the dot as a decimal point didn't come close to universal until the last 40 years or so. Before that, it was common practice in Britain to use a centered dot (·). --Anonymous, August 3, 2007, 03:10 (UTC).

A centred dot is what I was taught to use at school, and if I'm writing a decimal point by hand I still use it. Actually, I believe it's still used by some schools in the UK. Xn4 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece letters

I've seen a picture from a riddle that contains greece letters, and I can't quite make 'em out. I've tried putting down the letters ín a dictionary but no founds were made. I also tried to search it on google, but there was 0 founds.

Therefor I've turned here in hope that someone from greece could try understanding the 2 words, and if you don't, you could just transliterate them for me, that would be really helpful.

Words: Ρυσσιαν ΡουλεΦτε

Thanks /Daniel

'Russian Roulette' created by typing the letter in with a Greek layout, it's not necessarily a proper transcription--Duomillia 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And misspelled "Roulefte". --Anon, August 3, 20:37 (UTC).

Okay, thx for the translation.. All well to you

MM implies that this is what you'd get if, accustomed to a QWERTY typewriter, you tried to type "Russian Roulefte" on a Greek typewriter; but I believe the layout of the two typewriter standards is not similar enough for this to work. (I remember an episode of some detective show, likely The Streets of San Francisco, in which the criminal provided a clue by typing "I worked with the butterfly" (meaning the victim) in English on a Greek typewriter in that way, without respect to the actual values of the letters. The result was not what you'd get if you tried to transliterate.) —Tamfang 02:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, would that mean that when you type double-t on a Greek keyboard, you get the combination 'ft' as in Ρυσσιαν ΡουλεΦτε?--Manga 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does indeed look like a reasonable mistake on a Greek keyboard, since φ is on the English f key.[7] — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, when I try to type Russian Roulette with the Greek setting in MacOS, I get Ρθσσιαν Ροθλεττε; theta is on the U key, otherwise what you might expect. I wonder how many Greek typewriter layouts there are. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Practice Makes Perfect" & "Nothing is Perfect" = Oxymoron?

Hello. If "nothing is perfect", how can "practice make perfect"? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same way "absence makes the heart grow fonder" even though "out of sight, out of mind". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "don't sweat the small stuff" even though "the devil is in the details". Recury 16:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing nothing will make you perfect, I guess. Or maybe not. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just means it's impossible to practice long enough. —Keenan Pepper 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we talking about practice? I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we're talking about practice. Clarityfiend 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that people say "practice makes perfect" because doing the same thing over and over will give you the confidence to do that activity, to the point that one might do it without being aware they've done it. However, because of human error, you cannot guarantee it to be done right 100% of the time. --JDitto 05:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically, because they're as short and memorable as possible. "Practice always improves" is more true, but doesn't sound quite as good as "Practice makes perfect". 68.39.174.238 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Bokmal and Nynorsk (3)

Is the Norwegian language spoken the same way regardless of using Bokmal or Nynorsk as one's written norm? Heegoop, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

There are those two quite different written standards. Then there are a lot of quite different dialects. In theory there doesn't have to be a close connection between the dialect you speak and the language form you prefer in writing. In practice, Nynorsk's stronghold is in the west of the country and the dialects there are, indeed, closer to that standard than the other dialects. Haukur 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of gentleman

There is no Dutch article on the word, so I'll ask this here. The article makes a connection with the German word 'Adel', which also exists in Dutch. I believe that is another form of 'ijdel', which means 'vain' or 'not working'. And the article indeed mentions the 'unemployment' of gentlemen. I had always assumed that it referred to gentlemen not having to work, but now I wonder about the etymology of the words, both in Dutch (edelman, adelman, 'ijdelman'?) and in English (gentleman, nobleman). Which meaning came first, 'gentle' as we understand it now, or 'unemployed' (a word that nowadays has a rather opposite ring to it)? DirkvdM 08:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adel and ijdel are not etymologically connected. The first comes from a form with þ in Proto-Germanic (shown by Old English ǣþel, German Edel), the second from a form with d (shown by Modern English idle, German eitel. —Angr 10:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article Gentleman: "To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man who did not need to work..." This is not a present-day notion, or not for more than a tiny number of people, but it died only in the 20th century. No one ever expected Bertie Wooster to find himself a job. There was also no reason why he shouldn't have done so and remained a gentleman. Almost certainly, when asked for his occupation (for instance, when applying for a passport) he would have put 'gentleman', meaning that he lived on his own private means.

As you say, the word 'unemployed' has a rather opposite ring and is generally used of people who need to work but are out of work. Xn4 01:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had an interesting idea in connection with this. Gentlemen don't need to work because they are born into a rich family. I'm unemployed, but I can still cope because I'm Dutch and get an 'allowance' from the Dutch government. Which is really the Dutch people. So if I regard the Dutch people as my extended family, I could consider myself to be a gentleman in that sense (if that were a correct interpretation). With the major exception that in exchange for not working I receive a minimal amount of money in stead of shitloads. Which appears much more equitable to me. :) DirkvdM 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Bertie is paid for not working ... —Tamfang 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the word 'edel', then? Is that connected to 'adel' or 'ijdel'? Interestingly, that word is also used for noble gas, which is a translation from the German 'edelgas'. And a noble gas is an inert gas and inert (again according to the article) means 'to be in a state of doing little or nothing'. I'm probably stretching this a bit too far now, though. :) But the similarity in meanings is rather striking and suggest a common origin. DirkvdM 07:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated above by Angr, adel and edel are etymologically related, while ijdel is unrelated. --Lambiam 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose?

I just was looking at the " who" article and I was a bit taken aback by the "whose" example:

He is someone whose help ended my despair. ("whose" is adjunct to help, the side clause's subject)

Though this is correct, I find the example a bit contrived. Given how easily whose and who's are confused in English, I think a more strait forward example would be better. For example, when I first read the sentence, I assumed there was a tense error with a who's confusion, when there really isn't (i.e. He is someone who has helped to end my despair, which is not what the sentence says). He is someone whose help I appreciate, feels like a more straight forward example to me, but this may just be my idiosyncrasy. Thoughts? --Cody.Pope 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your example is more "straight forward" ... but the original example is nonetheless correct. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I also prefer your example, but are whose and who's so easily confused? I can't, off-hand, think of a sentence in which the correct spelling and meaning aren't clear. Xn4 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original sounds contrived also to me. The example, by the way, has been cloned in the article on Hypercorrection. On confusing whose and who's: just like the pairs of homophones their – there, your – you're, and its – it's, they get confused all the time. If you Google "someone whose a", "someone whose the", or "someone whose not", you'll find plenty of confused uses. --Lambiam 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a difference between 'easily confused' and 'confused all the time'. When I asked "are whose and who's so easily confused?", I didn't mean "are they easily confused by people who don't know the difference?". It's easy to have a road accident if you're a careless driver, and even easier if you drive without having learned to drive. Xn4 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences sound a bit contrived to me: the more natural constructions would be "His help ended my despair" and "I appreciate his help." How about something like "I apologized to the man whose hat I sat on?" --Reuben 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I "cloned" this discussion on the "who" talk page. Thanks for the input! --Cody.Pope 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Could you please translate this letter?

I've typed in a letter to <email address removed>. I've typed down this message so I could email <email address removed>. He is the letter

Hello. Please don't take this e-mail as a confusing message because the title is in English and the message is in Japanese, unless you have a translator to describe the English title. I use a technique to translate English to Japanese so you can understand this e-mail.

I am a fan of the awesome manga Naruto from the United States. As a proud Naruto fan myself, I totally dig the characters. They are awesome, and so is Masashi Kishimoto, who created the manga. He simply became a great manga artist from Okayama Prefecture who made a great series. I just sent this e-mail to you guys to tell you of how much I like the Naruto series.

I need this letter to be translated to Japanese so they can understand the message. Could someone please translate this letter?

I think it's sweet that you want to write a fan letter like this, and even sweeter that you're taking the trouble to try and get it translated into Japanese. But don't worry too much if you can't get it translated. I would just send it anyway - there'll almost certainly be someone at the company who understands English. Don't hold your breath expecting a reply, though. One small point about your letter - the first sentence could be changed to read "I am a fan from the United States of..." or "I am an American fan of...". The way it's written at the moment makes it sound like the manga itself comes from the United States. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language, personal description

What is the name or description of someone that refuses to take responsibility for individual circumstance or actions?--69.146.225.212 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush? Bielle 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politician in general? —Tamfang 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck-passer? Your boss? Clarityfiend 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irresponsible? A.Z. 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to play. Determinist (Social, Genetic or Calvinist)? Frivolous litigant? I'm avowedly irresponsible but I take full responsibility for the effects of my irresponsibility. 38.112.225.84 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shirker? malingerer? casuist? --TotoBaggins 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalist? The Jade Knight 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek letters for leet

Hi, there is a form of leet that uses Greek letters to write English words, for example "τηε" for "the", I searched around and can only find Greeklish, but I don't think that is the name of this leet style. Anyone got a clue what it's called and perhaps its rules? Thanks! --Taktser 10:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the output of the old Symbol font. Look at this table in particular. I don't think this has a name, but it was effectively a pre-Unicode font that (ab)used ASCII character values by giving them Greek glyphs. Mike Dillon 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: on my screen (Firefox on MacOS) the Symbol column shows the Greek letters and some of the logical operators correctly, but the other characters are all wrong. —Tamfang 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on Symbol font... AnonMoos 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Cyrillic, in regards to Russian used in the way you mentioned. ALTON .ıl 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French expression

Can somebody please supply a colloquial French expression equivalent to "narrow minded bastard" ?86.200.6.236 16:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

"Bigot" [8] is close, but not so strong.SaundersW 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the invective bâtard in French, but salopard or salaud are more colloquial. Borné (literally "limited") is the usual term to denote the same concept as "narrow-minded". Together, you could use salaud borné for a man, and salaud bornée for a woman, or, if you want to be fully grammatical (salud and salopard are masculine nouns), salope bornée (salope = "slut"). These terms are insulting and their use may be considered offensive. --Lambiam 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad . . . ?

I am going to sound cranky, and likely also old, but what does "my bad" mean, and where does it come from? It seems to substitute for something like "my mistake", except that "bad" is an adjective (modifier, whatever) and not a noun. Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide. Bielle 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms and expressions like "my bad" don't always abide by the grammatical rules that apply elsewhere in the language. You're right that "my bad" is basically a synonym for "my mistake" or "it's my fault". There's a post by Geoff Pullum at Language Log on the origins of the phrase --Miskwito 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Miskwito, for the reference. I have never heard the phrase spoken, but I see it frequently here on Wikipedia. I kept looking for a completion ("My bad . . .what?"), but came shortly to the conclusion that not everyone could have made the same typing error. Bielle 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always heard it as an abbreviation/running together of 'Am I bad?'. It just goes to show, you never know. (And that folk etymologies are usually wrong!) Skittle 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it tons and use it every once in awhile. It's really more used to acknowledge that it's your fault. I see it almost like a combination between "don't worry about it" / "I'm sorry" type thing. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My bad" is a more annoying (but less Latin) version of mea culpa. In some dialects, "bad" is also a noun, BTW. The Jade Knight 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me as a British English speaker it definitely sounds like an Americanism, and grates horribly. It's like saying 'no fair' when you mean 'it's not fair', something that you should have grown out of by age 8. Cyta 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the same question last year, see [9]. The other thing to note is that it has a flippant undertone of "don't care" about it - it roughly means "I made a mistake, so what". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use it like that, but it's by no means required. Oddly enough, the first place I heard it was in pick-up basketball, just like the Language Log link above says, and of course when it's used there it's not going to have that flippantness about it since you don't want your teammates to hate you. Recury 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never thought of "my bad" as having a flippant tone of "I don't care" at all. I do associate it with sports, though. I think of it as a quick way of acknowledging an error as one's own without necessarily apologizing for it. I've seen a parallel in choral singing, where some people will raise their hand with the index finger extended when they make a mistake, as a way of signaling to the director that they are aware of the mistake they just made. —Angr 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I actually first started hearing it and using it because of tennis... Maybe it did stem from sports. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never use the expression, though I hear it fairly often. I agree that it is not necessarily dismissive and can indicate a genuine apology. I am an American and probably one of the older contributors here, and I can testify that this expression entered American English during the 1990s, or the 1980s at the earliest. I have not owned a television for several decades, and when I started to hear that expression, I assumed that it, like so many others, was popularized on TV. Whether it originally came from the sports world, I don't know. Marco polo 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

MLA Citation

I'm guessing that this is the place to ask - how would I cite an Act of Parliament (specifically the Stamp Act of 1765) in MLA format? Everything on Google is unclear. Thanks a lot. -- Sturgeonman 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer, but the second external link at MLA Style Manual says:[10]

Legal source

Consult The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, Ref KF245 .U53, kept at the Reference Desk.

--Kjoonlee 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link also has a bit on government documents; maybe that would fit better? --Kjoonlee 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the English "duh" derived from the Русский (Russian) "da"?

Considering that both have the same meaning (or at least most of the time, I often hear "duh" as a synonym for yes), are they actually connected? MalwareSmarts 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it. "Duh" is more of an imitation of a sort of contentless mumble produced by a stupid person. And its usage is more complex than just as a synonym of "yes"--it's used to imply that the "yes" answer is incredibly self-evident, and that the person asking the question was foolish for asking it. The implication is that the answer should be obvious to anyone remotely intelligent. It's closer in meaning to exclaiming "well, obviously!". The American Heritage Dictionary, in fact, in its etymology section on "duh", says simply imitative of an utterance attributed to slow-witted people, suggesting an onomatopoeic origin. --Miskwito 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! But please post more answers. MalwareSmarts 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on duh but it's not very helpful. The article on d'oh says "duh" comes from Archie Comics although that claim is uncited. Adam Bishop 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Moose was characterized by his frequent use of "duh". He used it in the older sense, of course, saying "Duh, yeah, Archie, I love ice cream!" (where the meaning is only that he's stupid, not that he's sarcastically chastising Archie). Tesseran 05:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Moose was likely to begin any utterance with "duh", not only affirmative answers. "Duh where should I put these boxes?" — I dimly remember irritating my parents by saying "duh" a lot when it was in sarcastic vogue among my peers; and yes, I'm reasonably sure we got it from Moose. —Tamfang 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first example for "duh" given by the OED is: "1943 Merrie Melodies (animated cartoon) in J. E. Lighter Hist. Dict. Amer. Slang (1994) I. 672/1 Duh... Well, he can't outsmart me, 'cause I'm a moron." Whether this is the first attested instance of "duh", or just an early one that the OED chose as illustrative, I don't know. In any case, the only thing it says about the etymology is: "imitative". --Miskwito 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilwarks

I can't find the definition of the word wilwarks Can you please find the definition for me because i can't find it.

There is no such word in English. Check your spelling, or maybe give a context in which you have seen it? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) The word wilwarks is on a list for school work. Here's the link. http://amitylearning.com/treasure/vocabulary.html It's near the bottom.

Ah, ok, so it looks like it's a word from Treasure Island. Still can't help you I'm afraid, since the Oxford English Dictionary has no definition for it. But it sounds like it might be a nautical term - possibly one coined by Stevenson. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google produces only three links: two are lists of words from Treasure Island; the other is a forum where three people asked what this word from Treasure Island means, and got no response. —Tamfang 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm pretty sure it is a misprint for bulwarks, which word occurs in Chapter 34 of Treasure Island between gibbet and sojourn, just as in the word list. It is a bit silly because bulwark or bulwarks is also used in Chapters 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27, but not listed there. --Lambiam 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix

Please could someone explain why the English plural of Grand Prix is Grands Prix? See Formula One -- SGBailey 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the phrase originates in French, and Grands Prix is the correct French plural. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And although we English speakers don't always use the correct foreign plurals, Grand Prixs looks stupid! Also in common usage I think it would be written Grand Prix (even if technicaly incorrect) and pronounced like Grond Prees. Cyta 09:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, then, is the deal with "secretaries general"? Is this from French (or some other language that pluralizes like that)? Or do we just always pluralize like that when the adjective comes after the noun? Recury 14:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the latter. "Secretary-generals" would look odd, since it would have a singular noun even though it's actually a plural. The same applies to "ladies-in-waiting" - "lady-in-waitings" would look mighty odd. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it is because the noun is always the part that pluralises. After all if there is more than one secretary, there are many secretaries, whether these secretaries are general or not. If we happened to call one a general secretary rather than secretary general (and why not?) the pluralisation would be obvious. Grands prix is a different case, grand is the adjective (meaning large) and prix the noun (meaning prize). In French adjectives must agree with the noun, so grand becomes grands when describing a plural. Most words in French take s in plural form so this is obvious. Agreement also happens with gender. e.g. Un grand homme, une grande femme, les grands hommes, les grandes femmes. Cyta 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there can be some confusion because "prix" is both the singular and plural form. Adam Bishop 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I meant to say that. That's why I chose a more obvious example for the agreements. Hope it all makes sense now anyway. Cyta 12:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers

I would need someone who could (and would) look over a one-page text written in English--I hope that it's all correct, but I'd need a native speaker to verify that. Do you know of any internet site where I might find such a selfless hero, possibly even short-term? Or at least someone for one paragraph? (Or would you be willing to help me out yourself? Pleeeease?? ~looking at you with the most imploring face that I can muster~ :o)) Thanks a million for any tips and help!! --Ibn Battuta 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing. —Tamfang 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sooo much!! --Ibn Battuta 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, why not just post it on your user page, and let the wiki-magic copy-edit it? --TotoBaggins 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, she wanted the content kept quiet. —Tamfang 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal Numbers

I have often wondered about this -- and since it came up again recently, I have decided to ask here. When you have an ordinal number like, for example, "sixth" ... it is often abbreviated as "6th" ... which makes a great deal of sense. But, why and how on earth did they come up with odd things like "2nd" for second ... or even "1st" for first ... "3rd" for third, etc. I mean, they aren't even close to being the phonetic or literal equivalent sound like 7th or 10th (etc.). Does anyone know the origins of these odd labels? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd have thought it's fairly straightforward. You have the number written as a numeral, so it's clear what number is being refered to, then you have the last two letters of the word. It avoids duplication, is clear and easily parsed. Or have I missed something? It seems more like the abbreviations we use for taking notes, where you use the beginning of the word and some representation of the ending as a superscript at the end, than an attempt to render a phonetic equivalent. Skittle 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Joseph means is that if you read "1st, 2nd, 3rd" "phonetically", you'd get "onest, twond, threerd". "5th" is also tricky, it could be read as "fiveth". That's not the case with "4th, 6th, 7th, etc." where you get "fourth, sixth, seventh". — Kpalion^(talk) 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"..., eightth, ..." Tesseran 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got that that was what they meant, I was just wondering if I had missed some depth to the issue or some reason for supposing they were intended to be phonetic. Skittle 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of digit + ordinal ending is not confined to English. An example from Latin is 8° to stand for octavo, which does not contain the Latin word octo for eight. In older English texts you likewise see superscript ordinal endings like 1^st and 2^nd. It is not a rebus or 1337, but a shorthand notation. --Lambiam 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The digits ordinarily have a numerical value, not a fixed phonetic one. For example, we write 11 even though eleven doesn't sound anything like one-one. Today, numerals are used for their phonetic value, in text message abbreviations, but I believe that's a recent innovation. Latin had all kinds of scribal abbreviations, and as Lambiam points out, 1st, 2nd, etc. have equivalents in Latin - but these can't be older than the use of Arabic numerals in Europe! I have vague memories of reading a discussion somewhere of where 1st, 2nd, etc. first came into currency in English, but unfortunately I don't think I have access to it any more. --Reuben 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can have VIII°, though, like here. This is apparently from a charter of 676 A.D., predating the early 13th century introduction, through Fibonacci's Liber Abaci, of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system in Europe. --Lambiam 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the standard way of writing ordinals in medieval documents, long after the introduction of Arabic numerals. And when Arabic numerals were used, they retained their Arabic shapes and didn't evolve into the modern shapes until long after the 13th century. Adam Bishop 15:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIII° would have been pronounced "octavo", so the "°" would have been an "o". Corvus cornix 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the little o comes from the ablative case, which, if you are writing dates, will be the case of all the ordinal numbers, since they describe "day" and "year" which are masculine. In other grammatical cases, they also had a little superscript a, or other squiggles to represent -us or -um. Or, often, they just left the Roman numerals bare, and you would have to recognize from context that they were ordinals. Adam Bishop 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

Languages without open vowels

Open vowel says that most languages have at least one open vowel, but it does not cite a single language that doesn't have one. Could someone provide an example of a lighter language without an open vowel? HYENASTE 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every language has a general [a] type vowel of some sort. I seem to remember that Kabardian was once famously analyzed by a linguist as having only one underlying vowel, but I'm not sure that that has held up... AnonMoos 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Dates In The Month Of May That Are Of Interest To Linguists for a joking reference to this (as well as a lot of other linguistics in-jokes). AnonMoos 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those jokes I got was the Great Vowel Shift one. =[ Is it safe then to change open vowel to read "all languages" instead of "most languages"? HYENASTE 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because you don't have a reference for that claim. Tesseran 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the current "most languages" is similarly unreferenced so we have a zero-sum reference in this situation. And it is the responsibility of the editor to cite the exception of the rule that a language contains one open vowel or more. Furthermore, in the case between accuracy and inaccuracy, accuracy should win. Right? HYENASTE 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are maybe 5000 spoken human languages. No-one has examined the phonology of all. In fact, I am sure that among those there are literally thousands of which the phonology has not undergone a thorough examination. Therefore, even if we found a citation for a claim (as opposed to a conjecture) that all languages have at least one open vowel, we just know the author is totally irresponsible in making such a claim. In contrast, you only need to examine a fairly small random selection of languages to proclaim with very high certainty that most languages are thus equipped. The latter statement does not imply (at least not for me) that there exist counterexamples. However, given the large number of languages with just a single open vowel, I would not be shocked if a counterexample is found, for example in some dialect of Arabic. It might also turn out to be a borderline case. The vowel space is a continuum in which each language's vowel phonemes are fuzzy and elusive subsets, and in several cases allophonically straddle what is normally considered the dividing line between open and near-open. I think that is true for the Standard Arabic vowel normally transcribed as "a" or "e", which ranges from open to open-mid. So one might well have a language with a vowel that some classify as open, and others as near-open. --Lambiam 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is serious research into Linguistic typology and universals going on all the time, by individuals who don't consider themselves to be "irresponsible"... AnonMoos 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as those researchers define a linguistic universal as a property that applies to all known languages, they are on safe ground. Should they turn this into a pronouncement including the many languages that have not been studied, they are replacing observation by conjecture. --Lambiam 10:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Lambiam, you seem to be applying pure abstract logic, without having any very specific knowledge of the field of study in question. 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, why not say "no documented case of a language without an open vowel". If someone finds one, fine. And I've yet to see documentation of an Arabic dialect without an open vowel. /a/ tends to have a very wide range of allophones in many dialects, but including [a] or [ɑ]. Drmaik 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that for purposes of this sort of generalization, vowels called near-open on the IPA chart will count as open vowels. Thus even if you find a language whose openest vowel is /æ/ or /ɐ/, that language still has open vowels. —Angr 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translating simple letters from english into spanish

I sponsor a child in Guatemala and he wrote me a simple letter thanking me. I would like to write him back and be able to translate my letter written in english into spanish. How can I do this using Wikipedia? thank you

Wouldn't writing it in English be a good idea so that the child can practice their comprehension of written English when they get the return letter? Unless you get a Spanish speaker to help you online automated translations are not reliable as many words have more than one meaning and the translator cannot determine which one is pertinent to the context of the letter. If it is a short letter some one might be able to help you. If you want to try online you could try Babel Fish. To demonstrate what I mean about the translator 'guessing' here is the article on Babel Fish translated to Spanish from English and then back again. Lanfear's Bane

English: Babel Fish is a web-based application developed by AltaVista (now part of Yahoo!) which machine translates text or web pages from one of several languages into another. It takes its name from the Babel fish, a fictional animal used for instantaneous language translation in Douglas Adams' novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The word Babel is a borrowed reference to the biblical account of the city of Babel and the various languages which were said to have arisen there. The translation technology for Babel Fish is provided by SYSTRAN, whose technology also powers most of the language pairs for the translator at Google Translate and a number of other sites.

Spanish: El pescado de Babel es un uso tela-basado desarrollado por AltaVista (ahora parte de Yahoo!) qué máquina traduce el texto o Web pages a partir de la una de varias idiomas a otra. Toma su nombre de los pescados de Babel, un animal ficticio usado para la traducción instantánea de la lengua en la novela de Douglas Adams la guía del autostopista a la galaxia. La palabra Babel es una referencia prestada a la cuenta bíblica de la ciudad de Babel y las varias idiomas que fueron dichas para haberse presentado allí. La tecnología de la traducción para los pescados de Babel es proporcionada por SYSTRAN, que tecnología también acciona la mayoría de las parejas de lenguas para el traductor en Google traduce y un número de otros sitios.

Back to English: The fish of Babel is a fabric-based use developed by AltaVista (now part of Yahoo) what machine translates the text or Web pages from the one from several languages to another one. It takes his name from the fish of Babel, a fictitious animal used for the instantaneous translation of the language in the novel of Douglas Adams the guide of the hitchhiker to the galaxy. The Babel word is a lent reference to the Biblical account of the city of Babel and the several languages that were said to have presented/displayed there. The technology of the translation for the fish of Babel is provided by SYSTRAN, that technology also drives most of the pairs of languages for the translator in Google translates and a number of other sites.

Wow, that's actually quite impressive. I haven't done that round-trip in several years, and it really has gotten *a lot* better. Except for the "fabric-based use" part, it's a completely usable translation, which certainly was not the case in years past. --TotoBaggins 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is better than it used to be, but I think it still loses quite a lot. A personal letter would probably lose more context that a factual article (I didn't have any examples of personal letters and it might detracted from my point). While useable, it's more of a stopgap than a solution. Lanfear's Bane

What did CJK type cases look like?

If they had to contain instances of all the Hanzi / Kanji / Hanja characters, then they had to be really huge and unhandy... I just cannot imagine a case divided into ten thousand boxes. Did they take up several rooms in the printing houses? --195.19.132.65 10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See History of typography in East Asia. In short: it was a problem. --TotoBaggins 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story as told there ends around 16th century... What did they use for printing in the first half of 20th century, for example? --195.19.132.65 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was big honking typecases. The L.A. Times had an article ca 1988-9 about the closing of one of the last L.A. area Chinese letterpress shops and they had massive cases. Some han are more common than others, so the arrangement was presumably based at least partially on frequency, just like in the California case for the roman alphabet. Donald Hosek 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re wording sentence

Hi all, I could use some help in rewording this sentence to sound better: "The squad leader, Davis, a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle" I just can't figure out how to use 2 descriptive in 1 sentence like that above. 67.169.185.206 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Davis, the squad leader and a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle." Well, it reduces the commas, but is not much more elegant. SaundersW 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR -- "A seasoned soldier, the squad leader Davis fired his rifle." Not the best but ... perhaps you are trying to squeeze too much into one sentence? (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

--or-- "Squad leader Davis, a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle," --or-- "Davis, the seasoned squad leader, fired his rifle." --Reuben 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am trying to sqwwze too much in, Thanks anyways! 67.169.185.206 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more natural in two sentences. "Davis, the squad leader, was a seasoned soldier. He fired his rifle." Xn4 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many sloppy journalists would write: "Davis was the squad leader. A seasoned soldier, he fired his rifle." (I like Reuben's versions best.) —Tamfang 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"God Forbid" in Arabic

How does one say "God Forbid!" or "Allah Forbid!" in the Arabic language (using Roman letters)? I see we have articles on the Arabic versions of "God willing" and "God is great," but we seem to be missing the phrase that one would say if something is either unfortunate or immoral. Thanks!--M @r ē ino 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search gives معاذ الله ، لا سمح الله ، لا قدر الله as three variants. --tyomitch 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The common expression among Muslims seems to be "Allah preserve me" during moments of peril. I have no idea what that is. ALTON .ıl 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colloquial phrase would be بعيد عنك (ba`īd `annak), meaning 'far from you'. — Gareth Hughes 22:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

معاذ الله, as tyomitch suggested, is used twice in the Qu'ran, in Sura 12, verses 23 and 79. I would have guessed "Allah yuharrama" but apparently that doesn't exist. Adam Bishop 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's vocalized as "ma`adu-llah" (مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ) there. s:ar:سورة يوسف --tyomitch 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Ta'awwudh... AnonMoos 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand this right, it would be stylistically correct for an Arab American to say to his brother, "If I die, ma'adu-llah, I want you to take care of my kids." --M @r ē ino 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trio

Is "trio" a singular noun or a plural noun? i ^said 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singular --Miskwito 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this different in British English? i ^said 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can have "a trio" of things, after all. And the word takes singular agreement in verbs: "the trio enters the room". I'd be shocked if those examples were ungrammatical in British English --Miskwito 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows many examples of a plural verb with "trio" as an antecedent, most of them (by a cursory observation) from India, Australia, and the UK. Try it yourself. There's a definite tendency in Commonwealth English to reanalyze collective nouns as plurals. It's become fairly generalized. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...It's worse than that. I just thought about it and realized that even for me, "the trio enter the room" (with plural agreement) is acceptable, although I probably wouldn't use it. Ugh. Sorry, I. --Miskwito 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a singular noun (see: trios, crowds), but that doesn't mean that in some parts of the world it doesn't take a plural verb. Tesseran 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate it. i ^said 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is dealt with in American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. --Lambiam 03:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

correct preposition use

Which is correct? Do you stand "on line" or "in line"?24.239.163.133 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Eve[reply]

Well, generally Americans stand in line, and British stand on line. Correct? Therefore, it depends on the subject of the article. i ^said 00:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brits tend to stand on queues ALTON .ıl 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we stand (or wait) in queues. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Canadian friend, who has taught ESL for 15 years in Asia, and who is currently living in New York, ranted to me just last week about the prevalence of "stand on line" in the Big Apple. "In line" is certainly the Canadian version. Bielle 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "on line" is a New York thing sometimes also used in Philadelphia. -- Mwalcoff 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its just new york

This falls into the area of language in which you can't accurately say that one word is correct and the other incorrect, as there is no final arbiter. What you can say is that one is more usual than the other. Google produces 1,060,000 hits for "stand in line", but only 24,300 for "stand on line", and that strikes me as a pretty decisive difference. Xn4 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how many sign languages exist? roughly?

Roughly how many different sign languages could be said to exist in the world today?--Sonjaaa 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be difficult to determine. Ethnologue lists 121 "deaf sign languages", but doesn't include Manually Coded Languages or auxiliary sign systems. The subsection List_of_language_families#Sign_languages shows some uncertainty of demarcation. See also List of sign languages. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for that list of families. I had wondered about that. It's interesting to note that in at least a few cases a sign language crosses boundaries between unrelated spoken languages. I expected that, since ASL grammar is unrelated to English grammar, but had no empirical information until now. —Tamfang 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listening foreign languages

I'm looking for free resources in French, Italian and Portuguese, such as movies, TV news... with subtitles in the same language. I would like to improve my listening skills in those languages and I thought a good way of doing so would be to have, for example, a news program from a Portuguese channel with subtitles also in Portuguese. That way, I would be listening to the person and if I get lost or don't understand something I could quickly see the "solution" by looking at the subtitles. It's rather odd, since, aside from me and deaf people, who would like to have subtitles in their own language. Anyway, does anyone know where can I get them? --Taraborn 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what kind of TV you have, or how new it is, if you put it on mute it might give you the closed captioning, which will be in the same language as the program. (At least, this seems to be true for English and Fernch programming in Canada...) Adam Bishop 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]