Language desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 17

Anglo-Saxon derived literature

I read recently in Melvyn Bragg's The Adventure of English that Churchill's famous speach 'We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight... we shall never surrender' consists entirely of words derived from Anglo-Saxon, with the exception of surrender. (As a proud English man this pleased me!) I was wondering if anyone knows of any works of fiction, poetry or whatever that attempt to do the same, only using words of Old English origin?137.138.46.155 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Anglish might interest you. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just what I was looking for.137.138.46.155 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but did Churchill include the word "surrender", as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon phrase "give up" to imply that "surrender" was not an Anglo-Saxon concept? Or has anyone thought of this before? ScouseMouse - スカウサーUK! 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the etymology of the word beach is unknown. It doesn't seem to be derived from Old English, though. —An gr 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The online etymology dictionary I checked gives it as 'c.1535, probably from O.E. bæce, bece "stream," ', but I can't ofcourse vouch for its reliability.137.138.46.155 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is curious, "surrender" comes from Old French: [1]. StuRat 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cut off the wise guys by pointing out that "victory" does, too.[2] :) --TotoBaggins 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were all wise guys and gals around here, Toto. If you're not one, please leave imediately :) JackofOz 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever argued that he was using words closer to the language of their enemy? Adam Bishop 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original claim is not true with regard to the entire speech. Bragg was perhaps referring purely to the fragment "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". The preceding "we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be," contains cost and defend; the following "and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving" contains moment, large, part, and subjugated. And regarding the boo words, starve is good Old English. jnestorius^(talk) 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right, Jnestorius, Bragg quoted the section (as I did in my original question) from 'We shall fight on the beaches' to 'never surrender'. I didn't mean to imply that Churchill's choice of etymology was deliberate, I was however curious if anyone had used a similar style deliberately. As for using the language of the enemy, Germanic languages cover a wide area, not just Germany, and Romance languages include the Italian of another of the Axis powers, so using Anglo-Saxon is hardly the language of our enemies.137.138.46.155 07:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell is well-known for opposing the (over-)use of Latin-based words and jargon in English writing, saying that instead one should use the meatier Anglo-Saxon words. The essay to read is Politics and the English Language. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit or not-for-profit

Is there a legal or technical difference between the phrases 'non-profit' and 'not-for-profit' with respect to a foundation, for example one that has the 501(c)3 standing with the IRS. Is it possible to know whether one usage is more common or more practical or othewise preferable? If an organisation is registered not only in the US, but also overseas, for example as a Dutch 'Stichting' ... does anyone know if this would factor into the decision, and why? Direct references to informational resources (as opposed to general opinions...) will be very appreciated. Thanks if you can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.41.211 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Our article Non-profit organization only says: "The use of the term 'not-for-profit' rather than 'nonprofit' has been debated within the field. While there are definitive preferences for one term or the other there is no broadly considered consensus." This is only an opinion, I'm afraid, but I think there is no real difference between the terms. I get the impression, though, that "not-for-profit" is more common in American English, whereas "non-profit" is more common in British English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the two terms are synonymous in the United States. Of the two, "non-profit" or "nonprofit" (without the hyphen) is the more common in the United States as well. I think that the choice of one term or another is a marketing decision without legal ramifications. However, I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to give legal advice. If you want a truly authoritative opinion, you will need to consult a tax lawyer. Marco polo 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have spoken too soon. Apparently, in the eyes of the IRS, activities may be "not-for-profit", but an organization is considered "nonprofit". Here is a reference. Marco polo 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, under IRS rules, how do you register an "incapable-of-making-a-profit" company ? :-) StuRat 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under IRS rules, it's called a "hobby". —Tamfang 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan poe

I visited Wikipedia Edgar Allan Poe page on March 17th and at that time listed all his works with dates so nicely and when I went back to the site today it had been updated and all this information had been removed. Any way to get it back. I don't understand why this very important information was taken off. It was a very helpful part of the page. I tried to do a search otherwise to find this information but nothing would give me anything like what Wikipedia had. The work that the people who contribute to this site is wonderful and I really don't understand why all that work was removed. Thanks to anyone who can help. I'm also new to this and hope I have posted this in the correct place. Sorry If I have not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heritage2007 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry, your work has not disappeared. You can view the entire history of the page by clicking the 'history' tab at the top of the article. This gives a complete list of all changes made, with dates. It might take a bit of work, but if you go through the list you should be able to find the information you added somewhere. If you feel that the article benefits from your list, by all means add it back. That's the point of Wikipedia. If it gets removed again, you should try and discuss the issue on the article's talk page (click the 'discussion' tab at the top of the article). By the way, the best place to ask a question like this is the Wikipedia help desk. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The best place to ask this would be Talk:Edgar Allan Poe. By going to Edgar Allan Poe and clicking on the history tab you can see all the old versions, including the version from March 17 that you miss. —An gr 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list to which you refer can be viewed at Template:Edgar_Allan_Poe, and I added it back to the article, since there was no discussion of its inappropriateness on either talk page. (Of course it may not remain!) Wareh 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize, although the list was wiped out, it could never permanently be disposed of, and was left lurking under the floorboards. StuRat 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's one of those templates we on Wikipedia like to call "freaking big." [Mαc Δαvιs] ❖ 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three French words

How do you say 'auditory', 'kinesthetic', and 'Hmong' in French? Ductape Daredevil 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't usually say English words in French, but if you want translations, auditory as an adjective referring to hearing is auditif; I'm not sure what kinesthetic means, but I'm thinking it's probably kinésique; and the Hmong have more than one name in French, just as they do in English. I should think Hmong - spelled the same as English - would suffice. They used to be known as montagnards, but I think that term has gone to the same place as words like Negro and Israelite. --Diderot 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Israelite" hasn't gone anywhere, provided you're talking about a people from the time of the Old Testament, rather than about modern-day Jews. —An gr 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was once used to mean Jews in general in English and very often especially in French. Cognates were common in a number of other languages, and at one time - like negro - it was seen as the polite correct word for Jews. Especially since cognates of jew were viewed as quite insulting in some languages. This usage was widespread in the pre-WWI era and seems to have vanished by the end of WWII as far as I can tell. --Diderot 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Kinesthetic learning, if that changes anything. Same for auditory (and visual). Ductape Daredevil 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My French is mediocre, but WordReference.com gives kinesthésique. This is a word that, in English, was originally a medical term, but has migrated, with a similar meaning, to education. Marco polo 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ductape Daredevil 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umlaut

Which letter does the two dot symbol in German go over in the name Spate?

It's called an umlaut, and it would go over the a. Corvus cornix 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maru" in Japanese boats

The article on Japanese ship naming conventions states that maru is used to mean circle. However, the article on the Star Trek simulation Kobayashi Maru translates it as purity or perfection. I can see a similarity between the two concepts, but is there a definitive meaning when applied to Japanese boats? Hoof Hearted 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kanji character 丸, with kun reading maru, can mean "circle", "round" or "full", and "perfection" or "purity"; it is further the usual suffix for ship names. When used in ship names, the meaning of X Maru is something like "the Ship X", where English not only uses a prefix but tends to be more specific (like "M/S"). If you name your ship "Purity" Japanese-style, you get Maru Maru. In the Star Trek universe, Starfleet does not use suffixes for the ship names, but the English-style prefix "USS", so the Maru in "USS Kobayashi Maru" would be part of the name, and not a suffix. But if this is the reuse of a former Japanese boat's Japanese-style name, then you have something like "USS Ship Kobayashi", just like the English-style name "H.M.S. Pinafore" reused as the name for a Japanese boat might become "H.M.S. Pinafore Maru". (There is also a kanji 円, which can mean yen but can also be used for maru "circle"; this is not in use for ship names.) --Lambiam ^Talk 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the difference in meaning between Eurocurrency and eurocurrency?Vinhq 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear liberians,

I'd like to know if there is the difference in meaning between Eurocurrency and eurocurrency.Vinhq 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Is Eurocurrency a currency held in a European country other than its country of origin?Vinhq 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Is eurocurrency a currency held in any country in the world, including a European one, other than its country of origin?Vinhq 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your help.[reply]

Best regards,

Although I am not Liberian, I will attempt to answer your question. There is no difference in meaning between Eurocurrency and eurocurrency. Whether the term is capitalized is merely a question of editorial style. A eurocurrency is a currency held in any nation of the world, including a European one, other than its nation of issue. See Eurocurrency. Marco polo 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemes Speech sounds that 'carry'

Are there certain phonemes that 'carry' better over a longer distance? Obviously pitch and volume make a difference, but (for example) the fricative consonants don't seem to be as affected by volume. Are voiceless consonants unable to be effectively amplified? -- nae'blis 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There almost certainly are phones that carry better than others, but a phoneme is a (language dependent) class of sounds, not a sound, and has no carrying capacity whatever. --ColinFine 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was singularly unhelpful. I know what a phoneme is, I'm asking if there's particular ones that become indistinct faster than others, or are unable to be amplified by the human voice effectively. -- nae'blis 02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "carrying" has to do with the real sounds that a speaker produces (the phones), not with the way in which these sounds are analyzed in his language (the phonemes). A phoneme is an abstraction: a given phoneme, in a given language, could have both fricative and non-fricative allophones, or it could have both voiced and voiceless allophones. Our answers are unhelpful because your question is unanswerable. --Lazar Taxon 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I owe you an apology, ColinFine. I had no idea that phone would be a link to a linguistic topic, and though you were having me on with regards to using the telephone. My ignorance led me to make my own unhelpful remark, and I'm sorry for that. -- nae'blis 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question you meant, instead of the question you asked, one of the loudest speech sounds is [ʃ], which is why it's used for hushing people: it can be easily heard over a bunch of people talking. —An gr 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's interesting, and makes sense. It seems intuitively to me that the voiceless labiodental fricative f would be softer, and from that I might personally try to extrapolate that voiceless sounds are inherently softer, but ʃ is also voiceless. So maybe my question should be, is there a distinction between speech sounds that are inherently louder, like ʃ, versus those that are inherently softer, like the voiced labial-velar approximant [w], versus those that can be amplified effectively for shouting/communicating at a distance? ʃ seems to be inherently louder, but difficult to amplify, whereas vowels in particular can be amplified though use of chest voice or whatever.

I'm not sure I'm asking the question right still, but maybe you can unpack it from my text. :/ -- nae'blis 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think phonic realizations [ʔ] of the glottal stop cannot be effectively amplified; even the most forceful attempts will not carry far. Can it be that the effectiveness of [ʃ] is mainly due to the relatively high power density of the higher frequencies in its frequency spectrum, making it stand out from the usual murmur of a crowd? Mieskuoro Huutajat should be experts on what sounds can be most or least easily shouted. I hear they are a real scream. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found most of what I was looking for in three places: sonority hierarchy, phonotactics, and bit of additional Google research. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -- nae'blis 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]