Language desk
< August 24	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 26 >

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.

August 25

Question

What does this phrase mean?"express yourself"Chavosh 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'state your opinion'. Xn4 02:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought it meant to live your life in the fast lane. :-) StuRat 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a wider meaning than merely stating one's opinion. A writer expresses himself in his writings, a composer in his music, an artist in his artistic creations, etc. -- JackofOz 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I overlooked those. Xn4 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn't afford the airfare, so I expressed myself to Miami for spring break". Gzuckier 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does UPS offer in-flight snacks (perhaps if your package is within reach of a nice package of cookies sent from somebody's grandma) ? :-) StuRat 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation of the name "Tuomas" in Finnish

Does anyone know how this is pronounced? Is it like the English "Thomas"?

Thank you. --Pyreforge 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The u and o are separate vowels, both of which are sounded. The u is like English oo in boot, and the o is like the oa of boat, but in both cases shorter than in English; just use the first half. Together they form a diphthong, in which the brief oo sound glides into the oa sound, making the start sound a bit like twoa – in which the w is pronounce, unlike English two. The a of Tuomas is like the a in father, a clearly pronounced vowel. --Lambiam 07:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks a lot. --Pyreforge 03:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correct term SAberHawk 82.201.171.42 10:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

need to know the term for example you have the word "LIFE" and if you rotate it 180* it reads "DEATH" its like metagram or betagram or somthing i just cant remember thanks!!!

never mind found it its ambigram thanks any way love wikipedia!!!!!

Is the following sentence grammatical?

Is the following sentence grammatical? "You can not dismiss him merely as a commercial act." Apparently the speaker meant: "You can not dismiss his performance merely as a commercial act." Is this an example of metanomy? Thank you very much. 196.12.53.9 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

What is metanomy? Did you mean metonymy?

Yes, sorry for the wrong spelling. 196.12.53.9 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

No comment of the metonymy, but the sentence would read better as "You cannot dismiss him as merely a commercial act." - Eron ^Talk 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very odd to me, though I'm going beyond your question. People are called 'an act' in a few turns of phrase of Standard English, such as "She's a hard act to follow". It may be that in the world of entertainment a performer is called "a good act", "a bad act", "a commercial act"? If so, I'd say it's more jargon than good English. Xn4 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. 196.12.53.9 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

If the sentence is used to refer to a performer whose performance goes beyond mere commercial appeal to have real artistic merit, then I (a native speaker of American English) think that the sentence conveys that meaning. EronMain's change in the position of the modifier is more correct, but lots of native speakers misplace their modifiers just as the questioner has. Marco polo 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feet/Feat of Clay

Can someone give me a hint as to the textured meaning of the colloquialism 'Feet (or feat, m'not sure which one is the original, and which is the pun) of clay?' The former gives the idea that the subject doesn't have a sturdy base, while the latter seems to be about the impermanence of any given work, but I can't find a source on the wik or google, so I'm afraid I'm missing some of the nuance. Double points, as usual, for a reference of origin. Love, 24.250.32.81 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's feet of clay, referring to a statue with no sturdy base. I associate it in my mind with "Ozymandias" although the phrase doesn't appear in the poem. —Angr/talk 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd I'd always assumed it meant 'something slow moving of cumbersome' - how wrong I was..

http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayingsf.htm read more much more detail

Etymology: from the feet of the idol in Daniel 2:33 http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=feet+of+clay+ It's 'feet'.87.102.84.56 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a colloquialism at all, but an allusion...Thanks, I appreciate it.24.250.32.81 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2 for more background. According to this site, Byron was the first modern author to use it as a metaphor for a "crippling weakness" or a weak foundation, in Ode to Napoleon: "That spell upon the minds of men/ Breaks never to unite again,/ That led them to adore/ Those Pagod things of sabre sway/ With fronts of brass, and feet of clay." Skarioffszky 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the meaning is that the person isn't very brave, as in that their feet could collapse under them at any moment when they attempt to stand up to someone. StuRat 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that's a nice idea, it doesn't really fit with the history of the phrase; either where it came from or how it has been used in literature. Others have given good, detailed answers of where it came from and what meaning it has been used with. Of course, you can use it in your personal lexicon with your own meaning that completely ignores statues, but others will be prone to misunderstand you. Skittle 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistake to think that the etymology of a word provides the definitive answer for the only valid current meaning for the word. If we used that method, for example, we would conclude that "salary" means payments made for services in the form of table salt only. Also, it's not just me who uses this meaning. This site: [1] lists definition 2 as: "A villain appears to be really powerful and frightening -- then turns out to be a coward....". StuRat 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On foot vs. by foot

In the Siege of Leningrad article one can see the expression "by foot". I've always been taught the correct one is "on foot". Are, therefore, both correct ? --Taraborn 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On foot" is more usual, but there's nothing wrong with "by foot." --Reuben 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Only difference I know of is a small one- if I'm standing around, I'm "on foot". Saying "by foot" indicates travel, just as you might travel by train or by car. But, "I went 20 miles today, on foot" is fine, as is "I went 20 miles today, by foot". Friday (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - actually, I think that "on foot" can be used as both an adverb and an adjective, while "by foot" is only an adverb phrase. So you can use "on foot" to describe someone: "a man on foot." But you can use either one to describe an action: "He came on foot" or "He came by foot." --Reuben 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Taraborn 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "on foot" British? It sounds completely wrong to my American ear, in both cases given by Friday (standing around or travelling). I could say "I've been on my feet all day". For travel, I'd always use "by foot" or more usually "I walked 20 miles today". Ingrid 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which region? I'm from Illinois and "to go on foot" sounds quite ordinary to me. —Tamfang 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual

What combination of two languages has the most bilingual speakers? 68.231.151.161 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it would be a pair of mutually intelligible languages. I would go with two of the Scandinavian languages. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so obviously. It could be a pair of widely spoken languages, such as English and Spanish. A.Z. 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with A.Z., 30 million people in the U.S. alone speak Spanish, more than Sweden, Norway, and Denmark's population put together, but I found no statistics saying that Spanish/English is the most frequent pairing. It might also depend on which definition of bilinguism (native or acquired) you use. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of french speakers in asia/africa - who might also have english - though I guess spanish/english will be more.

Cantonese/Mandarin seems like a good bet - or do they not count being 'dialects'?87.102.84.56 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they count as dialects or not doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure how many Cantonese speakers are really bilingual in Mandarin. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Mandarin speakers aren't bilingual in Cantonese. Another possibility to consider is Javanese/Indonesian, and maybe Bengali/Hindi. —Angr/talk 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you consider Hindustani to be a language, it would share many speakers with Bengali. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer might depend on what you mean by 'language' - for instance, the French often refer to l'anglais et l'américain, as if American English were a quite separate language from English, a view which I think few English speakers would take. You'd have to get hold of all the available census statistics to work out the answer, but off the cuff I should think it might be between (Standard Cantonese + Standard Mandarin) and (English + Spanish). Of course, you might arrive at the wrong answer, as Chinese statistics generally need to be treated with caution! (And perhaps we could say the same of almost all official statistics everywhere...) Xn4 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only distrust state statistics if they have a reason to lie. For example, I would trust North Korean stats on the number of typhoons that hit NK, but would assume any production statistics from them are outright lies. (Although I suppose they could invent fictional typhoons to explain why their productivity is so low, but that would be rather obvious.) StuRat 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, mutually-intelligible languages don't really count if a speaker is "bilingual" only in the sense that he could understand a speaker of the other language, rather than himself communicating properly in that language. Although Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible, I dunno how many Swedes and Danes actually learn the "proper" versions of each others' languages, and how many just talk in their own respective languages and get by on that. -Elmer Clark 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]