Language desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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 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:[1]

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]

Wouldn't it be by the chapter number and all, EG. "5 George III, c. 12" ? 68.39.174.238 02:31, 10 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]

"Attorney general" is another common example. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:41, 9 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]

Not quite a correction to Lambiam, but a qualification: Fibonacci spread the Hindu-Arabic numerals, but they were already known, through Pope Sylvester II, although I think not very widely. 203.221.127.184 16:20, 9 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]

If you're asking why it's "st", "nd" and "rd", those are the last two letters of "first", "second" and "third" and would be abbreviated that way per the old English style of abbreviation (Witness "Penna"). 68.39.174.238 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]