Language desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21

'Kill The Cat' meaning please..

Besides the literal meaning, and the banal cliché ("More than one way to kill at cat"), I can think of only a Mafia-esque setting in which someone would say something like that. Somewhat like "kill the mole". z ε n ♪ 09:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more than one way to skin a cat, surely? - is "kill the cat" something to do with "curiosity killed the cat"? "killing the cat" is giving into curiosity? 213.48.15.234 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it and verb form

I’m not sure about the correct use of "it". Could you tell me whether the following sentences are correct and/or briefly explain to me why it is so? Thank you.

If we can say: “Who’s that?” “It’s John Cook.”, is it possible to say: “Who’s that?” “It’s John and Mike.”?

And when we use some nouns such as “scissors, trousers, glasses etc”, we also use plural verbs, eg. “Your trousers are dirty.”, “My glasses are broken.”, “These scissors are blunt.”; is it possible to use "it" as an identifying pronoun, such as in: “What is it?” “It´s scissors/trousers/glasses.”? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.8.104 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would say yes to your first question, but for the second I think you need to go ahead and says "it's a pair of pants," "it's a pair of scissors," etc. -Elmer Clark 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your response to the person's question, It is somewhat superfulous, since if someone asks you "What is this", you would simply say "My pants" or "Scissors", sans the "identifying pronoun". You don't normally hear "What is it?" in conversation, inquiring about an unknown object. 'That' and 'this' are colloquial identifiers; "What is it?" sounds more like "What do you want?" (when someone walks into the room). (disclaimer: USA speech) z ε n ♪ 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point to add. While "it's" in a plural sense is sometimes used extremely casually (it's not correct, but it doesn't necessarily sound jarringly awkward), when you're asking "Who's that?" it's very clear that you're asking about one person, so your answer is most definitely going to be "It's John Cook." or just "John Cook." If, on the other hand, the person answering the question thinks you've missed out on a second person, they'll probably answer, "Oh that's John, and that's Mike." while indicating both individuals. If a native speaker were to say, "What is it?" in front of a pair of glasses, it would sound like they've never seen a pair of glasses before, and thus were unaware that there was a pair of them. 222.158.162.93 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it being used for something not seen. Such as "I've got something for you in my bag", "What is it?", but then you'd have to use the construction Elmer Clark gave, "It's a pair of scissors", or perhaps just "Scissors", but not usually "It's scissors" (although it doesn't sound as wrong to me as I thought it would). I can also imagine using it for two people. For example, someone rings the doorbell. One person answers the door, another calls from the other room, "Who is it?", the first answers "It's John and Mike". Both cases seem to require not seeing what's being described, to my ear anyway. I can also imagine using "It's John and Mike" even if they're seen as a sort of humorous way to describe a couple that is always together, and thus can be treated as a singular entity. Ingrid 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how absolutely correct. I didn't even consider the not-seen scenario. 61.25.248.86 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, since in British English you would usually add the "it's" (e.g. "What's that?" "It's a pair of trousers"). Although the point about "what is it" not usually being used would hold true. -- Necrothesp 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idiom for "slip is showing"

What's another idiomatic expression for "slip is showing", meaning the hidden agenda is coming out? Walter Ching 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The cat's out of the bag"? I never heard "the slip is showing" used in this way, but I like it. —An gr 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Walter has a slightly narrow notion of 'your slip is showing'. The origin of the expression means 'the edge of your underskirt is showing, tidy it up', so it was a discrete way of saying 'you've just put your foot in it' -- maybe revealing a hidden agenda, but also e.g. tactless or very inappropriate. Maybe 'a bit of a foot-in-mouth, there, my dear'?Chris Towner 11:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought this was literally, 'Your slip is showing', to which I was going to offer a comment I actually had said to me, 'The back of your skirt is tucked into the back of your underwear.' Anchoress 11:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too had only ever heard it in the literal sense of "the edge of your underskirt is showing". No one's ever said it directly to me, though! :-) —An gr 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spill the beans? ---Sluzzelin 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. "Spill the beans" is for after-the-fact usage only. "Your slip is showing" can be a (semi-)friendly warning that you're about to put your foot in it, when there still is time (to shut up, or whatever). --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was used for bra straps. Your slip is showing. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,if you washed your slip it would "all come out in the wash"hotclaws**== 09:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a euphemism for the literal meaning of "your slip is showing". It's "it's snowing". So if a girl asks you on a hot July (or January, if you're in the southern hemisphere) day "Is it snowing?" don't look out the window. --Charlene 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the usage of words like electrocuted or drowned strictly imply that death occurred?

I'm having one of these somewhat useless debates at work about the usage of words. I googled for the usage of drowned and found "dead by drowning..." for the definition, so I'm pretty confident on that one (and I'm pretty sure about the other ones as well, anyway). So if someone was electrocuted, drowned (or has drowned), or was hanged, does the usage of those specific words mean that he/she did not survive? Which means, "I was electrocuted yesterday, but I'm fine today," is nonsensical, right? --Silvaran 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Electric shock says "A fatal electric shock is referred to as electrocution", Drowning says "Drowning is death caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body's absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia", and Hanging says "Hanging is the suspension of a person by a ligature, usually a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death", so yeah, I think all three terms pretty much imply death. I'm sure there have been convicted criminals who have survived attempted electrocution and hanging, but attempted is the key word there. (Incidentally, the word "electrocution" started out as a portmanteau of "electricity" and "execution"; it's only later that it came to be used of accidental death by electric shock too.) —An gr 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a prescriptivist at heart (at least for things that hadn't already changed by the time I learned them :), I'd have to agree. But at least for electrocuted, I have heard it used for "got a severe electric shock" more than once. The first time was rather jarring and I remember it came from someone from Michigan talking about a time when he was electrocuted. I've heard it since then too, but don't remember where or when. Ingrid 02:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surmise many people first hear the word electrocute via a parental admonition to "keep away from that [subtransformer/toaster/etc] or you'll electrocute yourself." The context does not establish whether this ominous outcome entails injury or death; many children will guess wrong. Hard to prove this theory, though. jnestorius^(talk) 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ingrid about electrocution; despite the quoted definition, I've heard it used on occasion to refer to a severe but non-fatal electrical shock. In reference to hanging, I recall that the official sentence for death by hanging is something like, 'Hanged by the neck until you are dead.' So that is least suggestive that the word 'hanging' is insufficient to convey death by hanging. Anchoress 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure electrocute replaces electrify in some instances, rightly or wrongly I don't really know, languages evolve after all. Drowned can also mean muffled, though in this usuage usually appears as 'drowned out.' A person is hanged, a picture is hung - the verb hanging can apply to both. But further to all this, couldn't someone be clinically dead and then revived, thus making your nonsensical statement 'sensical?'Jugurtha3 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people are hung... >:) —An gr 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to those who use the ubiquitous non-sequiter "clinically dead", I think this is the most nonsensical phrase in this discussion. Dead means dead; it can't be qualified to mean something that equates to "still alive", which is what resuscitation would prove. If a person can be "brought back to life" after being "clinically dead", then they were never "dead", clinical or otherwise. JackofOz 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, JoO (or at least Wikipedia does): if you read the clinically dead article, it seems to state that the term refers to the type of 'death' that modern CPR techniques etc can revive someone from. Anchoress 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. However, I still think this is a misleading term. I disagree with the notion that death is a process rather than an event. Death occurs to each of us exactly once, not many times. One cannot be slightly, or somewhat, dead, just as one cannot be partially pregnant, or very unique. I understand the debate about precisely when death occurs, but that is a separate issue. Apart from "nearly dead", imo any state of existence prior to death is best described using words other than "dead". JackofOz 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"clinical death" is not a subtype of "death", just as a dwarf planet is not a type of planet. jnestorius^(talk) 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, "electrocuted" does always mean dead, but I'd agree that colloquially it is sometimes used to mean "suffered a severe electric shock", but was not necessarily killed by it. "Drowned" I think always means deceased, although "half-drowned" is sometimes heard to mean someone who has survived the experience. "Hanged", however, does not necessarily mean killed, either according to the OED or in colloquial speech. People did survive hangings, and were still referred to as having been "hanged". -- Necrothesp 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People hang plants all the time, and they survive alright. The Jade Knight 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[e] and [i] sound for words start with E

I'm wondering how I know how to pronounce words start with E? Do they have the pattern? Something like

[e] sound - egg, elf, epic, episode, energy, evolution

[i] sound - elect, election, electric, evangel, evangelical

Thanks --Manop - TH 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation would depend on the dialect of English being used. In my British English dialect, those words group as:

[e] sound - egg, elf, epic, episode, energy, elect, election, electric

[i] sound - evolution, evangelical. "evangel" isn't a valid word. -- Arwel (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of evolution, the pattern in Manop's data is that the [e] words are stressed on the first syllable and the [i] words aren't. But Arwel is right, a lot of these words can have either sound, depending on dialect. —An gr 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the distribution of those two values of e very well. Since in my dialect of American English, e is always pronounced "i" /ɪ/ before a nasal sound, I am particularly mystified why (in "standard" English) England starts with /ɪ/ and engineer starts with /ɛ/. But Manop's categories are a somewhat different distinction of /ɛ/ versus more-or-less "long e" /ɪ/ or even /i/ (I think Arwel probably says /i/). One obvious pattern is that all of Manop's /ɛ/ examples are stressed on the e syllable, but all of the /ɪ/ examples are stressed on a following syllable. (Now I see that Angr has given the same answer.) (By the way, "evangel" is a perfectly good English word; it means "gospel" or "evangelist.") Wareh 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI, the IPA characters for those sounds are:

/ɛ/
/ɪ/

--Kjoonlee 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, no, as with so many other instances of English spelling, I don't think that there is a clear pattern that would allow you to deduce the pronunciation of initial "e" in English words. Furthermore, this pronunciation will vary for many words among English dialects. In my (rhotic American) dialect of English, there are at least four different possible pronunciations for initial "e":

evil ('i: vɘl)
egg (ɛg)
English ('ɪŋ glɘʃ, but note the different initial vowel in "engineer": ɛn dʒɘn 'ɪɹ)
election (ɘ 'lɛk ʃɘn)

I can't think of a case, in my dialect, in which initial "e" is pronounced /ɪ/, nor can I think of a rule for determining the pronunciation of initial "e". The only rule that generally applies is that the initial "e" can be pronounced /ɘ/ only in unstressed syllables. But the rule that /ɘ/ occurs only in unstressed syllables applies to all syllables, not just syllables containing initial "e", so that isn't very helpful.

Marco polo 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

find un job overseas

hello everyone.my name is shawn i am u s citizn i speake three different language,and i would like to know how can i get a job with the u n in middle east thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.87.202 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Start here. Your language experience might not be as useful as you imagine, since the principal language of the UN is English. (You might want to brush up on your spelling and punctuation as well.) --Richardrj ^talk ^email 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably need some further education first, anyway, even if it's just a short class in interpretation. By the way, which languages do you speak? If you'd like a job in the Middle East, "Western" languages like Spanish, French and German wouldn't be much helpful anyway, Arabic and Hebrew would be a different matter. 惑乱分からん 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]