Language desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20

type of t...

I'm trying to find out what characters the sort-of-t-looking-thing and the half-question mark are in this page. Specifically, under the 'learn' section, k^wemt stem (mystery character)u qeqs yo(second mystery character)nunm yet(mystery character)(don't know how to make this character)^wa Unfortunately there is no HTML. Could someone put those characters onto here so I can copy and paste them when I need them? Thank you. 70.171.229.76 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ʔ', I believe, refers to a glottal stop, while the 'ł' can only be like the voiceless lateral fricative sound represented in Welsh by 'LL', as in 'Llangollen', I would think. This sound is also present in Navajo, which I believe is related to the language in the PDF (Selish), if I am not mistaken..--ChokinBako (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the x with the dot below it? 70.171.229.76 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a 'gh' sound, like 'g' in German, 'sagen'. Check this link for more info on the pronunciation of Selish. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make that in unicode? Wikipedia and wiktionary don't have it, neither does this index of unicode characters 70.171.229.76 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately do not know that. Sorry. But bear in mind, the characters in that document are not official in any way. You could make your own by, say, using 'x' + 'underline', or even using the IPA, which is official. --ChokinBako (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an x plus a COMBINING DOT BELOW; x̣. The characters in that document are not arbitrary; that's the standard linguistic way to write Selish. You could use the IPA, but you would not be able to communicate with the people who read and write Selish; even the linguistics would be confused, since American linguistics uses different conventions from the IPA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the page Salishan languages seems to display these characters correctly, at least on my computer. Seems to be use of the "Unicode" template, as in xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓. Other related pages with these characters incldue Sḵwxwú7mesh language, which has the "x with line below" and others displayed correctly for me (apparently using simple HTML markup, like "Sḵwxwú7mesh"), and Lushootseed, which has some font weirdness on my computer (using the "IPA" template it appears, for example ɬič☺áʔa shows a nice smiley face letter. The table at Klallam language seems to display "x with dot under" and its "IPA equivalent" without templates: x̣ /χ/, which seems to work for me. These all differ from Prosfilaes's x̣, so I thought it worth mentioning (obviously you need to edit this page to see the underlying codes). As for using these characters and whether it would be confusing or helpful or whatever, I have no idea! I've merely noticed these characters and pages over time because words like xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ look so deliciously alien. Pfly (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question appears to be k^wemt stem̓ ɫu qeqs yoɁnunm yetɫx̣^wa. You may need some special fonts to get it all to render. Also, it may depend a little on a glyph rendering technology such as Uniscribe to get the combining marks appear. The Unicode list may be a more appropriate place for such questions. Bendono (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Coal mining region" or "Coal-mining region"?

Ladies and gentlemen, I've just created the Category:Coal mining regions (for an evident reason), but probably misspelled the name :(. Should it ultimately be "coal-mining region" in literate English (as in the respective article's name), or both versions qualify? If I'm mistaken, I would also ask the community to start cat renaming/recat procedure immediately, before my cat becomes populated.

Sorry for asking stupid questions, but I've just returned from a lenghty Wikibreak, feeling like a mewcomer. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hyphen works for English speakers and no hyphen works for American speakers. Corvus cornix (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American and I would always use the hyphen. I'd say the hyphen works for edited texts and no hyphen works for informally written, unedited texts. —An gr 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are right to be undecided. This one is right on the line. I vote for "Coal mining region". If it was "Coal-mining region", it would be the region doing the mining, but it's not. It's not a region that mines coal, it's a region where coal mining takes place. That is indeed splitting hairs, and I'd leave it either way I found it while copyediting, probably. Your Brit may well differ. They like hyphens a lot more than we Americans do. It's too bad "coal mining" hasn't gone one-word yet and saved us the hassle.

A "cat" lover should feel like a "mew"comer. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, do we have the excuse for leaving the category as it is, unrenamed? I'd love to close issue and return to populating the cat(egory). Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. Corvus cornix_talk 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a big deal, but I think that "coal mining region" is wrong without the hyphen. A hyphen in an object-participle compound does not necessarily indicate that the noun being modified by the compound is the agent of the action described by the participle, though that tends to be the case. The rule in the Chicago Manual of Style (the standard style reference for American editors) is that virtually all compound modifiers should be joined by a hyphen, with just a few exceptions. This is not one of the exceptions. So, it should be "coal-mining region" in standard American or British English. Marco polo (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the hyphen (it's a region where coal-mining happens, not a piece of petrified peat mining a region - think man eating shark vs. man-eating shark). DuncanHill (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a region where coal mining happens. :) Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either. There's no confusion, so it makes as much sense with a hyphen as without. Having said that, the BBC seems to like it with [1] (near third graphic). My preference would probably be with today, without tomorrow. Bazza (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (UK)[reply]

I understood the distinction to be between whether "coal(-)mining" is used denominally or adjectivally. "Coal mining (ie. the mining of coal) occurs in this region" vs. "This is a coal-mining region". I'd use the hyphen only in the latter case, but always in that case, therefore I'd support the title being "Coal-mining region". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Busby Berkeley article

What does the phrase " also the 1932 Universal programmer Night World" mean? I presume a programmer is a film or a movie? I notice that there are a lot of similar uses of this word when I do a google search. I did not find this meaning in a dictionary however. I am confused.--Filll (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had to resort to the OED for this one. They call it chiefly historical. It means a program picture, a short, low-budget one meant to be shown as part of a "program" at a movie theater. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be a B movie?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say from personal knowledge, but it sure looks like it when you read that article, at least in the original sense of "B movie". I never knew that. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to determine a singular pronunciation of what I believe is a plural word.

Trix. The breakfast cereal. A bowl of said cereal is a "bowl of Trix", but what is a single piece when it is away from the group?

A "Trick"?

Also, what would the spelling be for a "Trick"? Trick, Tric, Trik, Trikc? These are the thoughts that keep me awake late at night... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.196.240 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Trix are for kids" does demand that "Trix" be plural. It's also a brand name, however, and phrases like "Trix is a healthy and nutritious…" (n.b. it's not) indicate it can be used in the singular.

Personnally, I'd say "Trix" is a word like "sheep". I.e., One Trix, two Trix; red trix, blue trix. What you're looking to do would by a back-formation: removing the final -s sound used in English for pluralizing, even though the original word has no final -s. In context, either singular form (Trix or Trick) would be understood.

As to spelling, as a back-formation, there's no hard and fast rule. I'd write "Trick", as it's already an accepted spelling for the sound. "Tric" or "Trik" would also work; although, it would highlight the made-up-ness of the word. — gogobera (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a six-year-old. They'll naturally say the right thing. I'd expect "One of my trixes fell on the floor", making the singular "trix". "Trix" is an advertiser's misspelling of "Tricks", obviously, so if you wanted to go that way the singular is "Trick", but nobody will know what you mean. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Jatz crackers. You can have a box of Jatz crackers, or one Jatz, or two or more Jatz. No change is required. (I'm very surprised Jatz is a red link - they've been popular down under for well over 50 years). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of when I was a kid and we all had chicken pox. We used to called each individual one a 'pock'.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually pock is a perfectly good English word. It forms the compound "pock-marked". Marco polo (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one of my kids was about 5, he once asked me (what sounded like) "Dad, what's a whack?". I said it's what you do when you hit something or someone. He said "No, I think it's the stuff candles are made out of". Obviously he thought that "wax" was the plural of "wack". Fair enough, I thought, for a little kid. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same question comes about when you ask what you call a player on the Boston Red Sox or Chicago White Sox. Is he a Red Sock? A White Sock? — Michael J 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]