Language desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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.

September 4

Word

What is a word that starts with the sound "ari" and means something insulting? --124.254.77.148 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've heard the word Arainst before? Perhaps you could check online somewhere like an Online Dictionary. ::Manors:: 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that 'Arianist'? Xn4 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arriviste"? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotelian? And no doubt 'aristocrat!' would have sounded pretty insulting coming from a Jacobin or a Bolshevik. Xn4 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"arrogant" might qualify, depending on local pronunciation. -- JackofOz 13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In years past, I would say "Ari Fleischer" with no little scorn. --Sean 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we reorder the letters to "air", then we have "airhead". StuRat 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arimasp? [1] --Reuben 19:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan (as often misunderstood). Tesseran 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What words do you not capitalize in a header?

When writing a header or making reference to a title of a play or book or what have you, what is the list of words that do not start with a capital letter? E.G. 'How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days' - "to" "a" and "in" do not get capitalized. But what about something like 'Make the Most of it' - should the "it" be capitalized as it is the final word? Should the "Most" be capitalized or not?

Thanks! Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.140.75.133 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (9th Edition) says "Do not capitalize little words within titles such as a, an, the, but, as, if, and, or, nor, or prepositions, regardless of their length". See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Xn4 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally you capitalize everything except for "little words" as listed above. Which words are "little" and which aren't can vary by publication. Pronouns (like your "it") and forms of the verb "to be" (like "is," "are," etc.) are examples of little words that are often capitalized. --Cam 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Cam said, there is no universal agreement as to exactly what words should be capitalized. In places like library catalogs they typically just capitalize the first letter and any letters that would be capitalized if it wasn't a title -- which is also the style of Wikipedia article titles, and in some non-English-speaking countries is the usual style for book titles. The Wikipedia article on this is capitalization; the last time I looked at it, it suffered from trying to enumerate all possible styles without saying enough about when and where they were used. --Anonymous, 13:28 UTC, September 4, 2007.

Use of "None"

I understand that the correct use of the word "none" is supposed to be akin to "not one", such as "there is none that has collected any items" as opposed to the non-standard use of "there are none that have collected any items". By this, I mean that "none" is used in the same way as a singular item. This is a very common mistake in usage of the English language, as people don't think of it in terms of a singular, curiously, and instead as a plural.

My question is this: is there an article on Wikipedia that articulates this? I've been working with the creators of the article "List of commonly misused English language phrases" and believe it could potentially be listed there, but was wondering if anybody could shed light on a couple of things: where I can find a third party source or reference that would confirm or support this statement? Secondly, could anybody make any suggestions as to how this could be worded for an example (as you can see, my example there blows). linca ^linca 07:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a language is defined by the people who speak it, and most English speakers will freely use 'none' in both singular and plural senses, I don't really believe it to be a 'misuse', since hardly anyone will notice such an error if it were used. Capuchin 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the belief that "none should be singular, being the contraction of no+one" could be put on the List of Linguistic Urban Legends in English (if there were such a list). The OED says quite bluntly: "Many commentators state that none should take singular concord, but this has generally been less common than plural concord, especially between the 17th and 19th centuries."--K.C. Tang 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible guideline is that "none" is plural in any context where you might have expected more than one. "None of us was willing to climb onto the roof" but "I surveyed the whole staff and apparently none of them are left-handed.". You wanted a link: this is covered in Wiktionary at wikt:none#Usage notes. --Anonymous, edited 13:41 UTC, September 4, 2007.

Cool. Thanks! The Wiktionary use is the one I was really after. As to it being an urban legend, it is the practice taught in upper and middle class grammar schools and the only reason it doesn't seem to pass to the lower end is that the school teachers in those schools don't tend to have studied in the other classes of education (hence, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree). Though there are may instances in popular literature where the use is prevalent, and the language's use depicts its structure, we don't consider the words "ain't" and such to be "real" words, despite their commonness in day to day use. linca ^linca 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can well believe that a grammar school in Australia is something different to a grammar school in England, I'm surprised that you say teachers at 'working class' schools haven't received education outside 'working class' schools. That seems very odd, and as if the classes are quite immiscible. Also that all upper and middle class schools should teach such out-of-date prescriptive grammar. How odd. Skittle 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's another urban legend. "Ain't" is a perfectly acceptable word (if not much accepted these days), but it needs to be used correctly. It's natural home is the tag question "ain't I" - eg. "I'm the best Wikipedia editor ever, ain't I?". Amn't I doesn't work euphonically, and aren't I is a shocking blunder. All those teachers who told us that ain't is always wrong need to be re-educated (don't they?). -- JackofOz 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contractions are discouraged, and "ain't", in its nature varies considerably to other contractions in that its root words don't appear to comprise the word it becomes. The reason I mention the word "ain't" is not acceptable is not that it's never acceptable, but in fact is rarely acceptable in its common use, which is much the same with the use of "none". I suppose I didn't articulate that particularly well. linca ^linca 02:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Amn't I?" and "shan't I?" were both common constructions in my house when we were children, though they were not common in the neighbourhood. Any teacher who laughed, however, was given a lecture on language use from my grandmother from which she (and they were all women) never again arose to mock. I still use them now, but more for startle effect than anything else. But this is all in Canada, and thus of little use to the rest of the world. Bielle 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contractions are discouraged": that's another myth. (One which, I hear, is particularly often told as fact to Germans learning English.) Contractions are standard in many contexts. Can you imagine my first sentence being improved by substituting "that is"? Of course, in formal writing contractions are discouraged. But there ain't nothin' wrong with 'em otherwise. :-) --Anonymous, 03:15 UTC, September 5, 2007.

I'm one to use "Amn't" and certainly "Shan't", though I attended Grammar schools, so I was trained in the "proper" sense, as it were. As to the use of contractions, no, it's not a myth. Contractions should only be used in dialogue, though in the case of the majority of writing (to which novel, encyclopedia, article, essay, assignment and thesis writing all must abide) contractions are to be avoided. This is to say that, should I wish to speak, I may do so by contracting as much as possible to easily convey my message without having to embellish words. However, when writing, unless I'm writing a piece of dialogue (or, in this case, a case of my personal, first-person oriented discussion), I should always use the full words that would otherwise be contracted. --linca ^linca 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias, assignments, and theses are places where formality is recommended, so contractions are likely to be discouraged there. But don't overgeneralize this to other writing. I just did a Google Books search for "isn't". It reported over 1/2 million hits, of which I looked at the first 30. Just one was in dialogue; the other 29 were all in book titles. Contractions are standard English. --Anonymous, 23:55 UTC, September 7.

Speaking English

Bit of a random question for all you linguists out there, which I was pondering after recently having read Ivanhoe for the first time. I've had a look at History of the English Language which, while an interesting piece, didn't totally contain the answer I seek. Namely, I was wondering this: if a hypothetical time traveller from a modern English-speaking country were to go back in time through the history of England, whereabouts would be the furthest back they could go and still be able to have a reasonable conversation with someone, where each could just about be understood by the other? 1300s? 1400s? Later, earlier? Angmering 08:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest any time before the Great Vowel Shift would be very difficult for modern English speakers, but, as I'm sure you've realised, it very much depends on the region and experience of the speaker and their location in the past.--Estrellador* 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only speculate, but pronunciation and vocabulary were different enough from modern English in Shakespeare's day (c. 1600) that conversation would have been extremely difficult without some training. Even with modern actors using modern pronunciations for Shakespearian English dialogue, modern audiences strain to follow, with a comprehension rate well under 100% for the untrained. Speakers of modern English dialects with conservative pronunciations, including some in Ireland and the interior South (West Virginia, Kentucky) of the United States, would probably have a somewhat easier time conversing than speakers of dialects that have diverged further (including the present-day dialects of southeastern England). On the other hand, during the 17th century, pronunciation and, to a lesser extent, vocabulary moved close enough to modern English that halting conversation would probably succeed between most modern speakers of English and most speakers of English in 1700. (This would not apply for 17th-century speakers of regional dialects sharply different from the London standard, such as Scots, some of whose dialects are very opaque even today to Americans.) Marco polo 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They might understand what you said, but they'd sure stare at you and wonder where you were from. :) Corvus cornix 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your answers — very interesting stuff! Angmering 08:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated, I know, but I've only just noticed a question I can help answer :) There were a number of dialects of Middle English, and the author Alan Garner writes about his experience of recognition when he read a medieval poem written in one of them. Garner comes from the Alderley Edge area of Cheshire, and grew up speaking what he describes as "North West Mercian", before he went off to university. In the essay "Achilles in Altjira", in his collection The Voice That Thunders, he describes the experience of finding later English literature unrewarding, but feeling completely at home with the language of much earlier English:

"I was reading, voluntarily, the text of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight; and I wondered why there were so many footnotes. My grandfather was an unlettered smith, but he would not have needed all those footnotes if a native speaker had read the poem to him aloud [...] This was no Latin creole. This was what I knew as "talking broad". I had had my mouth washed out with carbolic soap for speaking that way when I was five years old."

Garner reads a passage to his father, who understands it fully, and observes, "Yon's a grand bit of stuff. Is there any more?" He also mentions a word, barlay, described in the crib as "obscure", but which was common currency in his school playground. So yes, for some people, dialects from the fourteenth century might be comparatively easy!

Telsa (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

summary, precis..?

What is the name for a text that in style is a summary of another fictional work, but contains every single plot element, and all descriptions of all the things/places/people in the original work? But lacks its dramatic structure?87.102.21.232 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A synopsis? Angmering 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possibly.87.102.81.184 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aclaratory note

I recently read the phrase "thanks for the aclaratory note". I couldn't find many Google hits for "aclaratory", but I've a hunch that it could be a misspelling of something much more common. Anyone got any ideas? Cheers! — Matt Crypto 11:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps clarificatory? DuncanHill 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a mouthful; the idiomatic English for this would be "clarifying". +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps someone is trying to create an adjective from "alacrity". There is an obsolete adj. in the OED: "alacrious: Brisk, lively, active."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems like a misspelling/misremembering for acclamatory? Notes are often acclamatory... СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 13:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess it was based on the spanish verb aclarar, meaning to clarify. Rigadoun (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. I reckon the "aclarar"-derived explanation sounds pretty plausible in the context of the original phrase. — Matt Crypto 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Spain and I can tell is an Spanish mistake, it is translated nota aclaratoria as aclaratory note while it means explanatory note

terminology

Is there a term used to refer to nieces and nephews collectively? Such as, sons-daughters are children, mother-father are parents.Litrex 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)litrex[reply]

In English, not to my knowledge. But it makes sense if you think about it. Sons and daughters are closely related by blood, and mothers and fathers are closely related by marriage. But nieces and nephews, while they could be siblings, could also be cousins, which is just far enough removed to allow marriage untainted (or at least not badly tainted) by consanguinity. Imagine a group of 4 of your nephews and nieces, 2 of whom are siblings and the other 2 are cousins to each other and to the first 2. Would a collective term for such a group escape the perils of confusion? Possibly not. (On the other hand, grandchildren can be referred to collectively, but they're also as likely to be cousins as siblings.) Food for thought, anyway. -- JackofOz 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anthropologist friend of mine told me some people in cultural anthropology circles use the neologism nibling, but I don't think it's enjoyed wide circulation. —An gr 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I can think of is 'extended family' which isn't very satisfactory and includes all sorts of people apart from neices and nephews Worm ^{(t | c)} 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, while niece redirects to cousin, there is a stublet on nephew. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our family uses - joculazrly - nibling. We thought we'd invented it, on the analogy of sibling - specifically for a boy-and-girl twin pair.MacAuslan 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

french

what is House of Commons defence Committee in french? - 91.106.51.123 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to Canada, according to the Government website, the French name for the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs is Comité permanent de la défense nationale et des anciens combattants. I guess the full name would be "Le Comité permanent de la défense nationale et des anciens combattants de la Chambre des communes."-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP address is in the UK. I suspect they are asking for a translation of the British House of Commons Defence Select Committee. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have done the WhoIs first. Perhaps, "Le Comité spécial de la défense de la Chambre des commune du Royaume-Uni". I have translated "Select Committee" based on wording in use in Ontario [2]. However, reading Select Committee (Westminster System) suggests that it is more like a Standing Committee, in which case use "permanent" for "spécial". Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A not-very-related question: why do government agencies and entities seem to be averse to using apostrophes where they're needed? It should be Veterans' affairs. --Reuben 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is spelled correctly in at least one case. Mind you, the apostrophe usually goes missing whenever DVA is mentioned in the newspapers. -- JackofOz 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good on ya, mates! --Reuben 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comité isn't a word used much in Europe. The usual French word is commission, and in the European institutions Standing Committee is translated as Commission permanente. Google reveals several on that pattern, such as the Commission permanente canado-américaine de défense, Commission permanente mixte de défense, Commission permanente de la défense nationale et des affaires étrangères, Commission permanente de la défense nationale, etc. Xn4 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia... the things you learn! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is translated here as la Commission de la Défense à la Chambre des Communes britannique. I think comité is mainly used for a small group of people or organizations who have come together on their own initiative for a common cause, and don't need to answer to any higher body. --Lambiam 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (fr --> en) check

I recently translated (part of) a page from the French Wikipedia to the English one. Most of the page was technical abbreviations which posed no problem. However, the following note needed to be done:

Le plan de type "e" est un plan avec double glissement, le long de deux directions différentes, qui existe dans cinq types de groupes d'espace à réseau centré. L'utilisation du symbole "e" est devenue officielle à compter de la cinquième édition du volume A des Tables internationales de cristallographie (2002).

Here is my rendition. Could someone check it for me, both for accuracy and for conversational clarity? If it helps, the original page is this section of this page.

An "e" plane is a double glide plane, along two different directions, which exists in five types of face-centered space groups. Usage of the symbol "e" became official with the 5th edition of the International tables of crystallography, volume A (2002).

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use mixed case and italics for book titles in English, so: "...the 5th Edition of the International Tables of Crystallography, Volume A (2002)." My French isn't very good, but perhaps the word "slip" is better than "glide". Also, are you sure it says face-centered (I don't see "visage" in the French version) ? I get something more like "space-centered network". You might also want to post this on the Science Ref Desk, since this appears to be geology, and people there could check the technical accuracy of the result (as opposed to the translation). StuRat 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll check there too; the alternatives you mention make sense but the words I chose are English technical terms and are almost certainly the right ones ("face" should be double checked though -- thanks) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "face" is probably wrong; it should be "base", but that is informed by knowledge of the content and is not likely discernable from the contextless French version. Anyway, here is the page with my English version, and I'll take this question to the Science desk. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) The official title is International Tables for Crystallography.[3] Instead of "face-cent(e)red", use "with a cent(e)red lattice" (see the terminology in Space group). Getting into the matter-of-taste level, I'd say either "along two different vectors" (my preference) or "in two different directions". Also, "is found" sounds better than "exists" (although the latter is the more literal translation), and I prefer "The use" over "Usage". "Double glide plane" is fine.[4] --Lambiam 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Mahalo! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]