Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 19

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.

December 19

If I don't see you beforehand ...

Around this time of the year, in the 10-odd leading up to Christmas, we very often hear people saying to others "If I don't see you beforehand, have a great Christmas" (or whatever). It always strikes me as slightly odd. It sort of suggests "I'm only prepared to issue this greeting once, but I do have to say it, so in case I don't see you again before Christmas, I'd better say it now while you're here". Is there some unwritten rule that it's not proper to say "Merry Christmas" more than once to the same person over such a period? Do people in other countries say this? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I just saw that in an e-mail today actually. It is used with other greetings too, not just on Christmas. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was not proper, just a bit silly. Saying it does sort of imply that you won't see them again before Christmas. I would feel rather foolish if I wished someone Merry Christmas and then did it again. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it more agreeable to hear this as an affirmation of a connection -- "If I don't see you again before Christmas, which of course would be my preference because I enjoy seeing you and would prefer to celebrate with you as close to the day as possible, I want you to know I'm thinking of you and hope that you enjoy the holiday." Unless they have those motion-detecting holiday ornaments that play music or sing carols, in which case I'm very likely not to see them again before Christmas. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it prevents it from having an unpleasant "have a nice life" flavor. --Sean 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a nice life would be a very pleasant thing to happen, if only we could manage it. But I know what you mean, Sean. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of the movie The Truman Show, where Truman likes to say to people "Good morning, and in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night." He's making sure he wishes the person well, exactly the appropriate number of times. --Anonymous, 19:50 UTC, December 19, 2008.

Richardrj touched on this, but what's the etiquette for when a person has already said this to someone, then they unexpectedly run into them the next day, and again two days after that, and it's still not yet Christmas? Can saying "Merry Christmas" too often to the same person ever be a social faux pas? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Twins' names

Why do conjoined twins often have names that rhyme? 124.180.116.201 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason non-conjoined twins often have names that rhyme: parents think it's cute. My mother told me that when she was young, she planned to name girl twins (if she ever had any) Marilyn and Carolyn, and boy twins (if she ever had any) Dustin and Justin. Fortunately for all concerned, my mother only ever had single births. —Angr 09:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aligning with Angr's comment, I went to grade school with twins named Jack and Jill, and worked for one member of a pair of twins named Tom and Jerry. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If I should ever engender twins, I'd be tempted to use names that are (at least rough) translations of each other, like Deborah and Melissa or Eugene and Kevin. —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a pair or a flock an it or a they?

If one asks "where is my pair of scissors?", can the reply "there they are", be correct as opposed to "there it is"? When one asks "where is my flock of sheep?", is the correct reply "there it is" or "there they are"? ----Seans Potato Business 09:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pair of scissors" is construed as plural in the reply, and it is unidiomatic to use the singular form, which is odd when you look at it, considering that it's singular in the question. One could ask "Where are my scissors?", no "pair", and I think that that's what we hear. On the other hand, it is just possible to answer "Where is my flock of sheep?" with "There it is", I think. Imagine several separate flocks dotting the landscape. Ordinarily, though, bearing in mind that I have little to do with sheep being an American suburban boy, I'd say that anything but "There they are" would sound strange. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Separate the wheat from the chaff"

Is there a current, contemporary English substitute for this expression based on a rather quaint agricultural metaphor? This occurs in a brief dialogue (in comic strip format) between tweenage kids in an educational text I'm editing, aimed at upper primary grades and middle schoolers on both sides of the pond plus teachers with non-native English. Even if the young characters would understand what it meant, I doubt they'd use it verbatim in conversation unless parroting their teacher. What might kids say to get this across in authentic and succinct language? (Otherwise, I'm considering: "Like the teacher says, you have to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'").-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I went to grade school in the 1950s, and, believe it or not, the expression was quaint even way back then when I was taught it. It's the job of teachers to, well, teach the kids the language, and this expression is a part of English and is well understood by the literate of any age. It is not necessary to make it hip and groovy for the now generation, if you ask me. But I'm still mad at Rowling for letting them change it to "Sorcerer's Stone" for us ignorant colonials, so consider the source. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than coining anything, I'm attempting to discover whether a suitable current expression exists that I myself am not hip and groovy enough, likewise unfamiliar with this target population, to have encountered otherwise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Separating the sheep from the goats is another agricultural phrase (according to Wikipedia The Sheep and the Goats has a Biblical origin). At least kids know what sheep and goats are (although it's not always clear which are good and which are bad). I've also heard sort the good fruit from the bad fruit, which again might be Biblical (I'm unsure); it is less common, but self-explanatory.

Needles in hay(stacks) and diamonds in the rough are slightly different, referring to finding something rare and precious; separating the men from the boys is about strength or maturity; and telling the sheep from the wolves also sometimes comes up for recognising bad things, not good. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha... I'm starting to get my bearings. It's enough (though essential) that the kids get the tenor of the metaphoric wheat'n'chaff, regardless of the specifics that gave rise to this figure of speech in the first place. For my source phrase, it would be: "wheat is something we use and need for making food, the chaff must be something that we don't use, probably because it's inedible, so it needs to get separated from the good stuff that's worth keeping." In principle, I, like User:Milkbreath, come from a '50s upbringing (urban U.S.), but am expat and raised my own kids bilingual/bicultural on a collective farm in a parochial country. So when editing for a panglobal youth readership I necessarily try to get a sense of their fund of knowledge, as I can't know how conservative vs. progressive their curriculum may be, yet I must anticipate and address that factor in order to produce a useful text. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An afterthought: it's an opportunity for some vocabulary-building with "winnow" and "thresh". --Milkbreath (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

how about "Candy from the wrapper" or "Peanut from the shell" ? --Digrpat (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also "separate the cream from the milk", which doesn't mean to separate the good from the bad so much as the best from the still pretty good portion, although it isn't clear in the modern context that the "cream" is still the best part. This comparison is often put in the form "the cream always rises to the top".

Also, we use many outdated expressions without even thinking about what they originally meant, like "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Very few kids would know why one would choose to look at a horse's mouth. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Later non-chronological insert): "The Tories are the cream of Britain: rich, thick, and full of clots". BrainyBabe (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading these later suggestions, I suddenly flashed on a ditty we learned back in the old days: "As you go through life / Make this your goal: / Watch the donut / Not the hole!" But no: the tenor of donut vs. hole is more akin to that of the proverbial "glass half full vs. empty" while the (didactic) point in our text emphasizes the action, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anyway the source text's author wouldn't have come up with this, the local donuts being only the filled kind and seasonal. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The "tenor of doughnuts" was obviously Luciano Pavarotti. I can't think who the "tenor of doughnut-holes" would be, as there aren't too many thin ones. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, an Adlai Stevenson quotation: "An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff". - Jmabel | Talk 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would (indignantly) understand this glib jibe to refer not to us copyeditors, but rather to the editor-in-chief in the print (and by extension, broadcast) media who arbitrates "what's fit to print." -- Deborahjay (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This may have been local usage, but I've often heard/ used the phrase "sort the apples from the oranges" instead of the wheat and chaff. (I think it is derived from math where one was admonished not to compare terms of different units Apples and oranges)76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

English language

English is a West-Germanic language originating in England.

Vs.

English language as it is known today developed in England from the dialect of a West-German tribe known as the Angles.

Vs.

English language in earliest records was a Celtic dialect originating from Indo-European tribes of mainland Europe.

• Are any of these statements complicated?
• Are any of these statements correct?
• Are any of these statements of more importance to another?
• How should the importance of such a statement be defined?

Thank you in advance for any guidance. ~ R.T.G 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

English arguably didn't originate in England, although it wasn't called English until long after the people who spoke its ancestor-tongue came to England; the first statement is true if you're referring to modern English or Middle English, but is less certain for Old English/Anglo-Saxon. It's certainly not a Celtic language or dialect. The second is perhaps closest to the truth. The first sentence of History of the English language says "English is a West Germanic language which originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the northern Netherlands." I suggest you read the rest of that article, and Old English. Calling the Angles West-German doesn't seem quite right; West-Germanic would be better. I don't know how to judge the importance of each statement: from a linguistic point of view, the fact that it is a West-Germanic language is more important, but if you're interested in history then their geographical origin matters more. The third being untrue is least important. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you judge that importance? And earliest records of language spoken in England are of a Celtic dialect which is presumed to have originated from an Indo-European language. Is that untrue? ~ R.T.G 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To back up what Maltelauridsbrigge says: it's definitely untrue that English was ever a Celtic dialect. It's almost certainly been influenced by Celtic languages, but it's not a Celtic language. As for where it originates: Old English came from the continent, but it's not actually wrong to say that English is a language originating in England. What we now call English is the modern product of a continental Germanic dialect meeting a Celtic language in England (or what we now call England), and later being influenced by Danish (another Germanic language) and Norman French, both in England. In other words, Middle English and Modern English do originate in England, even if old English didn't. This is perhaps a bit confusing for some people, but that's the difference. Oh, and English certainly is a West-Germanic language. There's nothing wrong with the second sentence above (except for "English language", which just sounds odd), but I think the first sentence is best as the first line of an article. garik (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Earliest records of language in England are of a Celtic dialect. If the Angles and the Frisians are directly responsible for the English language today, what measure of relevance have they if not the largest measure? ~ R.T.G 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic structure of English and the bulk of its core vocabulary stem from the dialects of the Angles, proto-Frisians, and coastal Saxons. These dialects developed in what are now northwestern Germany and southwestern Denmark. However, English as we know it today developed in England as a result of strong influences on its vocabulary and weaker influences on its grammar from Old Norse (or Old East Norse) and Norman Middle French. As a basic introductory statement, I would start with "English is a Germanic language." I would not say "West Germanic", because the classification of Germanic languages is somewhat subject to dispute. Specifically, there is some question whether "West Germanic" is a valid category." If you are aiming to produce an article in Simple English, I would avoid specialist terms (especially disputed ones) wherever possible. Instead, after stating that English is a Germanic language, I would explain in short simple sentences what the Germanic languages are, how Proto-Germanic split into dialect groups including the coastal dialects of the Angles and Frisians (stopping to explain the word dialect in a simple sentence or two) and then go through the chronology of the development of the English language from those early dialects. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in theory, if not in practice, the Simple English Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a "kids' Wikipedia." There's no need to dumb down content or give excessive background explanations. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the earliest records of language in that area we now call England are of a Celtic dialect. But that's quite a different matter from saying that the English language was ever Celtic. It's the language spoken over most of the area we now call England that was Celtic, not the English language. garik (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence the distinction between "English language" and "The English language" of which Garik and I discussed elsewhere today. ~ R.T.G 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand the difference between "English language" and "The English language". The difference is syntatic. A sentence like "English language is a Germanic language" just doesn't work in English. So you can't use it to make the distinction you want. garik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the English language

English is a West Germanic language which originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the northern Netherlands.

Vs.

History of the English language of today has its roots in the Proto-Indo-European language estimated to exist some time between 4,000 and 10,000BC.

Vs.

The earliest history of language in England was recorded by the Romans in the 1st century AD when the local dialect was Celtic. Julius Caesar described the dialect as similar to the Gallic language of France. Although humans have lived in region for hundreds of thousands of years, no records of language preceding the Celts remains.

• Are any of these statements complicated?
• Are any of these statements correct?
• Are any of these statements of more importance to another?
• How should the importance of these statements be defined?

More complicated query and again thanks to anyone who can compare these convincingly. ~ R.T.G 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to rewrite the History of the English Language article, you should discuss it on the talk page for that article[1]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the interest the user expresses in the simple English wikipedia in his/her userpage, I'd say he/she is trying to write a simple English article on the subject. That's the reason for the question on complicatedness of the sentences, presumably. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking a reference not of how to judge importance of such statements. What is the methodology? ~ R.T.G 14:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I make a living writing and editing textbooks. Currently I am on a multiyear project developing a series of geography and history textbooks for 11 year olds. We have to present complicated information in simple terms in very limited space. I don't think that there is a "methodology" that you can use to assess something as subjective as "importance". Also, the question is not just importance but relevance. If space is limited, you want to present only what is most relevant to your main topic. While I would say that all three statements above are both complicated and correct, not all are equally relevant to the history of the English language. In particular, the last statement is not very relevant, because the Celtic speech of pre-Roman or proto-Roman Britain had very little impact on the development of the English language. That would be the first bit of information that I would consider cutting. The other two statements are relevant but complex. However, it is not so hard to turn complicated statements into simple statements by 1) breaking complicated statements into two or more simple statements and 2) avoiding terms that are difficult to understand, or, when they are unavoidable, carefully defining and explaining them. So, for example, I would start by carefully explaining the term Indo-European in a series of otherwise simple sentences. Then I would similarly explain Proto-Indo-European in two or more otherwise simple sentences. (Note that by "simple", I mean short sentences without passive constructions or dependent clauses using common words mostly of one or two syllables.) I would replace terms like B.C. or B.C.E. where possible with x thousand years ago, since B.C., B.C.E., A.D., and C.E. can be challenging concepts. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good assessment but is Celtic, although not a part of English, a highly relevant component as the predecessor? Are lines of succession always worthy adds where they exist, especially in an environment dependent on links? ~ R.T.G 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether your topic is "The history of the English language" or "The history of language in England". If your topic is the history of the English language, the language spoken before it in the region where it developed is not very relevant. (Consider that the English language continued to develop in North America. Do you also want to cover the hundreds of Amerindian languages spoken there before English prevailed there?) On the other hand, early Brythonic (the language spoken in England before the Angles and Saxons arrived) would be relevant to a history of language in England. It all depends on your topic. If you have oodles of room, you might want to mention Brythonic in a history of the English language as part of a discussion of the controversial theory that English grammar (particularly its use of tag questions and the progressive aspect) was influenced by a Celtic substratum. However, this is controversial and not universally agreed, and you could only justify including it in a very long history of the English language. Marco polo (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Old English used fewer than twenty Celtic words, they say. (Later English has adopted many more words from Celtic languages as from hundreds of others.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to comment on the validity of any statement I find the geographic definitions confusing. AFAIK

• Frisians live(d) in 3 populations West-Frisians, East-Frisians and North-Frisians along the coast of what is now The North of the Netherlands (West-Frisians) and the coast of North-West Germany (East-Frisians) as well as the coast and some islands of Northern Germany bordering what is now Denmark (with the North-German Dithmarschen in-between separating the two populations. Not sure, but I think they got split when some coast got washed away in floods.)
• Angeln is an area on the Baltic coast of Northern Germany.
• Although the Saxons did not live in what today is Saxony The German wikipedia has this on their lands around the time they invaded Britain: "Das Siedlungsgebiet dieser Stämme umfasste grob die östlichen Niederlande, das heutige Westfalen, Niedersachsen mit Ausnahme des von Friesen bewohnten Landesteils, Holstein und den Norden von Sachsen-Anhalt." - "The area settled by these tribes roughly comprised the Eastern Netherlands, what today is Westphalia, Lower Saxony except for areas inhabited by Fresians, Holstein and the northern part of Saxony-Anhalt Our map in old Saxony is about 300 years later, but seems to describe roughly the same area.

Saxony-Anhalt used to be part of the GDR and would thus be considered East-Germany. Only Westphalia would be considered northwest Germany. Lower Saxony is sometimes counted as northwest Germany and sometimes as Northern Germany. Holstein, Friesland (East- and North-) and Angeln would be Northern Germany. Consequently "northwest Germany" would cause confusion if anyone wished to study the subject in more detail or were studying geography or history at the same time as reading your article. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We're definitely not talking about the territories now called Saxony. "Lower Saxony" has been called a retronym. —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazil= Belgium in India?

I was reading the book Call of the Mall by Paco Underhill. He uses the these words to describe Brazil -- Brazil has been de- scribed as Belgium inside India, in the sense that it has an affluent midddle class surrounded by mind-blowing poverty. Is this his own invention or its really used to describe Brazil. Coz' I feel its kind of "a mockery" of India.^{Unwarranted addendum removed (by myself) as it was taking this language related question in the wrong direction.} --Sanguine learner ^talk 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paco Underhill probably does not mean to mock India. Instead, he is using the Western stereotype of India as desperately poor (a stereotype which ignores the country's complexity) to make a point about Brazil. His point, however, is a bit outdated. Brazil certainly has an affluent minority ("Belgium"). It used to have a desperately poor majority ("India" in Underhill's metaphor). However, the country's inequality has been decreasing rapidly, and its relatively poor majority has been becoming less poor, as this article explains. A better (though still clumsy) metaphor today might be "Belgium in China". Marco polo (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marco, I guess the last line I added was certainly not needed and took the discussion in the wrong tangent. However, the question I wanted to ask was is this phrase used in mainstream English literature? --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase would not be understood in mainstream English. "Belgium" conjures up images of chocolates, Poirot & Tintin, and maybe the horror, the horror of the Congo. "Brazil" is scantily clad women on the beach, football, and deforestation. "Belgium in India" suggests your chocolates melting and getting sandy, while Tintin rescues Amazonian tribes from ruthless loggers as Poirot recovers the stolen World Cup. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan that the phrase "Belgium in India", by itself, does not have an obvious meaning to native English speakers. Presumably, Underhill's narrative makes it clear that the meaning is not about chocolate. To answer your second question, Sanguine, I am reasonably well read, but I had never heard this phrase before you mentioned it. So, no, it is not a standard description of Brazil. However, it makes sense as a metaphor in "mainstream English" (by which I assume you mean standard English) in the right context. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here. If you explain exactly why you are choosing the metaphors of Belgium and India, it can make sense, but its really not an idiom in any dialect of English I know. Its like having to explain a joke, you can make it make sense by explaining it, but most English speakers I know don't automatically make the Belgium = Afluence and India = Poverty in the same way that Americans might instantly understand the metaphor juxtaposing "Main Street" to "Wall Street" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

latin hospes meaning both guest and host

I have just found that in Latin, "hospes" means both guest and host. I know we have a small few words (eg. cleave) that have two more or less opposite meanings, but this is going a bit further. Hospes seems like a reasonably common word, and the context wouldn't make it as obvious as with "cleave" in English, where we can often judge from the tone of the sentence. How do you work out its meaning, eg in "hospes erat Pompeius Optatus"? thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Beyond context (you'd have to see whether someone arrived at Pompeius Optatus's house or whether he arrived at someone else's house) I don't know. But I guess it's a good thing there were no television talk shows in Ancient Rome, otherwise they'd have had to figure out how to say "guest host". If it's any consolation, German makes no distinction (except for context) between "borrow" and "lend". —Angr 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of self-contradicting words in English--Elatanatari (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We should note that guest and host themselves have a common etymological source and are cognate with Latin hospes (hospit-, whence we get hospital, hotel, hospitable, etc. OED: "L. hospit-em (hospes) host, guest, stranger, foreigner."). Connected with Latin hostis (OED: "stranger, enemy, in med.L. army, warlike expedition"), and therefore with hostile. With friends and guests like that, who needs hosts of enemies? The common thread is the idea of the stranger, as opposed to friend, neighbour, or kin. Greek ξένος (xénos, "stranger") is also thought to be connected.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In Russian, guest is гость (gost') and host is хозяин (khozyain), and the gos-khoz similarity also suggests they came from the same root. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't 'guest host' be something like 'animator invitatus' (or 'animatrix invitata' as the case may be)? Duomillia (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Indo-European root is ambiguous itself in modern terms of 'guest' and 'host' (both of which come from the Proto-Indoeuropean root). Fortson (Indo-European Language and Culture ISBN 1-4) says "PIE did not have words distinguishing 'guest' -rom 'host'; rather there was a single term meaning something like 'a stranger with whom one has reciprocal duties of -hospitality'. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Steewi, are you using a Selectric typewriter? (They have a habit of making a hyphen if you hit a key weakly.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights, though I don't think anyone could explain what they would make of a sentence like "the host said to his host...." although I guess the point is they wouldn't say it at all, but would reconstruct the sentence somehow. Still, it seems like an annoying language, and much as I like learning it, I'm thankful I'll never have to use it in conversation. It's been emotional (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Learning

Does anyone know any quality, effective, free Arabic or Spanish language learning courses online?--Elatanatari (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At this time, Arabic language#External links lists 14 external links. If any are free, they should say so; whether any are of good quality or are effective, you might find out by experience. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...so you might try contacting the editor/s who posted those External links (revealed in Edit history) and might have some further remarks to share. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For Spanish, I found this very helpful for learning the very basics (especially of grammar). -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SpanishPod [2]] isn't free, but the audio of the lessons is free. The extra learning materials are for premium members. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornish translation

The following comment has been left on my talk page "Yo, a Dhuncan, a vab an gusul wann, yth os kepar hag eghen nownek!" Unfortunately, I do not read Cornish (in any of its various forms), and would be grateful for a translation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the etymology of the phrase "A Day in the Life"?

Does anyone know the etymology of the phrase "A Day in the Life"? It's used quite a bit now. Did the Beatles invent this phrase? If not, was it as common back then as it is now? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was varied from Boris Pasternak Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in 1962, and became a best seller just as the Beatles were getting up and running. People would often casually, or unknowingly, refer to it as A Day in the Life ... rather than One Day in the Life .... But that's a guess and I could be way off. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not Pasternak, Jack. Deor (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know that people often casually, or unknowingly, or (as in this case) stupidly, refer to Solzhenitsyn as "Boris Pasternak", Deor?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn would be less than thrilled. He looked on Pasternak (a little unfairly, perhaps) as practically a toady of the Soviets. In any event, AS was much more of a dissident. Xn4 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Colour supplements used to do "A Day in the Life of [insert name of well-known person]" features, I believe these started in the 60's. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems a very odd question to me, like asking for the "etymology" of time of year or father of the house. I'd say that "a day in the life of …" is a collocation of words that has always been available to anyone employing the English language, and I have no doubt that it's been used with some frequency for a very long time. Here's a 1908 article titled "A Day in the Life of a London Reporter," for example. Why would one imagine that this is a coinage of the Beatles or Solzhenitsyn or anyone else quite recent? Lennon may have added a bit of torque to the title by intentionally leaving out the "of …" phrase (perhaps to generalize it so that it applies to the lives of all of us), but he was clearly making use of a familiar expression, not coining anything. Deor (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It was already a cliche phrase by the 1960s when the abovementioned "colour supplements" used it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that old-fashioned to talk about colour supplements!DuncanHill (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was a wee one, only just learning English, my textbook had an interview section taken from a magazine, entitled "The Life in a Day of...". The textbook example went on to describe an average day of Linda McCartney, and my teacher insisted that the "the life in a day of" phrasing was some sort of mistake, that what was really meant was "a day in the life of". I found that to be flawed reasoning, as I could see clearly that by reversing the phrase, a joke was intented.

Not sure where I'm going with this, perhaps I just wanted to point out that not everyone can recognise collocations when we see them, professionals included. Gee, I hope noone gets upset with me for using this talk page as a conversation forum... TomorrowTime (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is much older than the Beatles or Solzhenitsyn. For example, The Mount Vernon Reader, copyright 1835, has a section on "A Day in the Life of One Who Was Always Behindhand." I don't think it was new then. My impression is that it was at least as popular in the 1960s as it is now. John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

mapudungun wikipedia

what is the status of the mapudungun wikipedia? i am very interested in this project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The language Mapudungun has the language code "arn", and appears not to be mentioned at Wikimedia wikis.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The test Wikipedia in Mapudungun is at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arn. —Angr 21:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See also meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mapudungun 2 and meta:Language subcommittee/Status/wp/arn. Please don't hesitate to contribute to the test project! You can also help by recruiting new contributors. Regards, Korg (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Korean language

Can someone please check the accuracy of this text (korean)

지훈,

메리크리스마스, 새해 복 많이 받아 이 책이 니가 멋진 경제학자가 되는데에 좋은 영향이 되었으면해 학교 신청한거에도 행운이 따랐으면 좋겠구, 잘될거라고 생각해 너같은 학생 받는다는것만으로도 영광스러운 일일거야 UN도 마찬가지로 너로 인한 엄청난 이익을 보게될거구. 이 책 영원히 간직해줘, 그럼 우리가 함께했던 기억과 야망도 항상 기억할수 있을테니까. 행운을 빌며

아일랜드의 아름다운 섬에서 너의 최고의 친구, Jim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris12121 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)