Language desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

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 7

Polish municipal post?

From the Polish Wikipedia page on Janusz Zarzycki: "...przewodniczący Prezydium Rady Narodowej miasta stołecznego Warszawy" -- what would this position and body be in English? (My searching in Polish is confounded by the inflection suffixes I've yet to master.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further: According to the List of mayors of Warsaw, it appears to be "'Head of the Municipal Branch of the National Council' (Przewodniczący Prezydium Miejskiej Rady Narodowej)"...do I understand correctly that Warsaw's mayor has a special status being head of the country's capital as well as the city per se? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Communism, there were no invidual mayors, voivoides etc. Instead, each local administrative unit (village, city, county, voivoideship) had its own National Council. Members of the National Council would elect from among themselves a presidium, including the head of the presidium. Roughly speaking, the head of the Presidium of the National Council of the Capital City of Warsaw (which is how I would translate przewodniczący Prezydium Rady Narodowej miasta stołecznego Warszawy) was an equivalent of a mayor, although technically the whole National Council was a sort of collective mayor. Similarly, Poland as a whole did not have a president back then, but a collective head of state known as the Council of State. As of today, the National Councils have been replaced by directly elected mayors. Note that in larger Polish cities, the mayor holds the title of a city president (prezydent miasta), while in smaller towns s/he is referred to as burmistrz (from German Burgmeister). Although the position of a city president of Warsaw is de facto a powerful one (Lech Kaczyński, for instance, was a city president of Warsaw before becoming the president of Poland), it has never had any formally special status compared to mayors or presidents of other cities. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

przewodniczący Prezydium Rady Narodowej miasta stołecznego Warszawy would literally translate to chairman of the Presidium of the National Council of the capital city of Warsaw. The "capital city of Warsaw" part doesn't really mean anything, the "capital city" is just the same as any other large polish city only much larger and more wealthy which makes the post of the "President of capital city of Warsaw" much more prestigious. Just like other large polish cities, Warsaw is not only a city but also a powiat ("miasto grodzkie" "miasto na prawach powiatu") due to the number of inhabitants, as a result the President of Warsaw has the powers of a starosta (the chief of a powiat). Mieciu K (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT KIND OF SENTENCE STRUCTURE IS THIS?

Simple, compound, complex, or compound-complex?

If she can't do it anymore, then you replace her.

please explain your answers. thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.232.248 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework. —An gr 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms aren't really standard linguistic terminology anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, though at one time they were certainly common in elementary school, not that that's where the questioner is coming from.

Simple sentence (one independent clause):
Santa enjoys watching The Horse's Mouth.
Compound sentence (two independent clauses):
Santa enjoys watching The Horse's Mouth, and his wife shoots clay pigeons.
Complex sentence (independent clause joined with a dependent clause):
Santa enjoys watching The Horse's Mouth, although his wife prefers shooting clay pigeons.
Compound-complex (two independent clauses and a dependent clause):
Santa enjoys watching The Horse's Mouth, although his wife, who enjoys the shotgun their son gave her for Hanukkah, prefers shooting clay pigeons.

--- OtherDave (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want a "but" rather than an "although" in your compound-complex example. Deor (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously "then" is being used here as a subordinating conjunction, so you've got a dependent clause. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether you're joking, but the "If …" clause is the dependent clause in the OP's sentence. Deor (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COORDINATING CONJUNCTIONS

What do people mean when they say that coordinating conjunctions combine or join together words or group of words of "equal rank or footing"? Can anyone explain this by also illustrating through sentences? I will be so happy if sombody would do it. Thank you very much in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.232.248 (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't, you often get syllepsis... AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that one of the groups of words is not playing a role as part of the other. For example:

I saw her then.
I saw her after she returned.

The word "then" is used here as a adverb qualifying the verb "saw". The phrase "after she returned is also used in effect as an adverb qualifying the verb "saw". But "she returned" is itself a complete sentence, so the clause "after she returned" is a subordinate clause. Since it acts as an adverb that is part of the verb phrase in the larger sentence, then two sentences joined ("I saw her" and "she returned") are not "on an equal footing", so the word "after", used here as a conjunction, is a subordinating conjunction. "Subordination" means just that one sentence is made by the conjunction into a constituent part of the other sentence (in this case it becomes part of a clause acting as an adverb in the other sentence). When a conjunction subordinates one clause to another like this, then they are not on an equal footing. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that these conjunctions - "rank or footing", "let or hindrance" arise because of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. At that time, England had its own legal system, which was codified by Alfred the Great. However, when William the Conqueror took over, he imported the legal system of Norman France along with its language (and a large number of his citizens). These phrases represent the method adopted by the court to make sure all William's subjects understood the laws: one word is derived from Old English, the other is derived from Norman French. If you're unsure about which is which, it's usually the word ending in -ce that's the French derived one.

--TammyMoet (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "equal rank or footing," your textbook means essentially that the elements joined by the conjunctions have the same syntactic function or status in the discourse. For example,

John and Mary were strolling down the street together. (Both boldfaced elements are subjects of "were strolling.")
I hate John and Mary. (Both are direct objects of "hate.")
Mary entered the room and sat down. (Both are predicates of the subject "Mary.")
John walked down the hallway and into the sitting room. (Both are prepositional phrases modifying "walked.")
John kissed Mary passionately, and Mary responded with ardor. (Both are independent clauses and thus of equal syntactic "rank" in the compound sentence.)

and so forth. Many pernickety stylists recommend that in addition to having the same syntactic function, the words joined should be grammatically parallel—for example, if one is a gerund, both (or all) should be; or if one is an infinitive phrase, both should be. They would recast a sentence such as "She likes swimming and to take long hikes" as either "She likes swimming and taking long hikes" or "She likes to swim and to take long hikes". Does that help? Deor (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deor: Although, as far as I know, I have never been accused of being a "pernickety stylist", I much prefer "She likes swimming and taking long hikes" over "She likes swimming and to take long hikes." How do you personally feel about this choice? Also, what about another option that comes to my mind: "She likes to swim and take long hikes." Thank you, CBHA (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, too, although it may be read as implying—by contrast with "to swim and to take long hikes"—that the swimming and the hiking are engaged in together, as part of a single activity. I consider myself a rather pernickety stylist, by the way. Deor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some (many) people would regard "She likes swimming and to take long hikes" as poor style, but I don't think that opinion makes them pernickety, merely lovers of beauty and abhorrers of ugliness. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I intentionally used a grotesque example for the benefit of the OP, who seems to be a schoolchild; but one sees similar but subtler failures of parallelism in coordinate constructions all the time in print. Not to mention Chaucer and Shakespeare and … Deor (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no position to speak about English style, but isn't there a benefit in the mixed style? Let me still use Deor's simple example, and please use your imagination how this would work in a more complicated sentence: Written symmetrically, the sentence can be parsed to mean "She likes swimming long hikes - and she likes taking long hikes". This interpretation is unlikely in this simple sentence, but I can imagine that if the sentence were more complicated and had verbs that are often used both transitively and intransitively, then this style could help nudge the reader towards not assuming that one verb mirrors the other. — Sebastian 03:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

improv

Should you technically put a period after the abbreviation "improv"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.107 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how technical you are. Do you put a period after "fan" (from fanatic)? Do you put a period before "phone?" I'd say "improv" is not an abbreviation in the sense that "Inc." is; "improv" is newly coined speech, the way "fax" emerged to replace "facsimile" for a particular type of copy. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A period before "phone"? Is this ever done with initial cut-offs? (Side question: Is "phone" an aphesis, or what would you call this type of word?) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was hyperbole... (sign) --- OtherDave (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. "Technical" made me think this notation might exist somewhere. Thanks, I was genuinely curious. . ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sat: NOT if you pronounce "improv" as just two syllables instead of saying the whole word that it abbreviates. When you pronounce it that way, you're making it into a new word instead of just a written abbreviation. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One still comes across British writers who write 'flu, comma and all...and of course Americans who write the 'burbs and the 'rents...mos' def' !!! Rhinoracer (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't flu be 'flu' then? Also, help out a non-native here. What exactly is "improv" an abreviation of? Improvisation? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; in particular, improvisational theater. —An gr 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, we call improvisational theater "impro" in Slovene. Seems less bulky that way... TomorrowTime (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I often correct 'cello (abbreviated from violoncello) to cello. It's long past the time when this was necessary and I'm sure nobody writes it with the apostrophe privately, but for some reason they feel the need to do so when writing an encyclopedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, playing the 'cello is almost as affected nowadays as talking on the 'phone. —An gr 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're more of an optimist that I am, Jack -- I am sure that some do write cello with an apostrophe in private, to give themselves that enduring glow that comes from self-righteousness. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about piano'? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh! Now that's one I've never seen, or even imagined. But I have seen p'forte in old books. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a word

which is the word in english language which do not have vowels and y in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.101.50 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in our article on words without vowels. One example is crwth. I used to have a game where you had to find all the possible words that could be formed out of one word's letters; I think nth was the only one in that electronic-dictionary without vowels. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if crwth is pronounced [kruːθ], then isn't the W in it a vowel? And then, if "nth" is a word without vowels, then what about "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", etc? No vowels in these either, unless you spell them out as "first", "second", etc.; but then you could also do this with "enth". — Kpalion^(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it depends whether you're talking about pronunciation or not. If you want a word that doesn't have a vowel sound in its pronunciation, that's the case for and, which is often pronounced with a single syllabic consonant. 67.150.244.99 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ə is not considered a vowel sound, then the pronunciation ðə has no vowel sound. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let us not forget Qwghlm. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this crwth example since Crwth Courseware, a software training company back in the 1980s. People love to harp on it, but it's a bit fatuous to drag in a word from Welsh and say "no vowels," when the relevant letter is a vowel in the original.

It was just one example from the article I linked to, which lists both words without vowel letters and words without vowel sounds. Since 78.101 asked about words "which do not have vowels and y", I assumed he meant the vowel letters a, e, i, o, u, otherwise I don't think the letter "y" would have been mentioned specially. In addition, it sounded a bit like a quiz question, not like a linguistic question. I picked cwrth because it's a funny word, not to be fatuous. (But I did like the pun).---Sluzzelin talk 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the whole concept of vowel letters a little awkward in English where there are letters like Y, W and R, that may represent both vowel and consonant sounds? It might make more sense in languages where it's more clear-cut, but not necessarily in this slur of a language. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you, sir! I demand satisfaction. It's dictionaries at 20 paces at dawn. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "colo(u)ris/ze"

1. Is "colo(u)ris/ze" the only word in the English language with four different spellings?

I've seen "glamorise", and I imagine it also appears as glamorize, glamourise and glamourize. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine where it would be spelt glamourize or glamourise, other than on the notoriously inaccurate MS Word "British English" spellchecker, which also misspells humorous as humourous (or at least it did the last time I looked, admittedly many years ago now). In correct British English, glamour becomes glamorous, hence it would most likely be glamorise. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, SOED includes this short entry:

glamourise, glamourize vs., glamourous a. vars. of GLAMORIZE, GLAMOROUS.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only got the First Edition, which goes straight from Glamour (inc. glamorous and glamorously but not glamorize) to Glance. You can tell it's old-fashioned, because the lemmas have capitals. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked (file file, rummage ...) almost three years ago: "Three spellings, one meaning?". Includes examples with more than four different spellings. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Where is the spelling "colorise" used? I know that "colourise" is used in Australia and parts of the British Isles, "colourize" in other parts of the British Isles and "colorize" in the US, but what about "colorise"? 60.230.180.175 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Colourize" is probably also most common in Canada. I doubt "colorise" is considered correct anywhere. —An gr 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, SOED begins an entry like this:

colourize /"kVl<schwa>rVIz/ v.t. Also *color-; -ise.

Certainly colorise is used. For what it's worth (which is something), colorise gets almost a million hits on Google.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, miniscule gets 1.7m hits on Google. But nevertheless minuscule is the correct spelling. Most of the highest-ranked hits for colorise are for a proprietary-brand piece of software called Colorise® or the French word colorisé without the accent. I see no ships. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We smile indulgently when we hear talk of "the correct spelling". :)

I would never write miniscule, which is based on a patent misconception. Colorise is not, however: it is based on sound principles of word-formation. SOED does not have it directly. As with the case of glamourise (above), SOED does not permute all the possibilities. Nor does OED, for modern spellings. In fact, colorise is well founded on two grounds: British English will often uniformly prefer -ise; and in back-formations and combinations generally, -or- is preferred to -our-, even if the base word ends in -our. OED has both colourisation and colorisation in its citations at the entry "colorization, colourization", without bothering to list every spelling variant at the top in its time-honoured way.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O, and colorise is indeed one variant that is used in Australia. It's listed among alternatives in the Macquarie Dictionary.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't directly answer your question, unless you're ultimately going for the maximum number of ways to spell a word. There are 24 (twenty-four!) ways to spell Katherine:

[C|K] a t [h|] [a|e] r i n [a|e|]

depending on which language it was "imported" from. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that. Try:

[C|K] a t [h|] [a|e|] r [i|y] n [a|e|]

Which still doesn't cover Catriona, Caitlin, Catalina, or Kathleen. —An gr 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or Екатерина (/jekaterina/). —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the spelling of a word varies a lot, dictionaries tend to vary in how they list them. But in my Random House Unabridged, under jinn, it says "also jinni, djin, djinn, djinni, jin". That's six versions, but the ones ending in -i are pronounced differently, so you might prefer to count them as different words.

Another word with a lot of spellings is the Yiddish-derived slang word for a person's rear end. Wiktionary and the OED between them list 11 different spellings -- in alphabetical order, tochas, toches, tochess, tochis, tochus, tocus, tokhes, tokus, tuchas, tuches, and tuchus -- and I have seen at least 2 others, tookus and tuchis. But perhaps you do not consider this word as "English". --Anonymous, 07:00 UTC, December 8, 2008.

When it comes to words borrowed or used from a language that uses different orthography, there'll almost always be multiple transliteration choices, with none of them necessarily any more "correct" than any of the others. Anon's example beats anything I can think of, for common nouns. With proper nouns (I know this gets right away from "English" words, but I feel compelled to continue this line of thought, and it's not entirely unrelated), Beijing was spelt Peking in my memory, and before that Peiping and probably other ways. I've seen the Tchai- of Tchaikovsky spelt Chai, Chay, Tschai, Tchay, and the -kovsky spelt as kowsky, kovskiy, kovskij, kowskij and so on, which makes over 20 possible combinations. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20? Hah! See Muammar al-Gaddafi#Name. --Anon, 05:30 UTC, December 10, 2008.

What, not Czaj–? —Tamfang (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say "over 20". There are probably more like 100 possibilities. And that's just with "correctly spelled" versions. When it comes to mis-spellings, the field's wide open, starting with the -oskys. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]