Language desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17

"snortling"

What does it means? Why isn't it in any dictionary? See the source here. Mr.K. (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, from the context, it's probably a portmanteau of "snort" and "chortle", referring to that unpleasant kind of laughing where you make a snorting noise when you breathe in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the word, but I like Nicknack009's answer, especially since chortle is probably a portmanteau of chuckle and snort, coined by Lewis Carroll in "Jabberwocky". A portmanteau whose source words are also portmanteau? Excellent. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the dictionary because it's not a word. It's a portmanteau made up on the spot. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing intrigues me. New words get coined all the time, and it's happening at such an increasingly frequent rate that lexicographers are having a hard time keeping up with them. Someone has to be the first to use a new word, then if it's "catchy", others start to copy them, and before you know it everyone's using it. Then lexicographers come along and recognise the word has entered the language. When did the word become a "word" - from the moment of its coining, or only from the first time it gets into a dictionary? Lexicographical recognition is always retrospective, and there's a kind of twilight zone between. I'm not saying that "snortling" will eventually find its way into popular acceptance; it may, but it may not. But if it ever does, then it will have existed as a word ever since the cartoonist (or whoever) made it up. So, it may already be a word; we'll just have to wait till some dictionary confirms that that's the case before we can pronounce on the matter. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Snortling" is one of those onomatopoeic words that's been around for ages, and relies on context for meaning. The kind of noise which involves the nose: "I was snortling and sneezing away"; "the pig snuffled and snortled all around my feet"; "he looked so funny, there I was, snortling away" and so on. Interestingly, though, while googling to see just how common it was (2500 ghits), I discovered quite a few where it seems to be a mis-spelling for snorkelling (eg. [1]), but also this ref to the Dilbert cartoon, which suggests snortling is "a process of sneakily shorting invoices so that no one know where they are (yes, it often includes laughter). Advance snortling includes constantly changing submission policies without notifying frontline managers so that the paperwork is eternally going to the wrong place or being kicked back." But Googling "snortling invoice" doesn't provide any corroboration for that random interneter's comment. Gwinva (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher Prairie, 1920 is the earliest use i've found. A snort is a submarine snorkel, so that may not be a mis-spelling.—eric 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"solistic"

What does "solistic" mean?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In music, I think it means "having the style of a solo". What's the context? —An gr 10:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinfonia_concertante 68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's what I thought. "The impression is rather symphonic as a whole, with some solistic interventions not outspokenly dominating the orchestra" means there are parts in the sinfonia where one instrument is featured in a solo-like way, but without completely outshining the orchestra as it would in a concerto. —An gr 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"single movement"

What does "single movement" mean?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved/moves once? Seriously we need more context, as it would have a different meaning to a musician than to a locksmith. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_music#Symphonic_poems 68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it means that the music is one whole piece, rather than being separated into separate Movement (music)s. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"symmetrical tonality"

What does "symmetrical tonality" mean?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I assume your context is music. If you're talking about tonality in painting, just ignore my reply). In music "symmetrical tonality" refers to reflection symmetry along a one dimensional line, that of pitch. You can imagine it displayed on a vertical axis in sheet music notation, though the visual scaling will be uneven, with a horizontal axis of symmetry. Now you can center around a chosen note (example E) and reflect a rising interval (example the minor third E-G) downward and you get a "symmetrical" chord (C#-E-G, in this example a diminshed triad). This technique can be expanded to other intervals, and to chords and tone-clusters made of four, five, six, etc. notes. You can also reflect triads and monstrous clusters, or reflect around a note that isn't even part of the set.

One condition for true symmetry is an equidistantial (or isometric) scaling of pitches. In Western music the first successful scaling of this type was the system of twelve-tone equal temperament (other, even older systems of equal temperament exist outside Western music, as explained in the article). Bach has a lot of symmetrical play in his compositions, but it was Bartók who took it to new extremes as a composing technique, outside conventional laws of harmony. "Tonal Reflection in the Elements of Music" might illustrate this a bit more clearly. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "steveador"

I heard the word used on a TV show. I looked it up on various search sites tried to find definitions but all I came up with were a few pages on the net where the word had been used by someone. Typically it was describing someone as a "steveador" or asking if someone was a "steveador". Originally when I head the word it was used in the sentence "She had arms like a steveador." I haven't a clue as to what it may mean.

Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzy-good-make-feel-nice (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Stevedore. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trait most often referenced would be that they are muscular. A secondary reference might be to them being rather crude: "She was as refined as the average stevedore." StuRat (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard the word "stevedore" used except with some form of the phrase "swear like a" before it. —An gr 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I know the show the OP is referencing (and I'm prepared to bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in their pockets that I do) the comparison is to physical power.

A steveador is someone who works unloading cargo from ships at a dock. Since they lift a lot of heavy stuff, they would therefore be muscular.

can talk for England

What does this mean? Talk much? Talk in English?80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means talk a lot, or even too much. Bazza (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The implication being that the person talks so much, they could represent the English national talking team (if there was one, which there isn't). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that phrase for the first time recently, I think it was in Nick Hornby's Slam; I had no idea it was so commonly used (as evidenced by Google search). I love it when my real life and Wikipedia intersect. --LarryMac | Talk 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed common, LarryMac, and is a form used for many things: "could sleep for England"; "could drink for England"; "could whinge for England"; and so on. Gwinva (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use the exact same phrase in Ireland (but with "could....for Ireland"). They probably have Welsh and Scottish variants too. Fribbler (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Ireland should be disqualified from the European talking championship for possessing an unfair advantage . ---Sluzzelin talk 23:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance-enhancing dolerite? :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the word?

I'm looking for some word that describe the hair which covers the forehead of a human being. and I Don't mean to forelock, because it's belong to horses. 89.138.114.45 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, we generally call that "bangs". We have an article on Fringe (hair). --LarryMac | Talk 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But It's for women, not men. 89.138.114.45 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In American English at least, "bangs" can be found on both men and women. I don't know about a "fringe" in British English, though I suspect it can be used for both too. —An gr 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe is unisex as well. Fribbler (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also quiff for a rising non-covering fringe, worn by both sexes. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you will find it called the forelock in the rather obsolete phrase "touching his forelock"86.53.80.11 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Salute (origin section) and horse article Forelock in human use section. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic spoken texts

Do you know of any free source of Arabic spoken texts? I need both the text and the audio. A blog without text won't do it. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sites I got on a google search were Christian sites with biblical translations. Here's one that seems like a good 'un. Fribbler (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone found the bible, probably the Koran in Arabic will also be online. Just google it. GoingOnTracks (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Radio in Arabic may be helpful. Each news item has an mp3 which is more or less exactly transcribed as text. "Radio Free Iraq" used to do this for a lot of its stories, I don't know if they still do. --Cam (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"May I End This Sentence With a Proposition?"

Where did this saying originally come from? I'm not a native English speaker and I just really don't understand this. Help?--Faizaguo 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun on "preposition" and "proposition". English has a grammatical construct where a preposition can appear after its object when the object is a noun clause -- "I want someone to go to the movies with tonight". The Wikipedia article on this subject calls it preposition stranding (and incorrectly describes the preposition as not having an object), but a popular term for it is putting the preposition "at the end of the sentence", since that's where it often is (in the example, remove "tonight" from the sentence).

Now, unfortunately some people consider this construction erroneous and object to its being used. So if you were nervous about another person's opinions of grammar (say, if you were a writer talking to an editor), you might ask if it was acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. A proposition, on the other hand, means (in this context) asking someone if they want to have sex with you. --Anonymous, edited 17:37 UTC, June 17, 2008.

The article about preposition stranding is now fixed. Strad (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In simpler words, ending an English sentence with a preposition is considered grammatically inappropriate to some (see here for more). Also, it could be considered inappropriate to proposition to someone. Take the similarity (and 'inappropriateness') of the two words, throw them in a sentence like yours, and you got yourself a pun! Kreachure (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what anyone would want to end a sentence with a preposition for. There are far better things to end sentences with. Personally, I think more people far prefer to end them with propositions - how about you? Grutness...wha? 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that's called "proposal...? --Faizaguo (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. A proposal is asking for marriage. A proposition is asking for sex. Ask any married person how different those suggestions are. :-) --Anonymous, 16:45 UTC, June 18.

Oh yeah. My mistake. Thanks.--Faizaguo (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I checked the Merriam-Webster dictionary and it said that proposition meant proposal.Coffsneeze (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm just confused, should have listened to my English teacher...--Faizaguo (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Leopold and Loeb, two wealthy young thrill killers of the 1920's. When Richard Loeb was stabbed to death by another inmate in prison, in 1936, who claimed he was defending himself against sexual assault. a newspaper writer, Ed Lahey quipped in the Chicago Daily News, "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition." Is that the origin of this pun? Edison (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish translation requested

I have sketched up an e-mail to be sent to a Spanish website that has translated a Wikipedia article without citing the source:

Hello! I have noticed you have an article about the World Bodypainting Festival on your website at http://www.cosmetologas.com/detalle.php?contenidoID=193. Please be aware that your article is essentially a translation, and thus a derived work, of the English Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bodypainting_Festival, which is released under GFDL. The GFDL requires published derived works to also fall under the GFDL. Therefore you have violated the license by failing to cite the source of your material, and by claiming to reserve all rights. The GFDL does not allow the publisher to impose stricter restrictions on derived works based on GFDL material. You are advised to revise your license, or possibly face legal consequences. Sincerely, (my name).

Could someone please translate this to Spanish? JIP | Talk 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hola! He notado que tienen un artículo sobre el World Bodypainting Festival en su sitio web http://www.cosmetologas.com/detalle.php?contenidoID=193. Tengan en cuenta que su artículo es básicamente una traducción, y por lo tanto una obra derivada, del artículo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bodypainting_Festival, de la enciclopedia en inglés Wikipedia, la cual es publicada bajo la GFDL. La GFDL exige publicar obras derivadas también bajo la GFDL. Por lo tanto, han violado la licencia al no citar la fuente de su material, y reclamar a reserva todos los derechos. La GFDL no permite que el editor imponga restricciones adicionales a obras derivadas basadas en material GFDL. Se les aconseja que modifique su licencia, o de lo contrario enfrentar posiblemente consecuencias legales. Atentamente, ..." I considered it to be intended for several people (who run the website), so it's in plural. If you want it to be intended for a single person, you only need to take the last n off tienen and tengan. Kreachure (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And the s off les, but that's it (seriously). Kreachure (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibbles: ¡Hola! (in Spanish opening marks are mandatory). And "se les aconseja que modifiquen (typo).
I would write "Se les aconseja que modifiquen su licencia, o de lo contrario enfrentarán posiblemente consecuencias legales." But then that's not very clear in the source, either. Finally, for a singular recipient, han should be made ha. Pallida Mors 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German question

Here is the first verse of one of Rammstein's best songs ever, Engel:

Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden

wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden

den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann

warum man sie nicht sehen kann

I have questions about each row.

This sentence doesn't seem to have a verb. "Who in his lifetime good on Earth"?
Do we really need the verb werden two times? Is it possible to say "will become" in German in any other way?
What does Blick gen Himmel mean? Is gen short for gegen?
I originally thought there would be da there. Which is grammatically correct, sie da nicht sehen or sie nicht da sehen?

JIP | Talk 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the first line doesn't have a verb. It occasionally happens in German, especially in poetry and other elevated styles, that finite forms of sein "to be" are omitted at the end of a subordinate clause. Both instances of werden are necessary in order to express "will become" (although under certain circumstances German uses the present with a future meaning, in which case wird alone would have been sufficient). Blick gen Himmel is "a heavenward glance"; gen is a rather old-fashioned preposition meaning "to" or "toward". (It can be used in the meaning of nach before place names, resulting in a spate of dirty jokes about going gen Italien.) If da were present in the last line, it would have to be between sie and nicht (but it would ruin the rhythm and it's not grammatically necessary). And to answer a question you didn't ask: Erden is the archaic dative singular of Erde, still used only in the phrase auf Erden "on Earth". And to dodge a question you didn't ask: I don't know how "den Blick gen Himmel" is supposed to fit in grammatically with the rest of the passage. —An gr 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"den Blick gen Himmel (gerichtet), fragst du dann.'" "gerichtet" ("directed") is implied here ("Den Blick" isn't the object of "fragst du dann"). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's an accusative absolute? Okay. —An gr 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, I guess so. (Didn't know the term, but it looks like that's it. de:Akkusativ#Der_absolute_Akkusativ has "Er stand unter der Tür, den Dolch in der Hand, und bewegte sich nicht" as an example.) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Duden's example "Neben ihm saß der dünnhaarige Pianist, den Kopf im Nacken, und lauschte" to our article. —An gr 22:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew about the accusative absolute before. I always thought the row meant "You ask from the glance towards heaven", which sounded silly. Now I understand it means "With a glance towards heaven, you ask", which is much more sensible. But my intuitive understanding keeps telling me it should be either der Blick gen Himmel or mit den Blick gen Himmel. The way it is just doesn't sound right. I guess it's because I'm not a native German speaker, I first started learning the language when I was about fourteen years old. JIP | Talk 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]