Language desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 18

Simple German translation

"Der MBA ist heute überbewertet. Als Abschluss ist er inflationär und von seinen Ansprüchen her oft völlig verflacht."

The above sentence doesn't make too much sense for me, specially the last part. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is something like the following. I think the last sentence is not grammatical, but my German is not fluent.

"The MBA is overvalued nowadays. Its awarding is inflationary and its demand often makes it completely discredited." I.e., too many MBAs are granted and it is too often used as a job requirement in cases where it should not be, reducing the degree's value. A native speaker might do better. --Xuxl (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) an online dictionary says "The MBA is today overestimated. As conclusion it is inflationary and flattened from its requirements often completely."

I don't know what 'verflacht' really means (certainly not flattened) but the sentence basically would mean "MBA's are overrated these days. Having one doesn't mean anything anymore, not even that it will be any help whatsoever in actual business management." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verflacht literally means "flattened", but one online dictionary also gives "degenerate" as a definition of "verflachen", and another gives "make shallow". I'd say something like "The MBA today is overvalued. As a degree, it is inflationary and often completely degenerated in terms of its requirements" or "...and its requirements are often completely without depth" or something. —An gr 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what "verflacht" describes here: no depth regarding requirements or standards, i.e. lowbrow. -- 93.132.170.2 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL)

How difficult is it to get a job teaching English in Japan (to Japanese students or other non-English speaking students) if I speak hardly any Japanese? And would I need a TEFL qualification of some sort? Astronaut (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to get a job teaching English in Japan. You will not need to speak Japanese (and many schools ban Japanese from lessons) and most places will not require a TEFL cert. They will generally train you in their own system, anyway, and some schools think a TEFL cert is actually a hindrance in this respect, as they have to clean you out of all the practices you learned before. Most of them have their own regimented teaching methods, and you have to follow them (This is for private language schools - not kindergarten/elementary/junior high/high school, where depending on the place you may have full control of the curriculum you teach or you may only be able to repeat after the Japanese teacher to show the pronunciation). You will need a university degree in a subject. The subject does not matter, as this is only for work-visa purposes. You have a choice of applying for jobs from where you are, then flying to Japan, or going to Japan first and applying. The second option is very risky and expensive, though. Try this website or this one.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you have blond hair and blue eyes. Throughout North-east Asia, Asian-looking native English speakers tend to have more difficulty / earn less than "American" or "European" looking teachers. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all. There is a legal minimum wage for English teachers (250,000 yen/month) and everyone tends to earn that, regardless of ethnicity, experience, ability to stay sober for at least an hour, etc. As a legal minimum wage, it also tends to be a maximum wage, so you would be best making your own school while you are there. Plenty more cash to be had that way.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an official programme for this sort of thing called JET, see their website here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JET, however, will only employ you for a maximum of two years, plus you just end up working as a human tape-recorder, just repeating stuff when the Japanese teacher asks you to. If you want a career, you would be better going with a school (or private Eikaiwa) and getting experience there, then setting up your own place, which is what many do. It is quite lucrative if you can do it.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language and meaning of Brooklyn seal

In Brooklyn, New York I often see a stylized City seal on various things, garbage pails, city trucks etc. that has the following language on it: "Een Draght Mikt Maght". I've been wondering what language this is and what it means. It doesn't sound Latin to my ear at all, Maybe Gaelic? Old English? Some form of Old High German? Well I really haven't a clue which is why I'm here asking.--71.249.58.203 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Brooklyn notes that it's archaic Dutch and translates as In Unity There is Strength. - Nunh-huh 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that, but a better translation might be "Concord Makes Strength". Strawless (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the text is (but is has often been corrupted): "Eendraght maekt maght", old Dutch for Unity makes strength. The Dutch were the original settlers of Brooklyn (Breukelen).

Questions on slang

The article List of Internet slang says to look at this where "FAQ" is listed as Internet slang. The short form "FAQ" is not intended to offend someone, then why it is considered Internet slang?
Is there any difference between slang and Internet slang with the exception one is exclusively used in the Internet? The article slang gives the definition "highly informal words and expressions that are not considered standard in the speaker's dialect or language" and Internet slang is defined as "slang that Internet users have coined and popularized". Does slang always intended to offend someone? If this is not the case, it may answer my previous question.
What is the relation of slang with pejorative? Category:Pejorative terms for people is within Category:Slang. The article pejorative gives the definition "Words and phrases are pejorative if they imply disapproval or contempt. When used as an adjective, pejorative is synonymous with derogatory, derisive, dyslogistic, and contemptuous". Can we conclude from this "all pejoratives are slang, but all slangs are not pejorative"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither all slang are pejoratives or vice-versa. Some examples:

"Ain't" -> slang only

"Idiot" -> pejorative only (not counting the now obsolete medical usage) StuRat (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perjorative and slang are unrelated concepts. Slang is just non-standard language; i.e. something that is outside the formal textbook form of the language. Slang can take the form of any part of language, including non-standard pronounciations, abbreviations, alternate words (ain't comes to mind here), non-standard sentence construction, etc. etc. Slang isn't offensive, its just non-standard.

Internet slang is simply slang that tends to get propagated via the Internet, pertaining to its usage and culture. This is akin to, for example, other forms of slang which are unique to other cultures, such as "Diner slang", often heard between waitresses and short-order cooks, or Cockney rhyming slang, peculiar to East London. There is nothing inherently offensive about internet slang either. If I say I "rofled", its understood that this is Internet slang for "rolled on the floor, laughing". There is nothing offensive about the phrase.

Perjorative refers to language, slang or not, that carries negative emotional weight beyond the dictionary definition. If you say to an adult who is feeling sad, "Oh, poor baby... " you are being perjorative. The phrase isn't perjorative if uttered to, say, a 6 month old baby. Perjorative language has a cultural and social context, and awareness of that context is needed to understand the impact of those words. As another example, there's nothing really perjorative about the word "bitch" if overheard at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, though I dare say that in other contexts the word could be taken as quite perjorative... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people in Boston who could use all those r's you so carelessly tossed into the first syllable of pejorative. Won't somebody think of the New Englanders? --LarryMac | Talk 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Jayron, it's spelled pejorative, not perjorative. Nothing to do with the prefix "per". I imagine it comes from the Latin adjective for "bad" (malus), in the comparative ("worse") - peior, sometimes spelled pejor. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. Sometimes I misspell words. I know that makes all of you a higher class of human being than me. Is there anything appropriately degrading I can do for you all, given my lowly standing on the ladder of humanity? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining polite when people give you useful information would be a good start. Algebraist 04:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you do continue to be right while I continue to be wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do we capitalize the word 'I'?

i usually don't but, people do. i guess it's a pronoun and we don't capitalize pronouns (he, you, she, we, etc.). plus, 'I' can get easily confused with 'l' (lowercase L) or '1'(number one). is there any grammatical reason for doing this? Janviermichelle (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is done because it is always pronounced the same as the name of the letter. Middle and Old English never had this practise, as the word was 'ich' and 'ic' respectively in those days and did not resemble the name of the letter.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has anything to do with being pronounced the same as the name of the letter. What difference would that make? It's capitalized because i is a small, narrow letter that's easily overlooked in writing, so capitalizing it increases its visibility. Incidentally, that's the same reason lowercase i has a tittle on it. —An gr 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See I (pronoun). In insular script, adjacent letters written with minims (short strokes, as in i/j, m, n, u/v/w) were hard to distinguish from each other. A capital I stood out more. For the same reason, u was changed to o in many such sequences (love, woman, etc.) jnestorius^(talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really why "love" and "woman" are spelled like that? Doesn't it have more to do with the personal preference of the owners of the first printing presses? I mean, O and U are never really that similar in handwritten manuscripts. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he meant "o" and "u" are similar, but rather that "u" and "v" are, as are "w", "u", and "m". In Carolingian minuscule there is a certain risk that "wuman" would look like "ııııııııaıı" and "luve" like "lııııe". But whether that's really the reason these words are spelled with "o", I don't know. —An gr 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that makes more sense. That would be a big problem in Gothic too, which was used by the time Middle English came around. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why they started to capitalise it. It doesn't explain why we continue to capitalise it when thousands of other spellings have changed. The only thing that explains that is tradition. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they have changed very slowly, by pedagogy, use, kings, custom and consensus? If I saw "i" anywhere except in a text message, just standing around by itself without a context, I'd say "i" not eye. Maybe, Julia Rossi (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ego. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grammar

Which is correct? BB-sized gallstones or BB-size gallstones Also, which is correct? hair-bearing cyst or hair bearing cyst

Both "BB-sized" and "BB-size" are correct; which to use is a matter of preference. Many copy editors would favor the latter, as "sized" seems to suggest a process rather than an attribute. Similarly, "hair-bearing cyst" vs. "hair bearing cyst" is a matter of stylistic preference. Most style guides would recommend that a phrasal adjective (like "hair-bearing") should be hyphenated when placed before a noun, to avoid misdirecting the reader. The pertinent paragraphs in the most recent CMOS are 5.92 and 5.93. - Nunh-huh 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by CMOS you presumably mean the Chicago Manual of Style, not Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor. FiggyBee (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Consumer Inflation'

Don't you think that the term 'Consumer Inflation' as used by the BBC Website here sounds derogatory or insulting? Yes, we are the consumers, but we didn't put prices up. It was the business owners!--ChokinBako (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's shorthand for "the inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index", as distinct from "the inflation as measured by the Retail Price Index" and "core inflation", which are different measures. I'm not derogated or insulted by it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the term CPI inflation. Is there one? Thanks to you, Jack I won't feel bad next time I hear consumer(s are creating) inflation. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CPI Inflation is, quite fortunately, a phrase only used (and understood) by economists. It has the virtue of distinguishing between price changes as measured by the consumer price indices (we have four different ones where I live), as opposed to those measured by retail prices indices (which exclude services, or about 40-60% of household spending), the private consumption expenditure deflator (the Fed’s favorite) and the broadest change of prices in any economy, the GDP deflator.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Consumer inflation" makes me visualize somebody going to McDonald's. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would by CBI ... Consumer's Butt Inflation (or am I thinking of Taco Bell ?). StuRat (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers are just as responsible for rising prices of the items they buy as retailers. If consumers refuse to pay high prices, by shopping elsewhere, skipping purchases, or buying a less expensive alternative product, then prices come back down. When consumers buy items without even looking at the price, the price is guaranteed to go up. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many consumers are employees, seeking increases in their incomes from their employers, who are consumers of their services. One person's pay increase is another person's inflation. Employers support pay increases to their employees by increasing prices of their products and services. Therefore, there is a multi-dimensional chain reaction throughout the economy, involving many economic sectors and many individuals.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even non-money-earning members of families are involved, when they nag the money-earning members for things they want, and the latter ones try to find family happiness by always fulfilling such wishes.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to point out that about 20% of total US private consumption expenditure is spent on goods (not services) that are falling in price, and that does not include (for lack of data) computers, peripherals and softwear. The biggest increase in prices households pay since 2000 has been fuel, followed by higher education (+5.5% per annum) and health insurance (+5.3% p.a.). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Social accounting. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]