Language desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

Santa Claus

Consider the act of a parent telling a child that Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy, etc.) exists. Even though it's not the "best" word ... would the verb "lie" (in its literal sense) be accurate and applicable? That is ... technically / literally speaking ... are the parents lying to the child? Also, what are better words to use to accurately describe this situation? (A word from any part of speech is fine ... noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lie is fine. Other words off the top of my mind: deceive, trick, mislead, dupe, hoax. The fact that the parents wishes aren't necessarily deceitful doesn't change the truth that it is a lie. But honestly the whole Santa Claus thing probably teaches kids how to deal with "truth" itself, and hopefully they learn that you can't always take things at face value. They are going to get lied to a lot worse when they get older, so it's about time they got used to it. 124.154.253.25 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cajole? --59.182.39.66 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

"White lie" might fit, as it usually denotes a lack of malicious intent. It's not quite right, though, as it's usually about a trivial matter, not a big hoax like Santa Claus. --Sean 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say Santa Claus is a fable, though of low quality and soaked in consumerism. But saying that inventing stories is lying, recalls me too much of Vergerus, the severe bishop in Fanny and Alexander. Children like fables, and usually distinguish them from reality even better than grown-up people do! --pma (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White lie wouldn't be accurate because that's a small lie that you tell to protect someone's feelings. The idea that there's a magical man who will give them presents is hardly small and, although fun and relatively harmless,^{[dubious – discuss]} is not designed to protect someone's feelings Lie to children might apply. Although that applies specifically to oversimplifying explanations to children in ways they can understand, you could argue that that's what Santa Claus is. Since it's designed to keep kids in line, it might even be called a noble lie. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus is religion for children. The only difference is that the proselytizers perpetuate it from outside the belief system rather than from within it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the related links. This was helpful. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

ESL "essential English phrases list"

Hi, I'm looking for an ESL "essential/most common English phrases list", something like the "most common English words" lists that start with "the" and "is" hanging around the nets. I assume it would start with phrases like "Nice to meet you" and "How are you", "How tall are you", and maybe harder phrases like "Where are you going?" and "Do you know him?". I basically need a lot of basic words in their most useful contexts, for lipreading practice and learning about how the pronunciation of words changes in different contexts. Thanks for any help! 124.154.253.25 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking vs. understanding

Why do people say "I don't/can't speak (language)" instead of "I don't/can't understand (language)"? The latter makes more sense in the context people use the former in. 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to puzzle out languages that you can't speak. I can (with difficulty) read limited Spanish, but I don't know enough vocabulary/grammar/etc. to frame a decent sentence. Therefore, I "understand" but do not "speak." 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also sort of an idiomatic phrase. It's generally assumed that if you can't speak it that you also can't understand it (though as the above poster alluded to, language acquisition usually begins with a certain degree of understanding before production comes in to play. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the positive form "I speak English", "Sprechen Sie Deutsch", etc, is often used to mean "speak and understand", probably because it's easier to understand than to speak (this again has a sort of idiomatic sense but it's idiomatic across a wide range of languages), so the negative "I don't speak X" follows from the form "I speak X". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of parenthesis in quotes like "[W]hen blah blah..."

For example, in the following

[W]hen anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance — Brian Klug

I don't get the [W]hen.. Why do we have transcriptions like these? Was Brian Klug saying hen here!!! I am naive ... I know it. --59.182.39.66 (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was saying "when" in lower case, because "when" wasn't really the first word in the sentence; there was some more before that, but (we're being assured) it didn't affect the sense of the portion quoted.

By the way, those are "brackets" or "square brackets", not parentheses. Parentheses are round brackets (this kind).

--Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, April 21, 2009.

Thank you! --59.182.121.216 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the use of brackets, the customary use in philology is: square to modify, angle to integrate, round to expand. Had the original a "hen", an overzealous wikipedian would have written "⟨W⟩hen" in the quotation. That said, I just think those square brackets are there after a typo. The original article in Nation, and all other quotations I found by googling the sentence, have just "when". PS. Now I've read better the anonymous post: he's right, the brackets were used to pass from lower to capital case (btw, then why not simply: "... when" ?) pma (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... because it's weird to start a sentence with an ellipsis? --Sean 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't given the original context, but I expect the quotation itself must have come at the head of a sentence. Compare:

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton said, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely", said Lord Acton
"absolute power corrupts absolutely", said Lord Acton.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely", said Lord Acton.
"[A]bsolute power corrupts absolutely", said Lord Acton.

Here 1 and 2 are fine, and if you decide to lead your sentence with the quotation, 1 converts easily into 3. But if you want a shorter form, like 2, with the quotation at the front, then you can't write 4 because your sentence needs to start with a capital, you can't write 5 in a formal document because it's a misquotation, so you use 6. (However, in an informal context 5 would be the usual choice.) --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, April 22, 2009.

When a comma replaces a period at the end of a quotation, it belongs inside the quot-marks. —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the usual method of punctuation in North America and was formerly common in Britain also, but it is not Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, 23:38 UTC, April 23, 2009.

I'm entirely in favor of excluding the comma in most cases; but if Wikipedia style is contrary to the universal English convention for dialogue, then Wikipedia style is a ass. —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universal convention. --Anon, 04:05 UTC, April 26.

... a ass, Tamfang? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens, Jack. Sadly, the Oliver Twist article gives the quote but omits the essential context. But remember the thread at WP:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 8#Avoidance of "an"? The item by AnonMoos there explains it properly. --Anon, 09:46, April 27.

Birds and animals

Why do people say "birds and animals" when birds are animals? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that they did. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

539,000 Google search results for "birds and animals". Jay (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary's third definition of animal. —An gr 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And 286 found on en:wikipedia! I suppose it's a non-scientific usage that's been around for a while: See also animal, the third definition, "any land-living vertebrate (i.e. not birds, fishes, insects etc)".

Yes, I just mentioned that. My pocket-size Merriam-Webster's 2nd definition of animal is: "a lower animal as distinguished from human beings; also : MAMMAL", which suggests some people may use "animal" even to the exclusion of reptiles like snakes and lizards. —An gr 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Angr, I didn't notice your (new to me) post when I added mine to the bottom, without checking or previewing. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course birds are not happy with this old-minded biblical legacy. Google has also 353,000 s.r. for the ornithologically correct "birds and other animals", which hopefully indicates that things are slowly changing. --pma (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should also have a word with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. --Sean 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There should be somebody keeping tabs on Lindsay Lohan and her ilk. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German translation help needed

I am wondering what the text side of the railroad car in this picture says. In the upper left I think it says "Trip to Paris" and below that "See you later on the boulevard", confirmation of this would be nice. To the right it says something about fighting something with the point of the sword, at least that's what the web translation page I used said, I can't make out the word after "Kampf mit". Also, if someone can make out the word that's partially obscured by the flowers it would be great.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Trip to Paris" and "See you later on the boulevard" are correct. On the right it says "[???] in den Kampf" (probably "Ab in den Kampf" - "off to the fight") and "mir juckt die Säbelspitze" - "my sword tip is itching". —An gr 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the help! :)--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this picture. It makes me too sad... These guys are going into a trench to take bombs, and believe they are having a promenade. Somebody made them a very dirty joke : ( pma (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Minor note: I think it says "Auf, in den Kampf" (not "ab"), a very popular phrase, famously used in Auf, in den Kampf, Torero, the German version of the Toreador Song. It doesn't change Angr's translation though, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, except that I don't think there's a comma after "Auf". —An gr 05:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. (Now that I "struck out" the comma, it looks really weird :). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To pma's small, sad comment above, I offer this possible ~~(and I believe likely)~~ explanation: ~~This is~~ a form of black-humor-cum-bravado displayed by combat soldiers, as among many people who wisecrack when trying to make the best of a bad situation. I first encountered it on a summer 1976 visit to an isolated IDF position in a desolate part of the Golan Heights, where "Nice of you to come by!" had been painted prominently on a boulder beside the access road. I suggest this reading rather than taking it literally.-- Deborahjay (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is cum-bravado?68.148.149.184 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to diminish the validity of Deborahjay's thoughtful point, but the German mood in 1914 seems to have been a special one, see also spirit of 1914 where the picture even might be added. Joachim Ringelnatz remembered and commented on the euphoria at the railroad stations in Als Mariner im Krieg, and he made it sound quite surreal, if I remember correctly. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so in this light, actual bravado. Good of you to provide the enriched context, Sluzzelin, and I've redacted my remark accordingly! -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, in August 1914, not only Germany, but large part of Europe was pervaded by a crazy enthusiasm. Many people believed that the war was going to be comfortable and surgical; that it was going to last few months (everybody back home for Christmas), and that it would have reawaken the best qualities of men! --pma (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the Onion headline in September 2001 – "Our Long Nightmare of Peace Is Over" ? —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on/at/? a Steinway piano

This is regarding the text under a music file.

Is the text correct, or can't you say "... on a Steinway concert grand piano..."?:

"Sergei Rachmaninoff playing on a Steinway concert grand piano the first 4 minutes of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 composed by Steinway Artist Franz Liszt, recording from 1919."

Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"On" is fine, although personally I would put commas (or brackets) around the "on a Steinway concert grand piano" bit. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'On' is the only word that would fit for me: you can sit, wait, or even compose at the piano, but 'play' either takes the instrument as direct object ('playing a Steinway grand'), or requires 'on'. 'On' is uncommon unless the music is mentioned, in which case it usurps the direct object place, and bumps the instrument to a prepositional phrase ('playing Für Elise on a Steinway grand'). But to put it a little stronger than Fanoftheworld does, the placing of the adjunct 'on a Steinway concert grand' before the argument 'the first four minutes of ... ' marks this sentence as almost certainly not by a native English speaker. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a more natural order would be something like: "Sergei Rachmaninoff playing the first 4 minutes of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 [composed] by Steinway Artist Franz Liszt, on a Steinway concert grand piano, recording from 1919." But that has a problem. They're wanting to mention that Liszt was a Steinway Artist, and having done so, it seems odd to also mention that the pianist was playing a Steinway piano. If he'd been playing a Baldwin or a Blüthner, that would be worth mentioning. Probably the best solution is Richardrj's suggestion, or even recast it as: "Sergei Rachmaninoff playing the first 4 minutes of Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, on a Steinway concert grand piano, recording from 1919. Liszt was a Steinway Artist." -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Playing at the piano' would be unusual, and would suggest a lack of skill or concentration, cf. 'plinking around', 'hammering away at', etc. LANTZY ^TALK 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest word using specific letters

A bit of an odd question, but what is the longest English word that can be made using only the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, M, N, O, P, R, S, X, Y? Chaosandwalls (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them at the same time, one presumes. Copyreading and pyromancies, both 11 letters, will be hard to beat. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saponifying is another 11-letter one. Deor (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and expediencies has 12. Deor (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condescension: 13. Deor (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coccidioidomycosis has 18 letters. Regex Dictionary FTW. My regex ("String" field) was:

^[ABCDEFGIMNOPRSXY]{17,}$

with "Not case sensitive" checked and "All" parts of speech checked. The number in the regex sets the minimum length that will be returned. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but mine used each letter only once :) --Richardrj ^talk ^email 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but contrary to well-known advice, I ignore problems that can't be solved with (reasonably-sized) regexes! -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question could be related to cryptanalysis of a transposition cipher. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Acidimicrobiaceae (17), Andreaeobryopsida (17), Coccidiodomycosis (17), Dermafibrosarcoma (17), Dibrompropamidine (17), Microdermabrasion (17), Acidaminococcaceae (18), Berberidopsidaceae (18), Micromonosporaceae (18), Micromonosporineae (18), Dysfibrinogenemia (19), Andrianampoinimerina (20), Andrianimpoinimerina (20), and Paracoccidioidomycosis (22). The longest such word on Wikipedia is Rabodoandrianampoinimerina (26), which is an Indian name, not an English word. Also, depending on your definition of "English word", you could have an arbitrarily long technical name. See Longest word in English. --Sean 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The A/Effect of A on B?

I am really confused with the difference between affect and effect. I've had a look on a load of websites and the refdesk archives, but I'm not sure which to use in the following scenario:

Suppose the title of a paper is "Road Safety: The a/effect of speed on accident rates", which is correct?

I'm thinking that it is probably correct to use effect. However, the dictionary defines effect as "a change that is the result of something else" and "The change of speed on accident rates" doesn't make sense. Whereas affect is "make a difference to", and (slightly changing the sentence) "The difference made to accident rates by speed" seems more correct.

As you can probably tell I'm pretty confused, so your help would be very much appreciated! 86.142.117.156 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want effect. The definition for affect that you gave above is for a verb, and the title of your paper needs a noun in that location. (Both effect and affect can be a verb or a noun, but affect as a noun has a very different meaning.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for your help! 86.142.117.156 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to be aware that affect and effect both came from compounds of facio, like confect defect infect perfect prefect refect ... (do these suffice?). I see now that there are at least two (weird) neologisms trying to mix together effect & affect: this [1] and this [2] pma (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary names are a law unto themselves. As for the Urban Dictionary, is it just me or is the affect/effect confusion a relatively recent phenomenon? When I was at school (in the Dark Ages), we were regularly drilled on all sorts of potential problem areas; affect/effect was certainly mentioned, but it wasn't one of the main offenders. Most people seemed to understand the difference, and rarely confused them. But that's all changed now, apparently thanks to the monumental advances in teaching methods since then. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.confusingwords.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean word, quite notorious for beingn abstract/hard to translate

I remember reading about this a few years ago but can't seem to find it with google. If I recall correctly, lots (perhaps even whole books) have been written trying to explain its meaning.

Any ideas what it is? 86.133.35.168 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you wait for an answer, why not enjoy mamihlapinatapai, "a look shared by two people with each wishing that the other will initiate something that both desire but which neither one wants to start". :) --Sean 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably talking about 한 - see Han (cultural). Taffy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Han (cultural) is the word you are looking for, I think the meaning is similar to Ressentiment. Oda Mari (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be 정 (jung)? Undercooked (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

funny sentences from an English language column

I find a few funny sentence in a newspaper's English language column here.

"The young programmer was slouched over the computer."

What can this passive construction mean? Can that verb which apparently is an intransitive verb have a passive?

She puts in an all-nighter, and then the next day she slouches about doing absolutely nothing.

Putting in an all-nighter? I can see what pulling an all-nighter would mean.

Last night Sujatha slouched past me with her hands in her kurta.

Hands in her kurta? You put your hands in pockets. Do you put your hands inside the garment decently?--Sundardas (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slouching means having poor posture so he's sitting hunched over the keyboard.

'putting in an all-nighter' means working all night, you put in hours of work or put in effort.

Not sure what a kurta is. RJFJR (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says a kurta is a long sleeved shirt. en.wiktionary:kurta You can pull your hands into your sleeves if it's cold out. RJFJR (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is not a passive construction. "slouched" in this context is a verbal - a verb acting as an adjective. "The programmer was slouched" parallels "The ball was green". You can say "The slouched programmer ..." like you can say "The green ball ...". In your second example, to "put in" is idiomatic, one "puts in" an eight hour work day - roughly, you submit your effort to the world. Yes, this means that "pulling an all-nighter" and "putting in an all-nighter" mean the same thing. (No one said English was consistent.) In your last case, as pockets are considered part of the garment, if you put your hands into your pockets you are also putting them into the garment. But you are correct in that just saying "in the garment" is ambiguous. Being more precise in saying "in her pockets", "in her sleeves", or "inside of her coat" would be clearer. This does not, however, mean that just saying "in her garment" is wrong. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) These are good questions.

For the first, there is considerable variation in dialects of English as to how words for posture are used. Where I live now, in the North of England, it is common to say things like 'I was sat there waiting' or 'They were stood there for hours', where other dialects, and more formal English, would prefer 'I was sitting there' and 'they were standing there' (See [3] for example). Separately some past participles such as 'hunched', 'curled up' 'stretched out' can be used as verbal modifiers as in 'he lay stretched out on the bed', or 'he sat hunched over the heater'. I think this example is a blend of these two constructions - but I don't think many English speakers would find it odd or objectionable.

As RJFJR suggests, the use of 'putting in' here definitely implies that what she is doing overnight is work or duty. Contra 128.104, to me 'pulling' would not have this implication: it could be, but it could equally mean that she is partying all night. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]