Language desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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 28

Spanish and/or Portuguese ghost question

I'm listening to a Spanish-based Portuguese course, in which the phrase "El fantasma de servicio" / "O fantasma de serviço" appears. Context: A husband and wife are sleeping. The wife is awakened by a noise, which the husband dismisses as Antonio snoring, while the wife thinks it sounds like moaning and chains being dragged along the floor. The husband replies: ¿Entonces que quieres que sea? ¿El fantasma de servicio? / Então o que é que queres que seja? O fantasma de serviço?

What is a fantasma de servicio? I know of course that servicio can mean (public) toilet, but in spite of Moaning Myrtle, that doesn't really make sense in context. Googling the Spanish version only gets two hits, which are of little help. Googling the Portuguese version gets three hits, two of which may suggest a "resident ghost" (nosso fantasma de serviço de Sta Comba Dão, fantasma de serviço no laboratório). Anyone able to shed more light on this? --NorwegianBlue^talk 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In (Spain-ish) Spanish, the expression "de turno" is used to mean approximately "on call" or "on duty," with the connotation that the person is ill-prepared to do the job s/he might be called up to do. I don't know why, but this strikes me as being something similar – the "ghost on duty" or whatever. This would be contextual if the wife in the story often believes in ghosts or spirits, and the husband routinely dismisses her concerns – he's saying that this is "just another ghost." Without knowing more about the story, I can't tell if I am off base or not. — æk ^Talk 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There isn't much more to the story; the book+audio is made up of small episodes. The wife answers that she doesn't believe in ghosts, but that one never knows, and the husband persists in telling her to go to sleep. These google searches [1] [2] [3] suggest you're right. Note that the last one mostly gets South-American hits. It appears that farmacia de guardia is the preferred term in Spain (for pharmacies). Usually, in the Spanish translation, the book writes the literal meaning of a word in parentheses after the translation, so I would have expected ¿Entonces que quieres que sea? ¿El fantasma de turno (servicio)?. But they may have neglected doing so, perhaps because the meaning would be obvious to a Spanish speaker. --NorwegianBlue^talk 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stottlemyre

Our Stottlemyre article says that it means "stuttering farmer", which given the number of people who are both farmers and stutterers has me wondering how it got to be such a common name, or "enlightened farmer". How did the "enlightened" bit creep in there? Was this some sort of old wives tale which claimed that people who stuttered were more intelligent than other non-stuttering people? Dismas|^(talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are folk mythologies and fairytales. People who stutter have unusual obstructions in the pulmonic egressive airstream mechanism for correct pronunciations. So they have barriers in communication; they drop words that they cannot articulate and substitute words that they can articulate. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the etymology in our article Stottlemyre is doubtful. The article says that the name is an americanized form of the German name Stadelmeyer and claims that the first element of that name is derived from the German dialect verb stotteln. In American English, the German word Stadel sounds like an americanized pronounciation of the verb root stottel-, but in German those two sound quite distinct. As a (non-native) speaker of German, it is not at all plausible to me that a German name Stadelmeyer could be derived from the word stotteln. Much more probable is a derivation from the word de:Stadel, which is a word meaning Scheune or "shed" (as in "toolshed"), and which is also the name of several villages in German-speaking countries. The original meaning of the word Meyer (or Meier) was something like "overseer" in English. (If you can read German, see de:Meier.) The Meyer was the person that a noble landowner employed to run an estate. Sometimes, the estate was leased to the Meyer, who would pay the landowner a yearly rent and keep a portion of the farm's earnings for himself. Meyer can also mean free farmer (as opposed to a serf). Often, villages in German-speaking countries take the name of the feudal estate on which they stood (or the estates took the name of the village that they controlled). To me, it seems most likely that Stadelmeyer means "the overseer of the Stadel estate" or perhaps "the free farmer of Stadel" (whose other residents might have been serfs). Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Stadel also refers to a frame for drying hay, or a "hay rack", in some southern dialects of German. So a (free) farmer might have acquired the name Stadelmeyer if he were known for his hay production. Marco polo (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw, you seem to be implying that stuttering involves physical or physiological obstructions, but the article I linked to explicitly denies that. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. I have not read the details in depth, though I am curious sometimes about those who have capacities for good tones, capacities in animation for speech guises, and constrains in speech production. I agree that it is psychological (not physical) if people stutter occasionally who otherwise do not stutter. At the same time, I think, if there aren’t any involuntary obstructions in the egressive airstream mechanism for correct pronunciations, then there souldn’t be any speech problems. On the other matters of the OP, I do not have any comment. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my question wasn't about the reason why a person stutters. For that, I would have gone to the science desk. It seems that our article is entirely wrong given the more logical conjecture of Marco polo. It would be good if we had a reliable source though. Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reference desk is useful as wel if varieties of passive tones are captured and treated nicely with formal references. So I think, some edits with arguments (without references) are also good things. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this genealogical web page for the German family and sent an e-mail to the proprietor asking if he has any references for the meaning of the family name. I will let you know if I learn anything. Marco polo (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little more closely at the links on Uwe Stadelmaier's web site, I see that he provides copies of a reliable source with a definition of the family's name. My conjectures were incorrect. It turns out that a Stadelmeier was a person who managed the warehouse of a wholesale merchant. (So, unlike the usual agricultural Meyer, who manages an agrarian estate, this was a commercial Meyer.) Here is the link to the page where the name is defined (in German). You will see that a Stadelmeier manages a Stadelhof, which is defined under the name Stadelhofer on the same page. This is page 650 of Volume 2 of the Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Familiennamen by Prof. Josef Karlmann Brechenmacher, published by C.A. Starke Verlag, Limburg an der Lahn, 1963, according to these links: [4] [5]. So, a reliable source is better than a conjecture. Marco polo (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting errors

May i get your help in correcting any errors in the following 10 sentences:

By reading this letter, i hope that you will be convinced.
Although a complete failure financially, I enjoyed taking part in our senior play.
After helping the girl onto the train, we began to chat.
After leaving Massawa, our trip took us through the northern coast of the Red Sea.
In order to be understood, proper artiiculation and pronounction are necessary.
I was told that I could get both a degree in designing and become a teacher.
She told me of her past and that she had recently come to the city because of her need for work.
When we go to the lake on weekends, I have to either sleep in the car or a broken down bed.
A song was written about this river that is still popular.
I have often heard said that experience is the best teacher.

txs for ur help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.103.10 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a home work. I am teaching my self English by acquiring different materials of different former college students. Hence, i am asking you, because I want to prove what i worked were correct.

Here are some hints, rather than actual corrections. In 1, 2, and 9, the subject of the first clause isn't the same as the subject of the second clause. (Who reads the letter? What was a financial failure? What is still popular?) 3 is similar - as it stands, it means that the people (plural) who helped the girl onto the train chatted with each other, which _might_ be what's intended; but it's wrong if you want to say that the person (single) who helped the girl onto the train chatted to her. In 4, an unidiomatic (not wrong, just not what a native speaker would say) word has been chosen. 5 has two words that are not spelled correctly, but is otherwise OK. In 6, one word should be in a different place. 7 is OK as it stands. 8 and 10 are missing a word ("in" for 8 and "it" for 10). Tevildo (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 also has a split infinitive. Whether or not this should be corrected is a debatable point, although your teacher will probably expect you to do it. :) Tevildo (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with 8 is not the split infinitive but the lack of parallel structure between what follows "either" and what follows "or". You can correct both that problem and the split infinitive in one go by moving "either" to another position; you don't actually have to add any words at all. 4 has a similar problem to 1, 2, and 9: who's leaving Massawa? In 5 (in addition to the misspelled words), who is being understood? 7 might be considered to have problems with parallel structure too, although technically it works: "She told me (a) of her past and (b) that she had recently come to the city because of her need for work", though this might be considered a type of syllepsis. +An gr 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there's a failure of coordination in 8 - "I have to either [either to?] sleep in the car or [sleep in] a broken-down bed". Admittedly, moving "either" after "in" removes the need for explicitly including any part of the verb. 4, I think that "After the trip left Massawa" would be OK - replacement of "trip" with either "route" or "party" would make the coordination impeccable, and not change the meaning of the sentence. There's always a difference between what's _wrong_ and what's _imperfect_ in this sort of exercise, although there's probably only one "right answer". Tevildo (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptively at least, in an "either X or Y" construction, the Y should make sense as a continuation of the sentence before the either. In other words, if you cross out "either X or", the sentence should still be grammatical. If you do that with sentence 8, you get "When we go to the lake on weekends, I have to ~~either sleep in the car or~~ a broken down bed", and *"I have to a broken down bed" isn't grammatical. +An gr 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual homework or not, it would be helpful if you'd provide us what you've worked out. For example, there are spelling and capitalization errors throughout the list, but perhaps you are only concerned with grammar; although "in order to be understood, proper spelling and capitalization are necessary." --LarryMac | Talk 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, here are few other options:

In 1, the sentence needs a subject that can correspond the second clause, like--In order to be understood a speech, proper articulation and pronunciation are necessary.

In 6, the correlative conjunction lacks parallelism; needs a parallel NP, like--I was told that I could get both a degree in designing and a position to become a teacher.

The 8 have options on split infinitive, like--When we go to the lake on weekends, I have to sleep either in the car or in a broken down bed.

The 10 is vague in terms of its subordination. An options would be--I have often heard the saying that 'experience is the best teacher'. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, Mihkaw, that your English fails you. "I have often heard saying that 'experience is the best teacher'" makes no sense in English at all. Perhaps the saying ~~that~~ or people say~~ing~~ (both a fair distance from the original). "A speech to be understood," while perhaps correct (it's not my area of expertise) sounds rather odd to a native speaker. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are on the right track. It has to turn at least in the form like--I have often heard the saying of people that 'experience is the best teacher'. How does this sound to you? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual in English, there are several slightly different ways of saying this, each with subtly different shades of meaning. Your latest suggestion however, Mihkaw napéw, is not one that any native English speaker is likely to use (except in Science Fiction/Fantasy, because if it were assumed to be correctly complying with grammatical rules/idioms and not merely mistaken, it would imply that someone other than 'people' could have 'sayings', and even that the speaker is not him/her/itself a 'person'). Acceptable alternatives include (but are not limited to):

a/ I have often heard that 'experience . . .' (deliberately unspecific as to where the speaker has heard/read the quotation, so perhaps they're exaggerating);

b/ I have often heard the saying 'experience . . .' (here 'saying' is a noun with a similar meaning to 'proverb');

c/ I have often heard people saying 'experience . . .' (here 'saying' is a verb in (I think) the present continuous tense, and would imply the quotation is so long that the speaker often hears only part of it being said);

d/ I have often heard people say 'experience . . .' (with the verb 'say' in the present simple tense; a straightforward statement with no obvious implied extra meanings)

e/ I have often heard it said that 'experience . . .' (here the 'it' is the Dummy pronoun common in English, and the sentence overall combines the unspecificy of a/ with the straightforwardness of d/, and is also closest to the OP's original wording. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences seem all right, but they are missing few elements. What I can say is this: a) is correct; in b), the word ‘saying’ is a verbal (so if it modifies a proverb, the phrase becomes AdjP); c) needs a new subject and coordination if the word ‘saying’ is a verb; d) and e) have similar problems. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw, as a different native speaker of English to the one you are correcting, I tell you that b, c, d and e are good English. In b), the word 'saying' is a noun. The noun 'saying' means 'proverb': it does not modify a proverb. The word 'saying' can also be a form of the verb 'to say', as it is in c). However, it is the noun that is used in b). I would perhaps punctuate the examples slightly differently than the above user, but that largely comes down to taste. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I myself would in practice probably punctuate those sentences a little differently, but I was trying to stay close to the OP's original example and to minimise punctuation so as to emphasise the grammatical aspects, rather than getting hung up on house/personal style variations. Thanks for the support, 86. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I do not have any further comment on this. OK, Sir. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nos 2,3,4,5 are examples of sentences that some people count as 'wrong', especially in formal contexts, but many native English speakers would say. 1. is similar, but sounds a little bit more awkward to me, perhaps because by its nature it must be written rather than spoken. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we go to the lake at weekends, I have to either sleep in the car or a broken-down bed. I have often heard it said that experience is the best teacher. 78.146.22.20 (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct and Indirect speech

I need to turn the following paragraph from indirect speech to direct speech. ( He told me that he liked to know what everybody else knew and that, besides, he wanted to learn Latin. I replied that I could not think why anybody should learn Latin. He asked me if I didn't know that Latin was part of the education of a gentleman.)

I also need to turn the the following direct speech to turn into indirect speech. ( "Did you come by train?" said Mary. "No, I came by car," said John. "But how is it you are not at school?" The holidays have not begun yet," said she. Father wanted me at home," Said he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.103.10 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

No it is not a home work. I am teaching my self English by acquiring different materials of different former college students. Hence, i am asking you, because I want to prove what i worked were correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.103.10 (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tell us what you worked out. Hint: The answer to the first one should read something like: He said, "xxxxx". I replied, "xxxx". He then asked me, "xxxxx".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you see the example in Direct speech in case you have a problem with the concepts. --Lgriot (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacted or artifaced?

When I speak about digital image degradation due to image compression artifacts, is it acceptable to say something like this: "The artifacted photo is so bad, I don't want to print it." Would I use artifaced? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have found its way into the dictionaries, but this and this scientific papers use it, and this 1981 book uses it in the title (albeit meaning "artificial" rather than "containing artifacts"). It's _defensible_ rather than correct, at the moment, but I can't think of an obvious one-word alternative. "Artifact-laden", if you don't want to be linguistically controversial? Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry. Those references are for "artifacted". "Artifaced" has nothing equivalent to support it. Tevildo (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Artifaced" is not a good Classical-derived word, because it doesn't really follow the conventional patterns of correspondences involved in adapting Latin forms into English, and it suggests a direct and immediate connection with the word "face" which doesn't exist. If you want a shortened version of "artifacted" which somewhat follows the rules, it would be actually "artified" (though of course that isn't a real word either)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, those conventional patterns haven't stopped people from making up their own rules about some words, such as 'appendix' dropping the -ix when it becomes, in some countries, 'appendectomy' (rather than 'appendicectomy'). 'Index', on the other hand, always retains the ending in 'indices' or 'indexes'; it's never indes). I'd better stop now; I'm liable to develop some complices. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think classical purists might object to "Appendectomy" more on the basis of it being a mixed Latin-Greek word, rather than to the haplology (which is also seen in "Gynocracy" for "Gynecocracy" etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Artificed" might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the trouble is the origin of "artifact", which is "artis + factum", "art + made", the later from "facere", "to make". "Artifice" is also a noun. There's apparently no "official" verb form of these words, although "artificed" sounds more like a proper verb than "artifacted" does. "Fact", by itself, also comes from "facere", and similarly lacks a verb form. However, there is the noun "facture", "a making", with the verb form "manufacture" (to make by hand). That suggests "artifacture" (to make by art or skill), although I don't think that's a word either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, "facto, factare, factavi, factatus" could theoretically be an iterative or frequentative type of verb -- though the actually-occurring frequentative of facere is "factito, factitare, factitavi, factitatus"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this general topic, the term "counterfeit" came up at the humanities desk.[6] The "feit" part comes from "facere" via the French "faire", which means "to make". Side note: The Spanish equivalent is "hacer", as the soft "f" evolved into an even softer, and eventually silent, "h". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]