Language desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

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.

February 4

Teaching English abroad as a non-graduate

I'm a British undergrad student, halfway thru my first year, and I'd like to take the next academic year off and teach English abroad. My first question is about training before I leave. I've found CELTA and Trinity TESOL evening courses costing £1300 and up, along with non-accredited courses at £200-250. As a non-graduate native speaker, would I get away with doing a non accredited course, or do I really need a top quality certificate to get a job?

Second, which countries would be my best bets? I was thinking of either China (I don't speak Chinese though - yet), or somewhere within the European Union (where I can work without a visa) but all suggestions welcome. I have no rich relatives so would have to cover all my costs, but I don't need to turn a profit either. Big thank you in advance! 86.147.153.205 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All language schools in the EU require a TESOL certificate, unless you manage to get into a position at a dodgy shool in Eastern Europe - not recommended. In China, you are not required to have TESOL (or anything), but you will need a degree for your work visa. A lot of Chinese schools (and also in Taiwan) tend to be late in their payments of wages, and sometimes you don't get paid for months. Not all, but some, and this especially happens when you are not qualified or go on the wrong type of visa, because then you can't do a thing about it. Japan is a better bet. You can get yourself a working holiday visa (if you are under 30) and work as anything you want for up to a year (renewable once), even without a degree. You do not need a TESOL or TEFL cert for most positions, so long as you are a native speaker of English. You do not need to be able to speak Japanese (most schools you work at will discourage the use of Japanese, anyway, as they prefer the total immersion method). Japan is also better because the money is much better than anywhere else in the world, as you would be looking at up to £2,000/month. For Jobs in Japan, visit GaijinPot or OhayoSensei. Good luck!--KageTora (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in Japan you should also look at the Jet Programme. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, rents in Tokyo are also up to £2,000/month, so you might be just as poor at the end of your stay as you were at the beginning. —An gr 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read English as a Foreign or Second Language and Teaching English as a foreign language? They both have lots of links. Bottom line: an English-speaker can earn their bowlof rice anywhere, just by standing up and speaking. If, however, you would prefer something on your rice, best to acquire decent qualifications. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, that is for a luxury flat in a fashionable area of town. Generally, your rent will be no more than £300, and this will be taken out of your wages, so you will never have a problem paying for it. Fully furnished partments come with most jobs, so you also don't have to worry about paying deposits and key money, either.--KageTora (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning: where ever you go, never under any circumstances, give your passport to your employer. Anything that needs to be done to "register" it (or you), you should do yourself. If it can't be done with a photocopy, someone is pulling a fast one. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For lots more tips like these, see Teaching English Abroad from the publishers Vacation Work in Oxford. The book has gone through multiple editions in 20 years and is a standard work. Also see your university's careers serice for impartial advice. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on wages in Japan. For a standard teaching job, you would be getting 250,000+JPY/month, and at the current exchange rate (which has gone bananas in recent months), you can therefore expect AT LEAST £2,000 and anything upto £4,000/month. My last assessment was based on exchange rates of August last year.--KageTora (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside handle of a car door

What's it called? The inside handle of a car door (used to close the door from the inside, and also to put things in, like tissues, chocolate, and so on). Also, does anyone know what it is in Japanese? Because I don't know what it is in English I can't look it up.--KageTora (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known it as a "door handle". I don't think it has a more specific name. Dismas|^(talk) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance manuals like the Chilton series in the U.S. use phrases like "replacement door handle" followed by details like "front, inside, driver's side." The manufacturer probably has a more specific, engineering-style term. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea looking at a Chilton's. Mine calls the thing you pull to unlatch the door a "handle", but I think KageTora wants the thing you grab to pull the door shut, which my Chilton's calls the "armrest assembly". The whole business with the litterbox/map holder is called the "door trim panel assembly". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would make sense. Now, in Japanese, would that be 「ドアー・トリム・パネル組立」？Can anyone verify this?--KageTora (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo(e)s?

Hi all,

What is the plural of flamingo - flamingoes or flamingos. Flamingo says "Both forms of the plural are attested, according to the Oxford English Dictionary". One must be more right than the other though, yea? Can you work out the correct plural from the root of the word? Is one English and one American? Please, my brain can't accept two equally correct ways of spelling the same word.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "flamingos" or "flamingoes"_{Thanks, fixed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)}. Fowler, in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, under "-O(E)S" has a lot to say about this, including 8 rules of thumb for choosing between "os" and "oes". Those rules conflict as applied to "flamingo" (eg., animals use "oes" but "long words" use "os.") If the OED says both are used, I'd take an aspirin and go on to another of life's problems. Google reports 3,410,000 hits on "flamingos" and 3,320,000 on "flamingoes." Ecphora (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is how would Dan Quayle spell the singular form? Ecphora (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S-Q-U-I-D. —An gr 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was taught that exotic words in "-o" get "-s", and plain words get "-es". By that rule, we just have to decide how exotic a flamingo is. Tell you what, they're pretty exotic in New Jersey. I suggest you sit your brain down and give it a good talking to. Not everything is tidy in this world, and English plurals is one of them (that was my brain messing with your brain). Look at "octopi", which should be "octopodes", which really should be "octopuses", actually "octopusses", because "bus" would make "busses" if there wasn't already a "buss", but there's no "octopuss". Now my brain hurts. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I had no idea octopi was wrong! I feel so cheated. My world is crumbling around me... 77.12.44.85 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, "octopi" wasn't wrong. See here. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buses/busses is an interesting case. Homographs don't normally cause any trouble, and nobody would think "I wonder which of these busses I should take to get to the CBD" refers to kisses, interfaces or herring boats travelling down the road. So I wonder why the decision was made not to have plural "busses" (omnibuses). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of words that have multiple spellings. (And I'm not talking about national variations; I mean spellings that compete in the same country.) It's not true that one "must be more right than the other". Some languages have bodies that set official standards for what is correct, but English does not (which is just as well, or every major English-speaking country would want one of their own). The most you can say is that one spelling is more common than another, or that more people consider it correct, in each case perhaps with a geographical qualification. And by the way, I have seen the spelling "busses" used on traffic signs. --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, February 4, 2009.

American languages

Are there any universities in the United States (or beyond) that teach Indigenous languages of the Americas such as Quechua? Grsz¹¹_Review 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many universities in the U.S. that teach indigenous languages of the U.S.; probably fewer also teach indigenous languages of South America like Quechua, but I have no doubt that some do. If you go here and type in the name of the language you're interested in and the radio button for the type of course you're interested in, you'll get a list. "Quechua" and "College/university" gets a list of 12 colleges and universities in the U.S. where it's taught. —An gr 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "US university quechua"and found this, this, this and this on page 1, along with this which lists 7 US universities and 3 European ones that teach it, plus a correspondence course. So I guess the answer is yes. Ka renjc 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Aeterna

How is this pronounced? It is latin and means 'Eternal light'. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want Classical Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin? Do you want IPA or pro-nun-see-AY-shun? —An gr 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's ay(as in "hay")-TARE-nah. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which form of latin is that for, and can you give that in IPA? I have no idea what the last two vowels are supposed to be. Algebraist 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OtherDave is giving you the Ecclesiastical Latin pro nun see AY shun. The IPA version would be luːks ɛː'tɛrna, though in practice pronunciation of Ecclesiastical Latin has always varied from country to country, and the English version might be more like luːks ei'tɛɚna (rhotic) or luːks ei'tɛəna (nonrhotic). The Classical Latin pronunciation would probably have been luːks ai'terna. The Classical Latin pro nun see AY shun would be something like luhks eye TAYR nah, in which the first word sounds like "Luke's" and the second, stressed syllable of the second word ends in a rolled 'r' or perhaps a flap. Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of other details, note that lux is only pronounced as Luke's by certain Americans. The rest of the world pronounces it as looks. This reflects systematic differences between American and non-American realisations of "foreign" u-sounds and o-sounds, as demonstrated in American and British dictionaries. (I am currently researching this informally; I don't think many other people are.)

Relevantly, there are differences between various Englishes in how distinct the vowels of Luke's and looks are; they are especially distinct in Australian speech.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Luke's looks rhymes with flukes books, not with cooks hooks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, such rhyming illustrations are entirely useless if you're a Geordie or Mackem, who scatter ə's quite indiscriminately. Gwinva (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A səxpence for your thoughts about fəsh and chəps, Gwənva. Do you prefer cash or chick? (sorry, but that was utterly ərresəstəble) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might eat fiːsh and chiːps, Jɛck, but I doubt you can plot my accent. It is quite homeless, and everyone denies ownership (or fraternity). As for our friends from the Tyne and Wear, while they might theoretically luːk at a buɘk, they're more likely to wait for the fɪləm. Gwinva (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of these transgressive trans-ditch digressions, you two. What will our colonial ex-masters think, to say nothing of our Vespuccian cousins?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novomundane, please. Algebraist 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What people think of me is none of my business. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Henry Beard noted, "If you took Latin in a[n American] parochial school, you were probably taught to pronounce the letter V like the English V, the diphthong 'ae' like 'sundae,' and Caesar like 'CHAY-sahr.' If you do this, you are going to take some flak from Latin purists, language snobs, and other assorted lingo bores, but on the other hand, you're going to get a much better table in the Vatican restaurant." --- OtherDave (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]