Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 8

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 8

What word...

Is there a word for an exaggeration that isn't meant to be taken literally/seriously? --RMFan1 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: Don't exaggerate! - that's hyperbole. Yet how often do we see media reports about "literally millions of people have been affected by ...", where the numbers may be only in the thousands. That turns out to be hyperbolic, not to mention grossly misleading and inaccurate, but the writers often think they are simply writing in a vivid style where any form of added emphasis is fair game. We also see it in comparisons between things: one example is "the greatest ... in the history of the universe" and the other is "shit". There appears to be no middle ground; but almost all things reside somewhere in the supposedly non-existent middle ground. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say "humorous exaggeration". --Anonymous, 06:56 UTC, February 8, 2009.

But it isn't necessarily humorous. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try synonyms like "embellishment" or "embroidery". In the right context, it could be apparent that these "amplifications" are not meant to be taken seriously. Maedin\^talk 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoidance of "an"

I've seen various examples of a noun starting with a vowel, where the form of the preceding indefinite article is "a" rather than "an". See this for just one recent example. I also hear it in the speech of youngish persons:

"Why didn’t your teacher explain it better?"

"Well, I asked him to but he didn’t give me a <glottal stop> explanation".

Is this happening widely throughout the anglo world? What explains the spurning of "an", which exists in order to make speech flow more easily and naturally? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a youngish person myself (from Florida, US), I recall a few instances where I've heard people use a for an, but with no degree of regularity (that I've noticed) or consistency. I've previously just attributed it to saying "a" then having a mental pause and saying a word the begins with a vowel sound and the speaker not correcting themself, and until now never gave it much thought because of the infrequency I've encountered it. FWIW, the dialogue above sounds horrible to me and the first time I read it out loud, it was difficult to suppress the /n/ because it makes it so much more natural.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This has to be learned behaviour, but who's doing the teaching? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it just fine, it sounds like this: weh, eye axe Tim to buh he dih int give me uh explanae shih (though it would be more correct as weh, eye axe Tim to buh he dih int give me no explanae shih)

If you want even farther off, In the southern US "..he didn't not give no explanation" would not be uncommon. Lisa4edit (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph of A and an#Discrimination between a and an may be relevant to your query, but I don't think the phenomenon is necessarily recent. I seem to recall this being used in old movies and such (for some reason, the expression "a ape" [pronounced "uh ape"] comes to mind—perhaps uttered by Stanley Kowalski?) to mark the speech of uneducated, dimwitted, or excited characters.Deor (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling brought up the line from A Streetcar Named Desire: "And wasn't we happy together? Wasn't it all OK? Till she showed here. Hoity-toity, describin' me like a ape." Deor (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The law is an ass" was "The law is a ass" in Dickens' original (when the character Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist is informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", Mr. Bumble replies "the law is a ass — a idiot")... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading that people used to refer to a fruit as "a napple", but the "n" moved over and it became "an apple". I don't know why.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "apple" was ever "napple", but "adder" (the serpent, not the one performing a mathematical operation) was "nadder". Conversely, "newt" used to be "ewt". I forget the name given to this process, but when I remember it I shall return. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we go - A and an#Juncture_loss. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"An" only makes speech flow more naturally in a certain range of accents and dialects. Skipping the n doesn't necessarily cause problems. Black Carrot (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My and thy once were mine and thine before vowels (Early Modern English#Pronouns). The disappearance of an might be inevitable. Jack Kettler (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

what words are you allergic to?

what normal, upstanding words -- not dialect, slang, jargon, etc, just normal "SAT words" -- are you allergic to?

I mean you know the meaning, you see it from time to time the same as any other word, you might run across it in the New Yorker or a New York Times column, yet it has never sat well with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a ready-made list - see User:JackofOz/Favourites#The worst words in the world. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Puce"; I hate the word "puce". I am not even sure how anyone could know the colour of a flea, but the very sound of the word makes me want to "puke" -and that's almost as bad a word, but not quite. ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Bielle with the signature that is pretty well unreadable on my system. I dislike those words also, and I cannot abide crépuscule in French or crepuscular in English, which also have -pu- in them.

I am desperately sensitive to several words in fact, and therefore cannot bring myself to discuss the matter any further.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of color words that make one want to puke (a wonderful word, look what can be done such a minor interchange between two letters that can sometimes substitute for each other). Mauve. Hate the word, but I admit that I love to say it. --KP Botany (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Never liked the word "guinea" for some reason... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Problematic", an inelegant, useless pustule of a word. I'd rather listen to somebody dragging their fingernails across a blackboard. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Legendary, used to denote something other than "pertaining to legend", or perhaps nothing at all. It generally seems to mean "at least moderately well known", but then if the referent weren't at least moderately well known then it wouldn't occur in the kind of columns (or, all too often, Wikipedia articles) that are written with gushy words like legendary. Or then again perhaps the subject isn't even moderately well known: vanity articles about terminally obscure guitarists tend to say that they "gigged with" this or that "legendary" if Z-rated band from which both the public and the critics stayed away in droves, pardon the cliché. ¶ Albeit, a pompous word now just as it was decades ago when lampooned by Fowler (an overrated exponent of a dreadful genre, but occasionally worth a glance). I've just finished Tony Judt's Postwar, a superb and for the most part superbly written book that repeatedly uses albeit where it could just say if instead. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pucker --KP Botany (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that, if I may ask? Algebraist 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it's inexplicable my loathing of the word pucker. I like "puke" as a word, and I like "ruffle," and "sucker," and "rip-rap," and "huckster," and "crinkle," is lovely, and "buckle," must be one of the all-time great words in any language, put pucker, well, I just don't like it. At all. It's just wrong. --KP Botany (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of this discussion concerns matters of unaccountable taste, Algebraist. That's how it is with allergies. A doctor does not reprove a patient like this: "Pollen? What's wrong with pollen, if I may ask?"–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but sometimes taste can be accounted for. Algebraist 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, the discussion below tends toward cases of that sort.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some words for you. "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yes, so many good words to choose from. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bush administration created an aversion to the word "leadership" because it was usually followed shortly thereafter by some major screw up in the area concerned. "Paradigm" is a bit worn, but still good for a cringe or two. "Competence" these days also seems to describe something that one pretends to have rather than someone's actual ability. "Competency" definitely goes on my list. Lisa4edit (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Facilitate, empower, take ownership, proactive, and management-speak in general. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how many responses included "pu". "Pustule" (a horrid thing in itself) is attested on Language Log as an eggcorn: pus jewel. Now that's yucky. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two entertainment examples make me vomit. Helm as a verb - These films were all helmed by director Joe Bloggs. Shocking! And the ubiquitescent garner: it's now being used to refer to the winning of a single award (She garnered an Oscar for her performance in "<name of film>"), where it actually means to collect many things. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reaching out to is another. eeuuuurgh. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically when used to mean 'in a not-false sense' rather than 'in a technical sense'. Algebraist 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Funnyman in place of "comedian" bothers me to no end. The IMDB's news service uses it constantly and it annoys me to no end. Utilize in place of "use" qualifies 99% of the time as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Moot used to mean no longer of importance or relevance e.g. "the point is moot now". DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank the IP for having gifted us with this question, but may we say we've already obtained closure here? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not by a long shot. Some place names fail to do it for me - Gritjurk, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. OK, here goes: ‘pretty unique’, impact (for ‘influence’), problematical (for ‘problematic’), incentivize (for ‘encourage’) and incent (for ‘reward’).

Touch base when used by British people. DuncanHill (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading this and thinking all along that I really have nothing like this, no word to set me off. But I was wrong; I just realize that even though I don't think I'd describe my relationship to this phrase as "allergic", when someone says that they could care less, I always wince. It's like a little boot to my brain; it's got nothing to do with how it sounds, it's just that it's the complete opposite of what they mean. I'm just too pedantic to completely ignore that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I agree. I'm like, "What are they thinking"?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was younger I couldn't get my head round 'Caucasus' (or however it's written) in the US elections. I always wondered when they said such-and-such a candiadate had won in the caucasus, why were they having US elections in Azerbaidjan? I also thought it might be a reference to the fact that only caucasians get to be president, but, thankfully, I have recently been proved wrong. Anyway, for both of those reasons, I began to dislike the word immensely.--KageTora (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the word "caucus" since I first encountered it in Alice in Wonderland, reinforced later by the Capitol Steps rap "When you caucus with Max Baucus, your caucus will be too raucous..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Allergic does it for me, when it's used in a figurative rather than literal sense. - Nunh-huh 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, indeed, 'allergicked'.--KageTora (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The worst sounding word in English is undoubtedly gusset. As for words whose usage bothers me, I nominate impact as a verb when what is really meant is affect. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz wrote this, above: "Yeah, no, I agree. I'm like 'What are they thinking'?" But I don't understand. I think he must have meant this: "Yeah, no, I concur ... ", per WP-Talkpagesprache.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that better now?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes. I really did understand.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't stand people who use "utilize" and "fiction novel" as words. The first is an overcomplication of "use" and the second is a pleonasm. Novels are fiction by default. If it's not fiction, it's a book, not a novel. (That's one of the reasons you should take care to hyphenate science-fiction novel) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• What about arguably (which usually means "perhaps")? N.B. @ Hoary: the Concise Oxford defines "albeit" as "literary though". de:Benutzer:Idler writing under 91.36.126.219 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)l

• Lake Superior State University, in the American state of Michigan, is famous for its Banished Words List.
  (See http://www.lssu.edu/banished/.) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I intensely despise, abhore and deplore the general trend of of turning virtually any noun into a verb. Top of the list is transition. Then there's conference - We'll conference about it later. And medal - I medalled in Beijing but not in Athens. And so on. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite an established move in all English, Jack; but American does it with a ferocity to be marvelled at. To birth, and especially birthing as in "birthing center", is the one they that makes me want to curl up and hibernate until Chinese takes over.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose they rephrase that unambiguously in only two words without using rather esoteric Greco-Latin technical medical terminology? AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth center, perhaps? Of course its tricky, since we have no common, simple verb whose meaning is "give birth to". Bear will not do, since it means so much else; engender, beget, and others like them miss the mark; drop is horridly colloquial (used outside Australia?). Nor do we have a simple verb equivalent to Latin nascor, Italian nascere, or French naître: "to be born". Why not? The American people have a right to know.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Got you back for my abhore. Have a nice day.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Curse this Broca's aphasia Wernicke's aphasia!–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Craft. Measles. Clot. Loam. Yogurt. How can anyone eat something where the y comes before the g in the name? I do like crepuscular, though - and corpuscle. Matt Deres (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Logically used to mean 'according to an obviously unsound argument'. Algebraist 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beastorn? Gwinva (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. I agree about clot, Matt. But I quite like Yggdrasil. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, easy. Any word or name mispronounced on TV. Examples: Béthanie, Václav, détente. Vltava 68 12:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I once read in a book of lists with a list of words that are misfits, as in, they sound too bad or too good compared to what they mean. For example, the perceived meaning of fructify is ruined by the first syllable, and the pronounciation of diarrhea and gonorrhea would suggest something more pleasent, if one did not know what they actually meant. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said this?

"Everybody likes to be told the truth. It's only that particular ass that tells us so that we can't stand"

I know that's not the exact wording otherwise I would have found it through google. Can anyone tell me who said this and what the exact words are? ExitRight (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but it sounds a lot like shooting the messenger. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying StuRat. I thought that Mark Twain could have said it, but I couldn't find anything. I'll just have to keep looking. ExitRight (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cripple" - ca. 1940

Am considering whether this word might have been used around 1940 to describe, say, lame individuals, mobility impaired in their lower extremities. In particular, to title this drawing by Marcel Janco: "....... in a Detention Camp." Webster's Collegiate online marks it as "sometimes offensive" usage. Was that always the case? At what point did it become "usually offensive" as I would say it's currently regarded politically incorrect"? Are there dictionaries or other lexical reference works that indicate such considerations?-- Deborahjay (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a process called the "euphemism treadmill", that our article describes as a form of pejoration, whereby a term becomes offensive and is replaced by a neutral term that in turn becomes offensive, and so on. "Cripple" is the ordinary English word for a lame person, and that is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. There is no warning note in the OED's entry for "cripple". Just to check, I looked up the "N-word" to see how they handle such things, and there they have a few sentences of usage notes about its offensiveness. Dictionaries are unreliable for those who want to stay on top of the latest trends in social engineering through language distortion, and the best dictionaries will try to steer a straight course whichever way the wind happens to be blowing this month. I am sure that a person writing in 1940 would put "two cripples in the foreground" without batting an eye, because that's what he meant. That is not to say that I think there is no value in the current tendency to protect people's feelings by careful speech. In this case, to use the noun "cripple" instead of "crippled person" defines a human being and labels him unfairly, and children are especially susceptible. And to call a person over by shouting, "Hey, you...cripple...come here" would have been deemed offensive, at least by the cripple in question, in any age, I would imagine.

I think that any dictionary worth its salt will give a little guidance in the use of words that can be expected to be taken ill, but I doubt there's a dictionary dedicated to tracing the changes words have gone through over their lifetimes in that regard (do you think there'd be a market for one?). I guess you'd have to look at the entry for the word you want in several dictionaries from several periods of history. The entry for "cripple" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary at OneLook carries no warning, nor does the American Heritage Dictionary of 2000. If you mean to ask whether there is a current lexicon that lists words considered offensive nowadays, you might find the Maledicta Press interesting, though that's not exactly what we want here. The Global Language Monitor puts out a list of the top politically (in)correct words, but I was unable to find a broadsheet. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The market for such a reference work would certainly include my ilk: contemporary translators of historical texts, likewise authors (screenwriters, playwrights, et al.) of period works. I sorely lament its lack! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

you can bet that in a few years what today is "what are you retarded" will be "what are you differently abled". That's the euphimism treadmill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "What, are you retarded ?" is trying to be offensive. The treadmill only applies when people try to avoid giving offense. Thus, "crippled" becomes "paralyzed" then "handicapped" then "disabled" then "differently-abled". Similarly people go from "retarded" to "cognitively impaired" to "mentally challenged". We also have the generic term "special", which now seems to mean "there's something wrong with them, but we're not saying what". Personally I think the current terms are a bit much, as everyone is "differently-abled" and "special", and we should all strive to be "mentally challenged" each and every day. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Off tangent, but: In German, the term cripple ("Krüppel") is an example of a reversed euphemism treadmill. The German term for such a reversal is "Geusenwort", the en term is "reappropriation". Both mean that previously disparaging or insulting terms are embraced by the respective societal group and are invested with neutral / positive meaning. In the 1970s disabled people convened the "Krüppelbewegung", a network of self-help groups which has been successful in removing many of the barriers (mental and physical). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all off-tangent, but rather a usage trend of which we'd do well to familiarize ourselves. (Nice pro-active concept, that "reappropriation"!) -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the english term for that is "taking it back", as Randal tried to do with "porch monkey" in Clerks II. I also heard it used in a stand-up routine, by a black woman who wanted a brand of chips named after the N-word. The idea was to make people see the word in a more positive light. One especially good line was, "Crackers?! You can't have a party with crackers! Get some n****rs in here!" Black Carrot (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a usage trend well-established in English, sometimes known as reclaiming a word. As with queer, now a badge of pride to many (oh, pun alert, just saw that); and indeed "black" -- "Say it loud, we're black and we're proud"; and there are cutting-edge disability activists who refer to themselves as "crips". The gay/queer divide is a useful one here: assimilationist vs challenging or overthrowing the system. While the words are still powderkegs, they can only be safely used within the community, not by outsiders. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I bothered to look it up and found people "playfully" (according to the New York Times) referring to themselves as bedpan crips; there is criplit and the cripchick blog; "queering the crip" and "uppity intellectual crip"; crip activism, crip theory, and crip culture. My, how the language changes! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted above, they still get upset if anyone outside their group uses the word. So, if you call somebody a "cripple", they may roll right over you. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - and a queer crip would be a quip? --91.36.77.66 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, Reclaiming and Reappropriation. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

French-saxon

I have seen here San José de Suaita#People the expression french-saxon is it correct ? In France we use anglo-saxon but never anglo and french-saxon.Regards --Doalex (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No help, but: The term (which is unknown to me) is also used in the French version of the article, which says: Principalement le peuple de José de Suaita San vient du peuple espagnol (65 %) les temps de l'installation d'industrie ont laissé des descendants Anglo-et Français-saxons (10 %) et ont apporté (25 %) de métis de départements plus proches comme Boyacá et même Tolima. There does not seem to be (I am not from Barcelona) any mention of this in the Spanish article.

One guess would be that the writer (in the original (?) French version) wanted to say "descendants of French and Anglo-Saxons" and mixed up the terms. The Spanish WP (I am just guessing here), appears to mention Germans and Americans, which is not quite the same, either. --62.47.129.184 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I saw all the differences, the french version is a bad copy of the english version (translating machine ?) and in fact the good version is the spanish version.My question is here because, it seems, the english version is more old that the french version.For me, also, this term don't exist.(sorry for my bad english language)--Doalex (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I should add that the en version is certainly not written by a proficient speaker of the language and may very well be a sanitised machine translation itself. I did not think to check the respective dates (French vs English version), so maybe the author of the en version is the culprit. Greetings from un autre chien. Sorry for my doggerel. --62.47.148.29 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ooops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term makes no sense to me. Anglo-Saxon refers to the Germanic tribes, some of which were from Saxony, that invaded and settled present-day Britain. Saxons are Germans (now) and a Germanic tribe (historically), so 'French-Saxon' makes no sense unless there was some Saxon settlement in France (which subsequently moved to Colombia?). I've not heard of any such thing. Another guess is that perhaps the author was thinking about the Normans (French who invaded Britain later) and turned Norman/Anglo-Saxon into French-Saxon. OTOH the easiest way to say 'Norman-Anglo-Saxon' is 'British'. :) --130.237.179.182 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have changed both versions with Germans and Anglo-saxons.The French presence in Saxony is more probable that the opposite (18th and 19th century).--Doalex (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In French, the word "anglo-saxon" in a non-medieval context basically means "English speakers", and a reader of a French newspaper who happened to glimpse the word in a headline would naturally assume that it meant that those Brits and Yanks were up to something again... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Coquet vs Coquette

I can't understand the difference in pronunciation between these two. Is there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.117 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the masculine form (french) the final t is a silent letter, see also [1].--Doalex (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)