Language desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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 13

es

What is veer?174.3.123.220 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "es"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "edit summary"; that's where it says "NPOV veer". Why don't you ask the editor, User:Nmate, directly? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English? "such nicer"

Is it correct to say: you have such nicer chairs than us. 188.174.4.248 (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would go "you have much nicer chairs than we do". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... or "Your chairs are so much nicer than ours". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "You have such nice chairs; they're much nicer than ours". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say there is nothing incorrect about "such nicer" and it sounds fine to me although "much" is more common. It may, to many, sound a strange construction but I cannot think of any rule against it. meltBanana 12:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meltBanana, is English the first language you ever talked fluently in? (I'm not asking if you're a 'native speaker', a different question). 84.153.214.140 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First and only language I can claim any fluency in, but apparently not quite enough. Lots of words could replace "nicer" in that sentence after either "such" or "much": "heavier, funkier, comfier, greener, prettier, smaller" etc. but "such nicer" does not work? I would guess it is because "such nice" is a semi-fossilised phrase and as such people can't read it properly when it is "such nicer" so it seems wrong. but then you probably shouldn't take grammar advice from me as I am a bit of a descriptivist grammar anarchist (aGrammachist?) meltBanana 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Such" means "(the) like" or "so" (with which it apparently has a common origin). The expression "and such" is equivalent to "and the like". It's used for equating rather than comparing in a superior way, as with "nicer". "Such nice" equates the subject with "nice". "Such nicer" doesn't really work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does 'so much nicer' work, BB? It's because it means 'nicer [to a certain as-yet-unspoken extent]', in the same way as 'such nicer' theoretically could. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I think that such cannot be used with a comparative adjective. It is an adverb similar to very in this way. Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You have such a nicer chair than me/I do" sounds fine to me, so why shouldn't "You have such nicer chairs than us/we do"? I'm a native speaker and this question has puddled me a little. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd. Going slowly through it, yes, it does sound wrong, but on the hand, it doesn't sound so wrong I wouldn't use or hear it in fluent informal speech. Not saying I eve have done, just that I doubt my ears would prick up if I did. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that sentence works, but something like "You have such nicer chairs than us that I want to buy them." works. "Such" should generally be used in the form "such ___ that ___". It is common to say things like "You have such nice chairs." but "You have very nice chairs." is preferable. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it works very well for me with "a nicer chair" (singular), but is odd in the plural form, for some reason. --Lgriot (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went out for dinner last night and had a really excellent meal. It was such a good meal!

Could I have said "It was such a better meal"? Or "It was such a/the best meal"? I very much doubt it. I'm with Marco Polo here. This usage of 'such' requires the positive form of the adjective. It's an intensifier that implicitly puts this particular meal way ahead of many other, unspecified meals. It's way better than any of them, and may even be the best meal I ever had, but I still don't use 'better' or 'best' with 'such'. That's because, as others have said, 'such a <good meal>' is roughly equivalent to 'a very <good meal>', and we never say 'very better'. We do say 'the very best', but that doesn't mean we can say 'such a best' or 'such the best' or 'such best'. 'Such a <good meal>' is also roughly equivalent to 'an extremely <good meal>', and we never say either 'extremely better' or 'extremely best'.

Now, when we're comparing one thing with another and making a marked contrast, we can't use 'such' in the way some people are saying is ok to their native English ears. (I'm really surprised to hear this being defended, and while I accept there are many Englishes, I wouldn't have thought this was standard usage in any of them.) We have to use 'much' or 'so much'. Your chairs are (so) much better than ours, rather than Your chairs are such better than ours. So, to come full circle, You have such nicer chairs than us is not on, and not only for the inappropriate use of 'such'. You can't compare chairs with people, or pretend that 'we' are chairs, which is what this is saying. It has to be something like You have such nice chairs; they're (so) much nicer than ours. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (native Brit Eng speaker) fully agree, and am equally bemused by some of the other comments here. "Such a nicer chair..." and "Such nicer chairs..." both seem, to me, unequivocally wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (native Am Eng speaker) fully agree too. "Such nicer chairs" is simply ungrammatical for me. +An gr 10:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singular version really sounds fine to me, but not the plural version, which sounds clumsy. The only example online that I could find was a question on Yahoo Answers (where someone asks why women have 'such nicer butts', so I decided not to use that to illustrate my case :) ). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wise move. The premise of the question is obviously false to begin with. +An gr 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don' realise what you're missing lol.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have said the phrase to myself several times and I can't find anything wrong with it. Maybe there is some prescriptive grammar that says that "such" cannot be followed by a comparative, but I would have no difficulty understanding the phrase if someone said it, and it would not even occur to me that the phrase might not be correct. I'm a native AmE speaker.

There are some google hits for "such larger", "such greater", etc. Also, the replacement "much greater" obviously has a different meaning than "such greater", to my ear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jack of Oz's comments about "such a better", that phrase is clearly fine, with seven million google hits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

such + comparative does seem to be used, at least marginally, in constructions like "Why does X have such Y-er Zs?" See "why do" "such bigger" and "why do" "such larger" for examples. (But note: there are lots of false positive hits there, and lots where the "why do" and "such X-er" are not contiguous.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pooh, Google! What would they know! Any source that disagrees with me is obviously wrong, and can be haughtily and contemptuously dismissed. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Gender

What is the plural of brother?

"Brothers"; formerly also "brethren", now used only in religious contexts. Note that the difference between singular and plural is in grammatical number, not grammatical gender. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "en" pluralization, suggstive of Germanic origins, as with "men", "women", "children". As per my Webster's: "Brother" is Bruder in modern German (although, curiously, the German plural appears to be Brüder rather than Bruderen), Old High German bruodor, Old English brothor, Latin frater, Greek phrater. Schwester for "sister", Old English sweostor, Old Norwegian systir, Latin soror, Sanskrit svasr. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, in "children", "brethren", and "oxen", the "en" operates as a suffix, but in "men" and "women" the "en" is part of the basic root (with umlaut modification). Historically, the English forms "children" and "brethren" are actually double plurals (which explains why you don't find any n consonant in the plural of German Bruder). AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr gut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonym

Can give be a antonym of get??? --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any examples in which it would be. The two words would seem to be more or less antonyms. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a difficult time comprehending this Q without quotation marks, so here it is, corrected:

Can "give" be ~~a synonym~~ an antonym of "get" ? StuRat (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Get" was sometimes used as a variation of the verb "beget", so a sentence along the lines of "I will get a child on Alice" (meaning "I will make Alice pregnant") was possible, and can be seen as close in meaning to "I will give Alice a child", though they have nuances of differing attitudes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could say the same about the more common phrase "I will get Alice pregnant". I think what the OP is probably referring to is how we say 'get sbd. a present'. Here it doesn't mean 'give' per se, but more like 'fetch' or 'bring' I would say. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that example I would have said closer to "obtain", as a previous and distinct action from the subsequent giving, but see [1]. The 'working class' use of the verb get to construct a phrase describing almost any any action has I dimly recall been perjoratively remarked on, possibly by George Orwell (not apparently in the essay Politics and the English Language: in 1984?) or Anthony Burgess. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, antonyms. For comparison, I'm thinking of the FTP commands "GET" and "PUT". Opposite directions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry friends, it was antonym. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that changes the whole game. Yes, get and give are antonyms. As in "giving as good as you get", and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking the history, it looks to me like the original question was "Can give be a synonym of get". After a few answers were given, the word "synonym" was changed to "antonym", with nothing to show it had ever been different. Coming to this thread for the first time now, it's very difficult to follow what the heck's going on. Richardrj and StuRat look like they've lost most of their marbles, etc. Extra999, next time you change a question, please strike out the original words (~~like this~~) and insert the new words beside them. That way, newcomers will have a chance of comprehending the game without having to go through a befuddlement stage. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK>

a real answer?

I bet you can find at least one game, normally played seated, where (at least by custom) you can give up by getting up. Then in fiction about the game: "The play caught Smith totally off guard. His response, the only possible one, was to [get/give] up, take leave politely, and walk briskly away from the indignity, and towards the bar." :). 84.153.214.140 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He meant to say "antonym" anyway. But "getting up" does not equate to "giving up". They are separate acts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Baseball Bugs here--though you could craft a sentence where "getting up" and "giving up" were accomplished with one act, they are still distinct ideas and actions--one a physical act and the other a mental act, a decision. Nice try, though! Perhaps we could try to argue that "Give them hell!" and "Get a victory!" could be almost synonymous under the right circumstances? I'm really stretching things, here. Especially considering that even if those two phrases could be said to be synonymous, the two verbs are not functioning as independent units and therefore can't be meaningfully compared... Staplovich (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation

Can someone please translate the text at the bottom of the following image http://park.geocities.jp/matukinrei/fhoto/km.JPG I am placing the link in this form because for some reason it doesn't work, at least on my browser, when I access it as a link, but does if it is copied and pasted into my address bar. If it would help you with the translation, the image depicts Masako Katsura, Kinrey Matsuyama and Vernon Greenleaf in or about 1951-1956.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says 'Kinrei Matsuyama (left) and Masako Katsura (right)'. It also includes their sports titles - '選手' - which just means 'player' and needn't be translated. Masako's name is written as 桂　マサ子, in answer to the question posted yesterday [EDIT] - and I see now that that was cleared up, too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KägeTorä. Now the question is, can I claim this as anonymous because there's no information on the photo, and thus that it is public domain after 50 years per Japanese copyright law, or do I need more than "the source provides no information on its provenance". Damn. (Not really asking; just talking to myself. I'll head over to media copyright questions for this).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I wouldn't have a clue about that anyway - I'm just a lowly linguist :) Always best to be careful were you get pictures from, though, especially if you're making yogurt. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

Why was Porygon-Z's original Japanese name porigon zetto rather than porigon zii? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Porygon is the link, for editors who don't know what you're referring to.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, but the Japanese rendition of English zed is ゼッド (zeddo). --151.51.15.200 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its Japanese name, according to Bulbapedia, is ポリゴンZ and from [2] As with Porygon2, it is currently believed that Porygon-Z will not appear in the anime as a result of the Electric Soldier Porygon incident, except possibly as a brief cameo. It is currently the only Generation IV Pokémon that has not appeared in the movies or anime yet.
So, the question is, just out of curiosity, where did you hear its name? --151.51.15.200 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of ポリゴン　ゼット (zetto) gives 67,400 ghits and　ポリゴン　ゼッド (zeddo) gives 216 (of which the first one is a question asking if it's 'zetto' or 'zeddo'). Japanese Wikipedia's article on Porygon-Z also gives it as 'zetto'. In Japanese, 'Z' can be either 'zeddo' or 'zetto' but is usually 'zetto' (as ALC says here - you hear 'zeddo' more in English Language Schools). Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where do either of those come from? Wouldn't a direct transcription of Z into katakana be zii? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zed is the British/Canadian term for Z. Look here: [3]--151.51.15.200 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And ALC does give ジー but it really is not used much. The Japanese Wikipedia article on the letter 'z' says (at the bottom of that section) that the letter is mostly pronounced 'zetto' in Japan. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely to me that it came from Dutch, where apparently the name is "zet" (according to the Z article). The Dutch were among the first European countries to have extensive trade with Japan, and the only ones allowed in during most of the Edo period. Rckrone (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard numerous hypotheses on the subject, and that was one of them. However, it strikes me as odd that only one letter would have a Dutch name, while the rest have English names. Another hypothesis I was told was that it was because the Latin name is 'zeta' (doesn't explain the change from 'zeta' to 'zetto' with elongated 't' + 'o', usually indicative of original final '-t'), and still other people have said it came from German. This is all just things I've heard, of course, and can't provide sources. The Japanese Wikipedia article for ゼット does say it's from Dutch, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit late here, but I wouldn't trust jaWiki on stuff like this, note the no sources. There is a relatively regular process in which voiced consonants de-voice after the sokuon in fast speech, and it is generally perceived as "hard to pronounce" most voiced consonants in that position. The jaWiki for "hot dog", often seen and heard pronounced as "hot dock", also lists German as the reason for this, with the only source being a link to a food menu. This is ridiculous though, because there are loads of words (googleable) that fall victim to the same process:

ブルドック bulldock ドックフード dock food ドックラン dock run プレーリードック prairie dock ソルティードック salty dock ドックレース dock race 人間ドッグ hilariously, human dog (the opposite effect here) ドッギング： dogging

And then there's "bed" becoming "bet", and "bag" turning into "back".

This page seems to believe they have been affected by the fact that Japanese historically was written without voicing marks, which may hint that voicing was ignored at the time, and still are (in certain environments) for many people. Why is dock so prominent and not back and bet? People might be overcorrecting themselves (when eventually writing the word down) thinking that "dog" is a silly name for a type of food, thus increasing the acceptability of both sounds, but that doesn't explain dock food.

Anyway, this is why it's called Porigon Zetto, though if they had thought really hard they would have called it Porigon Zeddo. As for why it's not called Porigon Zii, there are a few reasons. A) Zeddo is much more commonly used for Z, perhaps because of a perceived weakness in pronouncing N/American style "z" B) Zii is pronounced similar to "gee" (no IPA sorry), which is the same as a Japanese person would pronounce G, if you want to force correct pronunciation it has to be written as "zu" + small "i", thus borrowing the consonant initial from /zu/ (or /dzu/) with the vowel /i/, and this is a combination that many Japanese have trouble with, or find troublesome. I don't think I've ever heard a Japanese person pronounce Z in this way voluntarily.

219.102.220.42 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German exonims

Looking at the German Wikipedia, I noticed that a lot of Italian cities of Northern Italy have a German translation (dt. veraltet means ancient german name). Here are some examples:
Como > Chum, Sondrio > Sünders, Bergamo > Wälsch-Bergen, Milano > Mailand, Pavia > Pawei, Lodi > Lauden, Crema > Krem, Cremona > Kremun, Brescia > Wälsch-Brixen, Mantova > Mantua, Verona > Bern, Vicenza > Wiesentheim, Padova > Esten, Venezia > Venedig, Belluno > Beilun, Udine > Weiden, Lecco > Leck, Vigevano > Vigen, Feltre > Felters, Varese > Väris, Legnano > Ligni, Monza > Montsch, Bassano del Grappa > Bassan.
While it's normal to have German exonims for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol or for main cities (Roma, Firenze, Napoli...), some of the towns I mentioned are pretty minor. How do you explain this? It is because Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, while almost entirely Italian-speaking, was part of the Austrian Empire? When were they instituited for the first time? And, if so, I would like to find a list of ancient German names of now-Italian cities. I'm seeking expecially for: Rovigo, Treviso, Schio, Conegliano, Magenta, Goito, Solferino, Chioggia and Concordia. --151.51.15.200 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the towns in your second list will necessarily have their own German names. Even though the towns in your first list are relatively unimportant today, either 1) they were important towns or even independent city-states during the Middle Ages as part of the Holy Roman Empire, or 2) they are at the base of the Alps not far from German-speaking areas, for which they could have served as commercial entrepots. Some of the towns meet both criteria. Therefore, in medieval times, each of these towns probably had a German-speaking minority of soldiers and itinerant merchants. Most of the towns in your second list were too insignificant and/or too far from German-speaking areas in the Middle Ages for this to be true. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article "German exonyms" might be helpful. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's a sentence I didn't expect to see. —Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

[I am adding quotation marks to my comment of 00:28, for use–mention distinction. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

The only town of the ones you asked about specifically where I have read a German exonym is "Tervis" for Treviso. For example on an old map by Sebastian Münster: "Von der Statt Treviso / oder Tervis" ("of the town Treviso / or Tervis"). 18th item, "EUI1273", on this site ---Sluzzelin talk 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demolished building

Resolved

Why is it said that a demolished building was raised to the ground. Raised gives the impression of something going up not down. Thanks, Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "razed" to the ground, not "raised". Although spelling it as "raised" probably happens from time to time. AlexiusHoratius 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of "raze" - for which "rase" is (or was) an alternative spelling - is related to "abrasion" and "razor" and refers to scraping something back. "Raise" has quite a different origin, from Norse via Old English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pair of words is a fine example of both the homophone and its subset, the heterograph. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an editorial cartoon in the 1980's, depicting Ronald Reagan explaining that the "secret plan to raise taxes" which he was accused of having was actually a "secret plan to raze Texas"

-- AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for the replies had a feeling it wasn't spelt that way. Mo ainm~Talk 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Tiger lyrics

What do they sing in the chorus? Various lyrics websites, e.g. this one or this one, give the lyrics as follows: It's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fight/Rising up to the challenge of our rival. However, Survivor do not pronounce the sounds of the phrase I underlined in the same way as they do elsewhere in the same lyrics. The /aɪ/ (/ʌi/?) diphthong that can be heard, say, in tiger or fight, or, where it's followed by /v/, alive or survivor, is definitely not what's in rival. The /v/ itself and with the other /v/'s in the text are not as like as two peas either. This website gives the lyrics in another way: Risin' up to the challenge if I rather. Is this meaningless? None of the numerous dictionaries I possess say rather can be a verb, neither does Wiktionary. Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From years of listening to this song I have always assumed it was "rival", and indeed I do not hear anything that would cause me to doubt my perception of that word. Singers are hardly consistent with the manner in which they sing, and they do take odd liberties with pronunciation -- as evidenced by the strange conversion of the "l"s in "challenge" to "r" sounds. However, I hear nothing out of the ordinary in Dave Bickler's pronunciation of "rival", and definitely nothing to suggest he wanted an "a" or "th" sound. Xenon54 / talk / 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that "our rival(s)" appears on Karaoke machines. FWIW, /v/ and /ð/ are similar sounding, differing acoustically from each other only in their pitch. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this youtube[4] I'm hearing "our rival" every time he says it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, most Americans pronounce "rather" with an [æ] vowel which is not too similar to a standard [ai] diphthong. AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Eye of the Tiger includes a quote from one of the songwriters affirming that it's "rival" and was originally supposed to rhyme with "survival" until the text was changed, leaving it an assonance of "tiger". +An gr 10:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Anyway, is a hypothetical *rising up to the challenge if I rather meaningless? --Магьосник (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily meaningless, but definitely ungrammatical. "Rising up to the challenge if I'd rather" is at least grammatical, but not particularly meaningful. +An gr 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning, to me, would be that they may or may not make a real effort, which runs counter to the rest of the song, which states that they definitely will make the effort. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]