Language desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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 29

Japanese video game screenshot

It's very hard to read, [1], but I'd like to know what they're saying in this game screen shot. Thanks! 69.207.132.170 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

あんただけは.../only you ゆるせない/are unforgivable. I have no idea about ヘニヘ...!/henihe...! Oda Mari (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first ヘ and second へ look different. Maybe it's "ヘニへ⋯！！", "to Heni...!", whatever that might mean. -- BenRG (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite possible it's a name, "Henihe" or however the game designers would render that in English. Also, I think the text would best be translated as "I can never forgive you" or even "I can't stand you" - Mari's translation is a tad too literal. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation

Could somebody doublecheck the translations from Russian in Roza Shanina#Personal life, particularly "is hammering into the head that loves"? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, anonymous IP person, whoever you are. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedagogs and Teachers

It's time for me to come to terms with these terms.

In the US, one rarely hears the term Pedagog even in educational institutions, and never in day-to-day speech. When encountered at all, I've always taken it to have a fairly narrow or specialized meaning -- I'm not sure what that is exactly -- but not at all as a general synonom of Teacher.

(I did get over the negative connotations when I realized that pedagogic was not pedantic, which we use here as a criticism.)

In German I run across the term Pädagog/in much more frequently, although I admit I'm reading mostly church sites of late, so there's room for observer bias.

What do the more educated here have to say on the subject? Any native German speakers reading here this week? Am I correct in my "specialized" connotations, or do I just have a pedestrian vocabulary in this area? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term pedagogy is used in English to refer to the practical study of education. It is basically the applied science of teaching. I have never seen the "pedagog" form used in English. Pedagogy is what teachers study to become better teachers. --Jayron32 04:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should have included an example: [2] Observe five lines down, Ms. Schicketanz' job title is Gemeindepädagogin, that is, Congregational Pedagog. What do you suppose she actually does for them? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he is either a sunday school teacher OR a "Minister (pastor) in charge of education". Something like that. --Jayron32 05:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary.com says that in English "pedagog" is an alternative form of "pedagogue". Based on a few google searches, both words seem to be used by non-native English speakers, academics in the field of pedagogy, and music teachers. 130.188.8.12 (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that those who could call themselves paedagogues often avoid doing so to escape the sad fate of Dr. Yvette Cloete. Marnanel (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the words "pedagogue" and "pedagogical" is that the words have the negative connotation of a teacher who teaches by rote, who's very strict and doesn't allow for original thought. Corvus cornix_talk 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the German usage DHM was referring to: In some German-speaking countries ("Diplom-") "Pädagoge"/"Pädagogin" can also be academic titles for professions that teach outside academia and schools, or complementary to schools. For example, A "Sozialpädagoge is a type of social worker. A "Heilpädagoge" is responsible for remedial education. a "Sonderpädagoge" deals with special needs or special education needs, while a "Berufspädagoge" is a vocational trainer. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Gemeindepädagogin", Jayron is on the right religious track, though, again, the "Gemeindepädagogen" don't interact only with young people. The German WP's article on de:Gemeindepädagogik also mentions adult education, consulting families and the elderly, pastoral care, organizing extracurricular activities, and others things more. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a native German speaker reading here this week, I am German. In German, a Pädagoge / Pädagogin is a pedagogue (Pedagog is a different article), that is a person who is either a teacher (usually one who has had some education in pedagogy) or a scientist of pedagogy. There is no connotation of pedantry in the German words Pädagoge / Pädagogin. But there is a German word with such a connotation: A Schulmeister – or Schulmeisterin – is a person who is eager to correct other people and tell them in which way things should be done. The adjective schulmeisterlich means like a Schulmeister. -- Irene1949 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin text on Spinoza's tomb

Any Latin speakers out there? I am wondering whether I translated the Latin inscription on the tomb of Spinoza into English correctly (see "File:Graf Baruch Spinoza, Nieuwe Kerk, Den Haag, Nederland - 20080906.jpg"). Does "Terra hic Benedicti de Spinoza in Ecclesia Nova olim sepulti ossa tegit" mean "In times past, the earth here covered the buried bones of Benedict de Spinoza in the New Church"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word sepulti would appear to be in the genitive case, agreeing with Benedicti rather than Ossa. Also tegit seems to be the present rather than the past tense. I think a more literal translation would be something like. "The earth here covers the bones of Benedict de Spinoza [who was] formerly buried in the New Church." --rossb (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olim[3] is an adverb and must agree with a verb. Because tegit is in the present tense, the only logical alternative is sepulti[4], which is in fact a genetive singular past participle. Indeed, the syntax supports this because sepulti immediately follows olim. The translation is "The earth here covers the bones of Benedict de Spinoza, long interred in/at[5] the New Church." The inscription and Spinoza are both at New Church. It wouldn't make any sense if he had been "formerly burried" there, an inscription stating he was formerly burried there was subsequently made, and both Spinoza and his inscription were moved back to New Church. I do agree with the use of the genetive agreeing with Benedicti rather than ossa[6]. Sepulti would have been sepultos to agree with ossa, the only other thing which could be burried there. Gx872op (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these responses. I hope the question has provided you with hours of fun and entertainment! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbs don't actually "agree" with verbs, but in some cases they modify them... AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't very clear, but I used "and" to refer to olim above, but not adverbs in general. Olim is an adverb denoting past time and necessarily requires the past tense. Therefore, a present tense verb such as tegit does not "agree" with the tense/time aspect of an adverb olim. My use of "agree", I admit, is imprecise, but I do not recall the technical term for the grammatical principle I was trying to highlight. If someone does know the technical term for required agreement between a verb and an adverb with temporal connotations, I would be most interested. We used the word "agree" when describing the requirement that nouns and adjectives share gender, number and case back in university. Gx872op (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "agreement" you are talking about is semantic, not grammatical, and I am not aware of a technical term for it: I would probably use "consistent". Incidentally, ossa is neuter, so if sepulti were to be made to agree with it, it would be sepulta. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally also, "olim" can mean "in the future", but that would be kind of weird here. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is not my strong point, but clearly "olim" here modifies "sepulti", not "tegit". "Sepulti" is a past participle, so it is entirely consistent with the "past" meaning of "olim". Marco polo (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the above misses the point that Spinoza is no longer buried in the church - the new grave is clearly outside the church. So I would content that my previous translation is correct: "The earth here covers the bones of Benedict de Spinoza [who was] formerly buried in the New Church." --rossb (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1927 stone marker with the Latin inscription was placed on the existing grave, not on a "new grave." Spinoza was never moved. Gx872op (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"open source license" or "open-source license"?

Consider (from this article):

An open source license is a copyright license for computer software.

Is that correct, considering the context? Is open source license a noun consisting of those three words? Or should it be open-source license, adjective open-source and noun license?

--Mortense (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of style rather than correctness. Some publications (and editors) would use the hyphen, some wouldn't. Pick your favorite style guide and look up its advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a license of the open-source type, or is it a source license which is open? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former. "Open source" is a collocation. Marnanel (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A haircut you can set your watch to"

What does the expression mean and what are its origins? --Endlessdan (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's describing a man's appearance over a longer period of time, maybe what's meant is that the guy regularly gets his hair cut? TomorrowTime (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are Google images for "A haircut you can set your watch to". There is precision conveyed in a freshly trimmed, short, men's haircut, and it is precision that is required of something by which one can set one's watch. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It originates from Mother Simpson, a seventh-season episode of The Simpsons. In a flashback to January 12, 1969 (the date of Super Bowl III), Grampa uses these words in praise of the crew-cut of Johnny Unitas, which he greatly prefers to the unkempt locks of Joe Namath ("He looks like a girl!"). It's not a real idiomatic expression, although perhaps it has become one, what with Simpsons fans quoting the episode. I figure it was just the spontaneous invention of the Simpsons writing staff - a humorous way of referring to an extremely straight, "square" hairstyle. Such a hairstyle is associated (or was associated in the late 60's) with dependability, wholesomeness, responsibility, regularity, and therefore (metaphorically) with horological accuracy. LANTZY ^TALK 08:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which language is this

hu ba huu geange suue shnuu lu weeh ho hey knoo tzegne laribu--91.14.182.171 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the language of the Halloween merry-makers in the 1946 movie about extraterrestrial life. It was originally released under the title "knew tzegne laribu" but the title was changed after taffy-makers protested. It was changed to "hu ba huu geange suue shun" which is the name that most people know it by. Here is an example. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that photo montage an example ? Can you provide a link to the movie ? StuRat (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made it up. It is a series of fictitious assertions. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language translation

i can see few articles has also displayed in the language Tamil , but not many. so i feel i can translate those articles to Tamil from English. is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himaninath (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sure are welcome to. You may join the Tamil Wikipedia and begin posting new articles there and/or translating articles on EN to the Tamil one. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but you need to create the articles at the Tamil Wikipedia. It's just like writing any other article, except you have to remember to make a note somewhere saying that it was translated from the English Wikipedia article. Pais (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes translate articles from both my native Finnish, and from Swedish and German, which I know fairly well. I just include "translated from [[fi:Plii plöö]]" in the edit summary and include all the interwiki links that the original article had. JIP | Talk 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish has long fascinated me, and neither Wikipedia nor Google Translate is helping: does plii plöö mean anything interesting? I was prepared for another expedition to gather together the whole bonfire… Marnanel (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Plii plöö" is just nonsense text, to use as a placeholder name for text that does not have to have meaning. JIP | Talk 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. That makes sense. I had seen Finns use retu and tahvo, which aren't listed there, but not that before. Marnanel (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Retu" and "Tahvo" are the Finnish translations for Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble. I didn't even know they were used as placeholder names. JIP | Talk 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are plii and plöö even possible words of Finnish? I thought Finnish didn't allow word-initial consonant clusters. —Angr (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, the Finnish grammar doesn't allow word-initial consonant clusters. We Finns are still capable of pronouncing them, so they are sometimes used in nonsense language like this. JIP | Talk 12:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilavitkutin is great, I want to import it into English. Perhaps trellisfiddler. 213.122.40.52 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Wossname, narmean?

In the computer game Jinxter, there is an accompanying instruction booklet masquerading as a newspaper. It contains citations from "guardians", who speak a form of colloquial English. One word they use is "narmean", which I had never encountered before, but picked up from context that it means "do you know what I mean?". Is this word actually used in real life? Another word they use is "wossname", which is a placeholder name for just about anything that they can't remember the word for. Such as this wossname I'm writing right now. Message, that's it. Is this word actually used in real life? JIP | Talk 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Narmean" is just "know what I mean" pronounced quickly, and "wossname" is just "what's-his-name" (or "what's-its-name") pronounced quickly. Pais (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR: I can attest to the usage of "wossname" in speech and print. (I associate it with the south of London, for whatever that's worth.) "Narmean" I would recognise as a clipped version of "know what I mean?", but I've never seen it in print. (Edit: Some instances of "wossname" from the work of Sir Terry Pratchett.) Marnanel (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have mentioned, to save the reader wondering where the "r" is in "know what I", that the vowel in the first syllable of "narmean" is /ɑː/ as in the first syllable of "father", and there is no r-colouring. "Ar" is simply the usual way of writing this in non-rhotic English. I have a rhotic friend who read in a book as a child that milieu was pronounced "MIL-yer", and spent years wondering about this until he realised that the book was written in southern England. Marnanel (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To an American, the spelling "Narmean" would most naturally suggest the pronunciation [ˈnɑrmiən] (trisyllabic), and it's doubtful whether the vowel of "father" would be used in a fast-speech simplification of "know what I mean"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; this is why I took the time to mention it explicitly. (I'm married to an American.) Marnanel (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In transcriptions of African American Vernacular English, it tends to be rendered knaamean or similar. Among youth it's probably diffused outside the black community, along with aight. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both "wossname" and "narmean" were enthusiastically used (and quite possibly coined, though I can supply no confirmation) by the late Alan Coren. We own some of his humorous writings, going back several decades, and they are liberally peppered with both words. Here's a piece by his son Giles, about a 2008 collection published by him and his sister as a tribute to their father, which references both words in relation to Coren's work. Ka renjc 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of involuntarily eavesdropping on someone who ended every sentence with "Noam sane?". —Tamfang (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of cemented-in abbreviated language is immortalised in expressions like "Carn the mighty Blues" (= "Come on the mighty Blues"), an oft-heard rallying cry at football matches. Is there a name for these types of expressions? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a name for them, but some other common examples are "wanna" (want to), "gotta" ((have) got to) and "innit" (isn't it). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic linguistic term is "fast-speech form", but while wanna and gotta probably originated as fast speech forms, they are now used in many other contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Relaxed pronunciation. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good sleuthing, Wavelength. Tks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up Latin again

Salvete. The A grade I received in GCSE Latin was quite a few years ago now. But I still frequently run into situations where I need to read (and occasionally write in) Latin, and I am frustrated by my rustiness. One of my resolutions for the New Year is to get back up to the level where I can, let's say, contribute at least in a small way to the Latin Wikipedia. I have two ideas about how to do this. Firstly, reading Latin textbooks. The trouble with this is that I doze through the first five to ten chapters because it's all stuff I remember, and it's hard to know when to start paying attention again. Secondly, reading through the Psalms and the Acts of the Apostles both in English and the Vulgate, since I know both these texts rather well, and noting the constructions used in the latter. But this doesn't help much with producing the language. My question: does anyone have either recommendations for textbooks or other hints on picking up my Latin once more? Marnanel (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition is a classic textbook. It's been recently reprinted and updated (a bit) too. Pais (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent book is Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency by John C. Traupman. It's designed to teach you spoken Latin (!), but once you've mastered that, writing articles at Latin Wikipedia should be a breeze. Pais (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the Bradley-Arnold book (although it can be hard to do the exercises by yourself, since there is no answer key). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key is sold separately. I don't know if the key fits with the most recent edition of the textbook, though. Pais (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What! So it's possible that my professor was not as erudite as I assumed! (Nah...I don't think he was using the key either...) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the Perseus[7] website and the Textkit[8] website. Textkit is very good for self-study of ancient Greek as well. Perseus will generate a vocabulary list for you from their classics collection based on the frequency at which they appear. Gx872op (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all of you. Looks like I have interesting times ahead. Marnanel (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"From the get-go"

Where does the expression "from the get-go" come from? It isn't an obvious construction. An example would be something like "I disliked him from the get-go", meaning from the first time they met. Corvus cornix_talk 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Detective pegs its origin to the 1960s, and offers an unsourced explanation. --LarryMac | Talk 19:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Derived from "get going". That makes sense. Thanks, Larry. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOED also says:

noun. colloq. (chiefly N. Amer.). M20.
[ORIGIN from get going s.v. get verb.]
The very beginning.

and cites the example "I told her from the get-go that I meant it." from (something written by) Norman, Michael, 1947–. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

downloading books

where can I download free-of-charge electronic versions of contemporary British fiction books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.48.40 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on E-books gives a number of links, though not necessarily for specifically British books. Other than this, Google is your friend. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By contemporary I assume you mean modern. This is a great question and if you get a good answer then it will answer the mirror question; "Why would publishing houses give away their books instead of charging for them?" Richard Avery (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, there are a huge number of books that would not sell if they had a price. Sticking them on a website full of adverts with the word 'free' plastered all over generally more than compensates. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that KT. I guess downloaders pay for them indirectly by responding to the adverts. HNY! Richard Avery (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Discovered or Invented

Was writing (in the form of written language) discovered or invented?Smallman12q (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have been discovered, it would have need to have existed outside of humans. Unless you're an Erich von Däniken disciple, one would have to say that writing was invented. It was probably invented only 2-3 times in history, however. Most writing systems are descendents of these seminal systems. See History of writing. --Jayron32 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't mention (at least I don't see it on a quick look) cases where illiterates, aware of the concept of writing but not the details, invented their own systems; the best-documented examples being Cherokee script and Pahawh Hmong. —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention the case where literates invented their own system either, one example being Hangul. --Kjoonlee 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely invented. Writing didn't exist somewhere and then humans happened to find it; it's basically a tool, and you wouldn't say any other tool was "discovered". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fire is a tool which was discovered. I suppose you could also say that they discovered that writing (pictograms, initially) would allow the reader to communicate with an author who wasn't present, and could even be dead. You could even argue that writing existed in some limited form for some animals, such as big cats scratching up a tree to mark their territory. This has many of the characteristics of writing, although the message is rather limited. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural fire always existed, but the deliberate use of fire by humans, to achieve a purpose, was invented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, deleted Jayron's answer by accident! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It is of course possible for, say, an archaeologist to discover a form of writing previously unknown to science, but the people who first start using a form of writing invented it. —Angr (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's often no clear distinction. I'm fairly sure that Neptune was discovered and typewriters were invented, but when it comes to, say, quicksort, it could be either. Jayron's idea of "existed outside of humans" is actually a can of worms. 213.122.40.52 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what Jayron was saying? I agree that there are some borderline areas that are open to argument (such as the whole of mathematics). Dbfirs 20:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correct form

They should have asked him why you were there?
They should have asked him why were you there?

which one is correct and why?--180.234.52.218 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It depends on the punctuation. You can say "They should have asked him 'Why were you there?'" (if the speaker asking for a direct quote of what they should have asked) or "They should have asked him why you were there" if talking in general terms. --Jayron32 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron. This is what I was looking for.--180.234.44.28 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also indirect speech. Note, however, that the person behind "you" changes when you switch from direct to indirect speech in Jayron's examples. In direct speech, "you" and "him" are the same (masculine) person. In indirect speech, "you" is the person addressed by the whole phrase, the audience ("you to whom I am telling this"), "you"'s gender is unknown, and "you" is not identical with "him" (a different person, whom "they" should have asked regarding "your" presence there).

The indirect equivalent of "They should have asked him 'Why were you there?'" is "They should have asked him why he was there." The direct equivalent of "They should have asked him why you were there" would be "They should have asked him 'Why was (s)he there?'" or "They should have asked him 'Why were they there?'" ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word you're looking for "interlocutor"? Marnanel (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming you are responding to my edit summary, and happily coincidentally otherwise) Yes! Thanks :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]