Language desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6

–st

While, whilst; among, amongst; unknown, unbeknownst. Is there a difference in meaning in these pairs, or only an ocean? —Tamfang (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the American side of the ocean, the -st forms are simply not much in use; there is no difference in meaning for Americans. Marco polo (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about while and whilst. We don't have an article about the difference between among and amongst, even though the difference in usage (in Britain) is more pronounced: "amongst" is often used to imply dispersion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think "unbeknownst" is a little literary/archaic/affected on both sides of the Atlantic, with no marked cross-pondal difference. The word reminds me of the title scroll to Spaceballs: "Unbeknownst to the princess, but knownst to us...". AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unbeknownst is more common in the United States than unbeknown, and I agree with AnonMoos that it is only used in a lofty register, at least in the United States. However, this is the only one of the -st forms that is more common than its suffixless counterpart in the United States. In the United States, you rarely encounter amongst or whilst except among transplants from Britain (and maybe other Commonwealth countries except for Canada). Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing my darndest to eradicate the abominable words 'whilst' and 'amongst' from Wikipedia for years now, and I will be continuing on my glorious quest. They're often used by people whose talk page language leaves something to be desired, which leads me to conclude that they believe these words are the written or formal counterparts of the colloquial words 'while' and 'among'. There's no such rule. 'While' and 'among' are just dandy even in the most formal of registers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I have no wish to defend usages that seem offensive or pretentious to our American and Australian cousins, I shall continue to use "whilst" whenever I consider it conveys a shade of meaning not contained in "while". If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Middleton and Thackeray, then I don't see why the word should be banned. I shall avoid using it in Wikipedia articles, however, since I don't wish to create any extra work for Jack, and I don't like edit wars. Dbfirs 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern for my welfare, Dbfirs, I do appreciate it. But tell me, what's the shade of meaning in "Whilst I have no wish to defend usages ..." that isn't there in "While I have no wish to defend usages ..."? I honestly cannot see any difference in meaning whatsoever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably very little, to be honest, but it is conventional to use "whilst" for this sort of contrast in my regional variety of English. I've read the criticisms, but it just sounds more natural and clearer to me. I'm wondering whether it is just a leftover from the usage that was common a few hundred years ago (from the King James Bible to the authors above), or whether it is a reaction to the (mis)-use of "while" to mean "until" in a small area of England south of where I live. Dbfirs 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is "this sort of contrast"? Between what and what? —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I know we've discussed this before. While your dialect considers whilst pretentious, and many American dialects do too, it is a normal, everyday, load-bearing word in British English. See this pleasant source. As such, if you must remove it from American and Australian-themed articles, I won't be kicking up a fuss, but there's no need to impose your aversions on British-themed articles, nor read your own dialect's registers into the words of people speaking another. 86.166.42.171 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting link. I'm glad I'm not alone. To me "while" just means "during the time that" when used at the start of a sentence, whereas "whilst" indicates a contrast between the juxtaposed situations. Like all prescriptivists (including Jack, most Americans, and Australian Pam Peters whose stated agenda is language reform), I tend to want to impose my usage on all other speakers of the language, but I'm gradually learning that the English language is surprisingly diverse, and once-common usages, considered obsolete by most, will often still be in regular use in some (perhaps remote) part of the English-speaking world. Like most Americans, I would consider "whilst" to sound slightly pretentious when used to mean just "during the time that", but substantial such usage in older literature (I can easily give you a dozen citations) would indicate that it can hardly be considered "wrong", just "dated". Dbfirs 07:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst is one of those words that comes naturally to some editors, but they never really need it, whereas it's jarring to readers from other parts of the world. I think there's a list of such words somewhere. One I hadn't realized, that goes in the other direction, is overly — it's a word I personally find natural and useful, but I see no need to use it in WP articles (even ones with strong American national ties), given that it's apparently jarring to British readers, and is easily replaced with something like excessively. --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that, in Wikipedia articles, there are many words best avoided to ensure easy readability for an international readership. Most of Jack's "adverbesque words" ( see above) are also best avoided since they usually convey the opinion of the writer. Dbfirs 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs, I'm tempted to suspend my wikibreak in order to deny I'm a prescriptivist, as evidence of such things can be misleading. But it's not that important. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the insult, but you were campaigning to remove a word from the language! There are some words that I would like to remove, but not this one. Neither of us is Thomas Bowdler. Dbfirs 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson and Clover

In the song Crimson and Clover, the title phrase is repeated several times. I can't make sense of the phrase in the context of the lyrics. Does it have any real meaning? --173.49.17.239 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Crimson and Clover, no, there's no real meaning, the words just fit there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek or Latin for database

what would they have called it? (or is a clever use of another Greek or Latin prefix or suffix that would get people to think of a database?) 84.153.222.232 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be "Database", which combines a neuter plural Latin form and a Greek form in a manner unknown to classical compounding. A word which appears in dictionaries of ancient Greek is Γνωμολογια. You could coin something with Θησαυρος as the second element, but I'm not sure what the first element would be. Modern Greek seems to use Βάση δεδομένων... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of neo-Latin computer terms. Here is a list of "vocabula computatralia", which has "datorum ordinatrum", simple "data", and "plicae datorum". Many years ago when we were setting up the Latin Wikipedia, I attempted to translate MediaWiki code into Latin, and I think I may have invented "basis dati" and "basis datorum", but I don't know if those translations are still in there. (I hope not, because that's terrible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anchor off, anchored off

Hello does "anchor off" actually mean the ship stays or leaves? thanks for help --Avoided (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in "anchored off the coast" of something? That means the ship stays there. Think of it as "anchored, off the coast". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of nautical terms has several expressions with anchor, but not that one at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm working on José María Narváez to translate it for the german wiki, and wasn't certain with this. thanks so far --Avoided (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in that article is, "While at anchor off Point Grey..."

"at anchor" means the ship is anchored, ie. stationary
"off Point Grey" means near Point Grey

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you anchored AT Point Grey, you'd get stuck on the rocks ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I gave my first reply, I had not considered the context (permanent link here), whose parse tree indicates that "off" is more closely associated with "Point Grey" than with "anchor" and "anchored".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding South Indian Dravidian Langauges.

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I was going to the information avilable on varoius links of Wikipedia where it has mentioned that Tamil is oldest of the Dravidian Language based on evidence dating back to 300 BC. If going my centuries or dates. Then I think Kannada should be mentioned as oldest language of the Dravidian language. I have even read saying some(2) of the alphabets in Tamil have been taken from Kannada Language.

In the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_history_of_India and varoius other links related to Kannada only mentions about the Brahmagiri edict. I think itself is sufficient evidence to mention Kannada has the oldest language.

The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC.[6][15] The first example of a full-length Kannada language stone inscription (shilashaasana) containing Brahmi characters with characteristics attributed to those of protokannada in Hale Kannada (Old Kannada) script can be found in the Halmidi inscription, dated c. 450, indicating that Kannada had become an administrative language by this time.[16][17][18] Over 30,000 inscriptions written in the Kannada language have been discovered so far.[19] The Chikkamagaluru inscription of 500 AD is another example.[20][21] Prior to the Halmidi inscription, there is an abundance of inscriptions containing Kannada words, phrases and sentences, proving its antiquity. The 543 AD Badami cliff shilashaasana of Pulakesi I is an example of a Sanskrit inscription in Hale Kannada script.[22][23]

Tamil is having one of the oldest literature amongst world languages, with epigraphic attestation dating to the 300 BC.

Literary works in India or Sri Lanka were preserved either in palm leaf manuscripts (implying repeated copying and recopying) or through oral transmission, making direct dating impossible. External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicates that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD.

So I request wikipedia team , If your team find that above infromation is right. Then please update the same in relavant information in your database related to Dravidian languages and related to Kannada/Karnataka.

The references for the same are avialable in below links,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagiri_archaeological_site

Ghosh, Amalananda (1990) [1990]. An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. BRILL. ISBN 9004092625. Kennedy, Kenneth A. R. (2000) [2000]. God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472110136. Peter Neal Peregrine, Melvin Ember, Human Relations Area Files Inc. (2001) [2001]. Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Springer. ISBN 0306462621. Kipfer, Barbara Ann (2000) [2000]. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. Springer. ISBN 0306461587. Ian Shaw, Robert Jameson (1999) [1999]. A Dictionary of Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631235833. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravindra s (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2, intends to cover all languages sufficiently attested by 500 A.D., and includes Old Tamil but not Kannada. AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tree diagram in our article on Dravidian languages shows Tamil and Kannada having a common root and diverging at around the same time. Because languages evolve gradually, it is very difficult to determine which modern language is "oldest", but there seems to be better evidence of early Tamil than of early Kannada. Your own dates also seems to suggest this. Dbfirs 22:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sravindra, there isn't a Wikipedia team (or rather, there is a team of millions, including you) and we haven't got a database. What we have is articles, which anybody is encouraged to improve if they can. On the subject of your question, I don't know which articles you are talking about, but note that if they claim that "Tamil is the oldest of the Dravidian languages" then they should be removed but not replaced with an alternative claim, as this is not a matter whose truth can be ascertained. If on the other hand they are talking about something like "the oldest surviving literature" or "the earliest known examples", then these are factual claims which you can certainly correct if you have references with updated information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]