Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 August 17

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.

August 17

Acting as a Scribe

Resolved

I can't, for the life of me, remember the term for someone that acts as a scribe for a person in an exam. For example, if someone lost an arm and was unable to write, s/he would have someone there to help them. The person without the arm would tell the scribe what to write, and the scribe would write what he was asked to write. Any ideas? — Fly by Night (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The term proxy would fit. Unfortunately "disbled proxy exam" gets you hits about internet protocols. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My Google search for 'exam write scribe' turned up answers that seem to indicate that it's 'exam scribe', in the UK at least. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And this just uses 'scribe' (and 'scribing' as the action). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the hits do seem to come from the UK but here is a PDF Directions for Scribing from the NYC school system. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Amanuensis, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good one. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I really only know this word because of an interest in the life and works of Frederick Delius, who had Eric Fenby perform this function for him. Fenby is always but always described as Delius's amanuensis, never his scribe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I most recently read it in Grave's I, Claudius series, or maybe it was one of the later Dune books. When the question was asked, it occurred to me that there was a classic word for this, but also that it was not the one the OP was looking for. I am pretty sure there was another word besides scribe (again, proxy comes to mind, but I wouldn't insist) used when I took my undergrad entrance placements. That was the last time I heard of the practice in education. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually quite widespread in UK higher/further education, amanuenses are employed to help students who would otherwise not be able to take notes or write exam scripts. Hereward College is an FE college near where I live, and its students make regular use of them. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jack of Oz hit the nail on the head. Amanuensis was the word I was looking for. TammyMoet is also quite right. I asked because I had helped a student whose hand had been bitten by a dog and wasn't able to write. Thanks to everyone for all of their input. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Australian education system the term for someone that acts as a scribe for a person in an exam is a scribe. Imagine trying to scribe for someone trying to pronounce amanuensis when they have never heard the word before! HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern/Ancient Greek glottal stop

do greeks have any glottal stops?

A Greek friend of mine is enamoured with the Essex dialect, but she's absolutely struggling with replacing T-glottalization, something i consider to be an essential, and certainly one of the most prominent characteristics. Is there any parallel i can draw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.40 (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there's something like English uh-oh! Cypriot Greek has hiatus, but that's probably not close enough to be much help. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not in Ancient Greek, which had Movable nu. Third person plural verb forms which had lost their final "n" had it restored in cases where the verb was followed by a word with an initial vowel. This led to the addition of a final "n" to words like ἐστί(ν) ("is"), which had never had it. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My advice as an oral exercise would be for you to quickly repeat the first syllable of uh oh to her (uh' uh' uh' uh') a couple dozen times and have her focus on getting the catch in the throat outside of the context of normal spoke speech. It is likely she can make this sound as a vocal gesture in the same way that English speakers can make the clicks of Zulu as tsk's or clucks. I had some success teaching people to pronounce initial ng- of Zulu this way by having them repeat ang ang ang a-ng a-ng a ng a ng-a ng-a ng-a nga nga nga until they could simply come out and say "nga". μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

'an historic moment'

(For the record, this question may be specific to British English.) Can someone please explain to me why the indefinite article preceding historic is always 'an' rather than 'a', despite the fact that we pronounce the 'h'? Is it just a convention that we mindlessly adhere to or is there a particular reason? In speech, should we actually pronounce the 'an' as 'an' or as 'a'? Should we do it with other words beginning with 'h'? Thanks. asyndeton talk 11:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense if you drop your aitches. I assume that the writings of people with an aitch-dropping accent were the basis the orthographic standard. Yes, I think it's specifically British; in the US we only use "an" when the aitch is silent, as in honor. — kwami (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning: The following is not expert opinion and may contain exhortations of random violence which should be ignored... unless the guy deserves it.

I think those are instances of hypercorrection. Same as "a S.O.S.", "an U.F.O.", or "octopi". Following grammatical rules mindlessly. No [formal] English dialect I know pronounces historic as "istoric". Though some dialects (mainly British and definitely a minority) do drop the H in "historical" and "historic", but never in "history" (note that the accent in the latter is in the first syllable, while it is in the second in the former).

Listen closely to someone who just wrote 'An historical'. If they pronounce it "An 'istorical" then they have a valid reason for writing it that way and should be forgiven. If they pronounce it [awkwardly] as "An Historical", they're drones and should be punched in the mouth. Worse, if they write "An History" or say "An 'istory", they should be punched in the mouth and kicked in the guts. >:D -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't octopus irregular in Latin? Polypus is (pl. polypi), and that's also of Greek derivation. — kwami (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are no surviving instances of the plural of "octopus" in Latin, so it's anybodies guess as to what the Romans actually said. They did, as you said, use "polypi", and not "polypodes". Here's an extensive treatment of the pluralization of "octopus" and "polypus": [[1]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not Latin, Greek. More accurately Latinized Ancient Greek used in Neo Latin (not in actual Latin like Dominus Vobisdu says). It's from πούς (wikt:pous), 'foot'. The problem here is people incorrectly assume a Latin nominative suffix -us (Greek equivalent -ος), whose plural is usually –ī. It would mean the root word is Octop-, which of course is wrong. Octop- is not a word. Octo- is, from Greek ὀκτώ for "eight".

The correct plural of pous is podes. So it should actually be Octopodes, the Latin derivative is pes (wikt:pes), whose plural in turn is pedes, cf. Centipedes. Even I have to agree it's rather unwieldy and pedantic. I still prefer Octopuses rather than Octopi though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't a Greek word. The Greek was πολυπος, plural πολυποι. Or at least it had both 2nd and 3rd declension forms. Sure, historically the etymology was πους, but that had already been reanalysed. Saying it "should" be -ποδης is like saying that it "should" be a cherries or one peas, because those esses aren't plural suffixes. Or that the bib you wear while cooking "should" be a napron. — kwami (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Commercial break: The following wall of text is brought to you by Google Empire and Captain Crunch Cereal Sedatives. It may use circular argument as it's 1:42 AM and its poster is sleepy and slightly insane:

I think you're confusing three different words:

• Latin Polypus - 'octopus', 'cuttlefish', 'tumor'. Not a compound word, a loanword from Greek, and the origin of the English word polyp
• Ancient Greek πολύπους (plural πολύποδες)- 'octopus', 'cuttlefish'. A compound word meaning 'many footed'
• Modern Greek πολυπος (plural πολυποι) - 'polyp'. NOT a compound word, a reborrowing of a borrowed word. It is the direct equivalent of the English 'polyp'. It does not, in any way, refer to octopuses or cephalopods.

Scientific Greek and Latin (misleadingly known as 'New Latin') borrows from both Ancient Greek and Latin, not Latin alone. It regularly uses words which were never actually borrowed by the Romans from the Greeks. So the connection between the English octopus with Latin polypus is nonexistent. Octopus was first coined as a generic name (in New Latin) in the 18th century (original English common name for octopus was 'devilfish'). The New Latin word is based on Greek Octo- and -pous alone. The Latin polypus does not fit into the equation.

Greek words do not undergo Latinization when they are used in New Latin and should certainly not acquire Latin declensions despite looking superficially Latin. Unless they were explicitly based on Latin Greek loanwords. e.g. You can use the Latin sepia, 'cuttlefish', from Greek sepia, in the genus Sepiella (Latin sepia + diminutive suffix -ella); but you will never use Latin declensions on say... Sepioteuthis, since the components of that word (Sepia and teuthis) are Greek this time.

Anyway, enough with the wonderful world of binomial nomenclature. Since Octopus has entered common English usage, Octopuses is of course the preferred plural. If you want to be pedantic, use Octopodes (anglicized as Octopods, and actually used in scientific literature to refer to members of the Order Octopoda, again notice that it's Octopoda, not Octopia or something). But I can't think of any reason whatsoever why a Latin plural is even being considered. While Octo did find its way into Latin as Octo (cf. October) and Pous as Latin Pes (cf. Pedestal, Millipede, Pedicure), the word, as a whole, was never borrowed by the Romans in the same way that Polypus was. Thus, it was never Latin.

Now for something surprising I just found out. Below is the modern native Greek word for octopus. It's a little bit mangled from the centuries of linguistic evolution, but its etymon should be obvious to you.

• Modern Greek χταπόδι (chtapodi) (plural χταπόδια (chtapodia)) - 'octopus'.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Latin octo and pes are simply Indo-European cognates of Greek octo and pous (and English eight and foot), not borrowings (that's the impression I get from this dictionary entry, at least). A minor quibble though; I agree with the rest. And interesting point about the modern Greek. Lesgles (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh. Good find. One of those 'basal' short PIE roots then that are resistant to evolution.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It appears to be all about whether the stress is on the first syllable, so 'a history' but 'an historical', according to these [2][3]. Mikenorton (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial questions, the perennial answers. Don't we love them?

Why prescribe for these cases? I articulated a nuanced descriptive rule that accounts for a certain kind of soigné usage, back in 2008. See it in Hansard with utterly compelling examples, or see it here:

A before all consonant sounds, including /h/, /j/, /hj/, and /w/; an in all other cases. Except that an may be substituted before /h/ (and possibly before /hj/) if the first syllable of the word bears a weaker stress than the second syllable.

I don't claim it is right. Does anyone claim it is wrong? In your answer show all working. Marks will be deducted for category errors or unmodulated opinion-mongering. Bonus marks will be awarded for insights into what is special about /h/ (and /j/ and /hj/) that might lie behind this rule.

(As for Mikenorton's 1 and 2, I sneer in their general direction.)

Noetica^Tea? 13:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First, people should commit seppuku. And now, they should be punched in the mouth and kicked in the guts. And for what? For the heinous and unforgivable atrocity of using an "an" where an "a" would suffice, that's what. What is happening to this bunch of lovely, kind, gentle, caring, empathetic folk who can hear the pain of others at the drop of a hat? No wonder the Brits all went crazy last week. It's truly an horrendous development. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

<Kicks JackofOz in the gut>-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneers in the general direction of OS. Exit pursued by a beastorn. Noetica^Tea? 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever a beastorn is, I hope it's carnivorous!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OS, check Hansard. Those who ignore the archives are destined to repeat them. Noetica^Tea? 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I started reading, but my eyes glazed over at 'dew-clad maiden'. Having no interest in such dewcladness, I will therefore, arbitrarily and with no misgivings whatsoever, presume a Beastorn is a distant cousin of Jabberwocks and thus carnivorous, though perhaps a little less manxome.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can but refer you to the most recent Noeticist sermonising. Welcome back, O Thou Holy St Noetica of the Heatwave. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An Holy St Noetica of an Heatwave.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Historic discusses this issue, linking the answer to the pronunciation of 'h' and pointing to Semivowel for more detail. Another point is that "a historical" may be confused with "ahistorical". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, a dictionary for American and British English, says under historic, historical "both a and an are used before historic and historical. A number of commentators prescribe a here, but you should feel free to use an if it sounds more natural to you. We find that more writers use a than an but that both are common." Under a, an it says "Before h in an unstressed or weakly stressed syllable, a and an are both used in writing (an historic, a historic) but an is more usual in speech, whether the h is pronounced or not. This variation is the result of historical development; in unstressed and weakly stressed syllables, h was formerly not pronounced in many words where it is pronounced at the present time."

Please resume your fight. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No punishment is too great for people who put "an" before "history" or "historical." Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, I guess, "history" is stressed on the first syllable, therefore it is "a history", but for other derivations the stress is on the second syllable, therefore "an historical". It has everything to do with stress, and nothing to do with dropping Hs. I say this as an historian with a history degree. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And still the punishments continue. Love the sinner and cleave him to your bosom. Anyway, it's not a sin to say "an historical". Now, "an history" - that's rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I both aspirate and nunate here. I think the explanation, that this occurs when the second syllable is stressed: "an harmonic", makes sense. Or it could simply be treated as an historical exception. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Οὔτις (or whatever your name most tellingly isn't), as a fellow aspirant to a niceness of nunation I put to you these cases, in ohforgettable ordure:

• hysteron proteron
• habilitation
• habitability
• habituation
• harmonisation
• harmonistic
• harmonometer
• haemochromatosis
• historiographer
• historiography
• historiology
• hypochondriac
• proteron hysteron

In none of these does the primary stress fall on the first or the second syllable. In some, the relative stressing of the first and second syllables varies contextually and idiolectically (cf. electricity). Does not (if I may issue an erotesis cloven by self-referential parenthesis) this relativity determine the matter? In sum, "when the second syllable is stressed" is insufficient.

Noetica^Tea? 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=a+historic%2C+an+historic&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.216.39 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Outis was taken, (2) the second syllable theory was someone else's, I just think it plausible, (3) I might say an harmometer, I would say an historiographer, and while I would definitely not say *an hypochondriac, I have indeed said an hysterical...--but you didn't mention that one. I can't imagine contexts where I would use the other words with an indefinite article, and don't want to guess given the problems with self elicitation. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(You mean an harmonometer, right?) Well, your practice probably fits my descriptive rule pretty well (except that I don't know whether you have ever also said "a hysterical", or whether you recall accurately; same for myself), and not the rule that I inveigh against (which of course is not yours; it is common, and inadequate). It is easy to construct uses of the other words with an indefinite article: "An habituation devoutly to be avoided." Indeed, it is easy to find them in print (see rough Googlebooks results for "an historiography", for example).

(The original Outis was not taken, but got away; that was the ingenuity of the name.)

Noetica^Tea? 00:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know I have said both, that the aspirated forms were learnèd ones (just as I didn't learn "hence" on the street) and that in writing I almost always use "an hysterical". When copping a dimebag Uptown I can't imagine saying anything but "Yo, there's a hysterical bag lady stabbin' niggaz with a busted forty on the Six". μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who are interested in what English is like rather than on why it came to be this way, [4][5]. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

followed by

An interview was conducted followed by an examination. In the above sentence which actually happened earlier, the interview or the examination? --Dondrodger (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Interview. — kwami (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

'An herbaceous border'

A question for the Americans out there: if you don't aspirate the 'h' in herb*, do you also not aspirate the 'h' in herbaceous? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (*and if you don't then fair enough. I'm not trying to start an WP:ENGVAR argument)

I don't not aspirate it. But it appears that the pronunciation is at least as variable as in the case of the word being 'eatedly discussed two sections above. --LarryMac | Talk 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here, I drop the "h" sound in both words (and I am American, from the South-East). Falconus^{p t c} 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that's not the same. I do aspirate "herbaceous". I deliberately used the dreaded double negative in my reply because of Almost's ensmallened parenthetical addition to his query). --LarryMac | Talk 17:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I would never aspirate herb unless it were the capitalized given name, I wouldn't bat an eye at either pronunciation of herbaceous, and, frankly, suspect I would be more likely to use the aspirated form if I said the word spontaneously. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I drop the h in herb but not in herbaceous or herbicide. "An herb", "a herbaceous border", "a herbicide". Pais (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do the same as Pais, and I use those words on a daily basis. Like Medeis, I wouldn't bat an eye at either pronunciation of "herbaceous" or "herbicide". "A herb", with an aspirated 'h', would sound very, very odd coming from an American, and yes, I would notice it immediately.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To Australian ears "erb" is diagnostically American. So is "uman" (so to write) for "human". Myself, I have to leave the room and lie down for five minutes if I hear either. Noetica^Tea? 00:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard any fellow American say "uman". The "h" is always pronounced. I don't know where you got that idea from. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Such confidence, DV! Well, outsiders are often more struck by these things than insiders. I got /'jumən/ for "human" from careful direct observation of spontaneous connected American speech. Similarly, I hear /kjə'mjuniti/ for "community" in Australian speech, where others would report no anomaly, and deny ever having heard such a thing. Noetica^Tea? 01:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Americans do say "yooman". I associate it with the Midwest, the same sort of accent that has "warsh" for "wash", though I could be wrong that those two go together. Never say it myself. --Trovatore (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What Trovatore said. See here for mention of this pronunciation, without any claim that it is ever American. See here for specific application to American; and much more linked from this Google search. Noetica^Tea? 01:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an older informant educated in the Northeast who insists that he was taught one does not pronounce the aitch before a palatalized "u" as in human or huge. But the most normal American pronunciation is with the palatal fricative [ç] allophone of /h/. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On the "herb" question, I would have the unaspirated "an herb..." before every one of those (herb, herbaceous, herbicide) and would do the same for any word that was derived from "herb". For me (whose native accent is Northern New England) the ONLY time I would say "herb" with the aitch aspirated/pronounced would be for the man's name. If you said "These are my 'erbs" I would expect a small window garden. If you said "These are my Herbs", I would expect a bunch of middle aged men whose mother named them Herbert. --Jayron32 02:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to that Carol Cleveland sketch where she lures the dirty old Herbs up to her place and locks them in a room to die. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On "yooman", see yew-hew merger, which ascribes it to Philadelphia and NYC accents. That fits with my experience; I definitely haven't heard it from native Midwesterners. Lesgles (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, New York, that makes sense. As a Californian I tend to conflate New York accents with Midwest ones, in the category of "things you hear in 1940s musicals". --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is either dying out or limited to upstate NY and western PA--you almost never hear it--as the article says, my informant has been disparaged fro the pronunciation--and I wonder if he was taught by a Nun from Cork. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Identifying cursive kanji

I'm trying to figure out what is written on a piece of Japanese pottery. Four photos are here, labelled IMG 1-IMG 4. It's a total of 5 lines of text, and I believe I've identified some of the kanji, but I haven't got anything close to a translation.

IMG 1, Line 1, kanji 2 is 馬 horse.

IMG 2, Line 2, characters 2 and 3 appear to be 風 wind, and hiragana の. Based on the maker's signature, I think the first character may be 泰 (tai).

IMG 3, Line 3, character 1 might be 和 wa. Character 2 is almost definitely hiragana を. Line 4 ends with hiragana と, possibly preceded by hiragana し.

IMG 4, Line 5: the second kanji could be 入 (enter) and the final one might be 茶 (cha).

Thanks. 154.5.141.48 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The first character of the line three does not look 和, but 私 to me. The line five looks 吹くのかな. The final one might be な/na of hentaigana. I'd like to know the maker's signature. Oda Mari (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

吹くのかな would make perfect sense if 泰風 is correct. The maker's name is 平安泰山. 154.5.141.48 (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I G-searched the company, but found the name only in a few auction pages. The company seemed to close their business. The first character on the first line might be 白馬/hakuba/white horse. Sorry I'm not good at reading cursive writing. Oda Mari (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IMG2 is 春風, definitely.--刻意(Kèyì) 03:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

German book title translation

Would somebody kindly translate a book title for me please? It's Kipp kipp hurra! Im reinrassigen Kajak. Eine ausführliche Anleitung zum Sichwiederaufrichten im Kajak (Faltboot) by the Austrian kayaker Edi Hans Pawlata, who was the first non-Inuit to master the Eskimo roll. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tip tip hooray! In a purebred kayak. A detailed manual for righting one's self in a kayak (folding kayak)". ("Kipp kipp hurra" is a pun on "hipp hipp hurra!" (hip hip hooray) and the verb "kippen" (to tip)) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! How fortunate that the pun works in English as well - what are the chances of that? Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellently done, Sluzzelin! It reminds me of 'Intel Inside' and the Japanese translation of it. 'Intel Inside' uses the illiterative of 'in-'. How to translate that 'pun' into Japanese needed a little thought, until the translator came up with 'Interu Haitteru'. This literally means 'Intel Inside', but uses the syallables '-eru' in both words to form the illiteration. With a little thought, it can be done. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You meant alliterative, and yes, the translation is worth noting as well done. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. You've just proved I'm alliterate. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like rime, but have always preferred alliteration. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I finished the Edi Hans Pawlata article last night, including Sluzzelin's translation. Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

Hi. This question topic is loosely based on the articles inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and pattern recognition.

When we say that we (which in this case refers to most English speakers) use deductive reasoning, we often say we deduce as the verb, ie. "I deduce that...". However, when we use inductive reasoning, we are likely more used to (aware of) immediately logical statements such as:

(illicit) Drug X induced hallucination Z in subject Y.

_{(Warning: topic may induce hallucination, headache, non-sequitur, etc.)}

However, we rarely say things like "I induce [topic]", in order to describe or construe a pattern of inductive reasoning. Could there be a better word for this? Is inductive reasoning based on inference based on information, while deductive reasoning leads to a logical conclusion?

Idea: our representation of deductive reasoning is objective, while our representation of inductive reasoning is subjective. Therefore, cognitive dissonance occurs during certain problems in communication, as a result of differences between the POV/philosophy/basis of the logical argument. Iff the previous idea is true, I would like to know the linguistic basis of the previous communication.

In case infinite regress is present, please make note of the fact.

It is likely that I am missing something logically obvious in some of the above characterizations of logical statements in general and in particular. If so, how is the above interpreted? Alternatively, what do some of the words imply?

Of course, since "logical thinking" redirects to critical thinking, it may be fair to also link to creative thinking. I'm asking more about the language aspect, rather than the epistemology (theory of knowledge) behind it.

Also, how does the English language compare to other languages in terms of the requirement of the input of context (either when referring to logic or otherwise), in which a narrative structure is more difficult to convey or establish without context? Please discuss.

Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is a bit confusing, but I would caution that whereas in technical usage, deduction is the derivation of a specific conclusion from general principles or concepts, induction is the establishment of a broader conclusion from more concrete evidence, in common speech, "deduce" is often just used to mean "to reason" or "to conclude" in general. For instance, a wife might say, based of the lipstick on your collar and your getting home late, too tired to shag, I deduce you are having an affair--when she is really making an induction. The rest of your questions AH might be answerable if you take them one at a time with examples. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)