Language desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 4

What does "sasta wala" mean?

I read this regarding cheap merchandise for sale in India. But I don't know what it means. Any ideas? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasta (सस्ता) means cheap, and wala indicates a person connected with it. I think it is equivalent of something like "the deal guy" or "bargain merchant". -- Q Chris (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....as in dabbawala.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.... and Dishwalla. --Jayron32 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "cheap" in this context mean low cost/inexpensive, or low quality/chintzy merchandise? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vālā (वाला) can also be used to nominalize adjectives, e.g. in this case the meaning could also be "the cheap one". A little bit more context would be useful. --BishkekRocks (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what it means here. Vālā (वाला) here is being used to nominalize adjective 'Sasta' (सस्ता). So "sasta wala" refers to some merchandise that is inexpensive/low quality. Vālā (वाला) doesn't have to do anything with the person connected with the object. (I am a native speaker of Hindi language.) - DSachan (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Western words are cognate with vālā? Well? Value? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAG, maybe "vend" or "vendor". --Jayron32 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAG? What ah guess? μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild-ass guess, but I think your surmise is off the mark. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions #5 and 7. --Jayron32 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says the English is from the Hindi suffix meaning "regarding", but gives no origin for the Hindi. Calvert Watkins and Mallory and Adams don't even mention it. Wiktionary apparently gives a false etymology, from pala, protector--that should be deleted or whatever one does to BS at wikt. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster gives the pāla theory as well, which is presumably where Wiktionary gets it. Angr (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the Wiktionary entry to provide both theories. Angr (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McGregor's Hindi Dictionary also derives vālā̇ from pāla, but Turner's Comparative Dictionary does not mention it in its entry for pāla. It doesn't seem too unprobable, though. You definitely cannot derive vālā from any Indo-European root beginning with v, since Old Indo-Aryan v has shifted to b in Hindi. On the other hand, p → v is a regular development between vowels (and as second member in compounds -pāla will occur between vowels).

As for the Wiktionary entry, I don't you can speak of "two theories": English wallah is derived from Hindi vālā, which may or may not be derived from OIA pāla. But "pertaining to" and "person in charge (of)" are just slightly different meanings of the same word. --BishkekRocks (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Turner from your link gives ʻherdsman, shepherd ʼ deriv. of *pāl ʻ flock ʼ. Perhaps flock is a cognate. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Change that number on your dial" meaning

In the Michael Jackson song Thriller, what does "unless you change that number on your dial" mean? I'm mostly asking just if this is a common turn of phrase somewhere. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it meant to change your phone number. Of course, it doesn't really "fit" the song, which is basically about horror movie tropes. But the line may have been chosen more for prosody than for sense. That it, it fits the meter and rhyme of the song, so it kinda gets shoehorned in there despite being a bit out of place, content-wise. Songwriters do this all the time. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never "always thought" anything about it, but looking at the lyrics, I'd say it's a reference to changing the channel on the television (to watch something other than a horror flick)—notice that a couple of lines later he says, "I'll save you from the terror on the screen." Surely folks remember when TVs had dials that you turned to select the channel. Deor (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cf don't touch that dial, although that probably originated in radio, not TV. -- BenRG (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You young'ns and your change of telephone number theories are so cute! Tune in next time. Same Bat Time. Same Bat Channel. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it. (from someone definately old enough to remember when TVs had dials. Two. One for VHF and one for UHF.) --Jayron32 03:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a portable TV like that, but it's been demoted to the bathroom, and I don't use the channel dials anymore, since it's now hooked up to a digital converter box. On the plus side, this gives me a remote control for a TV that lacked one. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ahhh you guys rule a lot! Thank you so much, I've been curious for a while and that makes perfect sense. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchs reign but do not rule. My point in mentioning this is that it's been rumoured for a number of years that Queen Elizabeth II edits the WP Reference Desk in her spare time. I wonder which of the above editors is the real Queen. I have my suspicions, but I'll keep my own counsel. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Unrecognisable

Which is correct: "He looks unrecognizable to the formidable leader he once was" or "He looks unrecognizable from the formidable leader he once was"? Ankh.Morpork 23:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are both correct, but it depends on what you are trying to say. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explain their different meaning please. Ankh.Morpork 23:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "unrecognizable to" it means that Person B doesn't recognize Person A. If you say "unrecognizable from" it means that Person B is indistinguishable from Person A. Even if Person A and Person B are the same person, "unrecognizable to" could mean "He had changed to the point where he wouldn't even recognize himself anymore" whereas "unrecognizable from" would mean "he hadn't changed". --Jayron32 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both are wrong. We recognise something "as" something, not "to" something or "from" something, Hence, "He looks unrecognizable as the formidable leader he once was". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I can see why the OP wanted something other than as. "Unrecognisable as" is emphasising that he is the same person, whereas the OP's "unrecognisable from" (which I interpret as "unrecognisable compared to") is emphasising the difference from the former person -ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but he'd need to write "He looks unrecognizable compared to the formidable leader he once was". Or even "compared with". He can't get away with just "to" or "with". And "from" doesn't fit at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article stated "Vincent Kompany looks unrecognisable to the formidable leader he was last season" which seemed a little awkward so I was wondering if this was grammatically correct and how it could be alternatively expressed. Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack; in this case you can't get by with a single preposition, you have to use a phrase like "compared to", or choose a different word, e.g. "he hardly resembles the formidable leader he once was". Lesgles (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just drop the "looks" (superfluous here) and say, "He was unrecognizable as the formidable leader he once was." --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I'd make it "is" versus "was", since he presumably still looks that way. Better yet: "He is no longer recognizable as the formidable leader he once was." StuRat (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]