Language desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 6

What's this "to" doing

Listing nouns in Dutch you'd say "boom, roos, vis, vuur", which would be "tree, rose, fish, fire" in English. If you list verbs, you'd say "lopen, zeggen, horen", which is "to walk, to say, to hear" in English. Why not just "walk, say, hear"? Or, vice versa, why not "a tree, a rose, a fish, a fire". What's the use of the "to" here? Joepnl (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way English is. I suggest you read Infinitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English "walk, say, hear" without the "to" translates to "loop, zeg, hoor" in Dutch. Roger (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with this argument is that "walk" also translates "lopen" in some contexts - the "to" is syntactic not inflectional. I suspect that the habit arose because in talking about English grammar they had to find something distinctive to translate the Latin infinitive, --ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the West Germanic languages can combine "to" or its equivalent with infinitives: "to leap", "te lopen", "zu laufen", etc. I question the OP's premise that verbs are always cited with the "to" in English; there's nothing wrong with saying "walk, say, hear" in English without the "to". But if it is true that verbs are more often cited with the "to" in English than in Dutch and German, it may have to do with the fact that English verbs no longer have an explicit infinitive ending -en, so that outside of any context it may not be clear that the word we're citing is a verb. If someone with no knowledge of German points to the word laufen and asks me what it means and I say simply "walk", for all they know I mean the noun (as in "take the dog for a walk") whereas if I say to "to walk" they know I mean the verb. Angr (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English does not have a single word full infinitive form present in many other languages, to make the full infinitive form of a verb in English you add the word "to" to the first person present form (except with a few irregular verbs). Other languages like French and other Romance languages form the infinitive with verb endings rather than an additional word to the front (in French, for example, these are the -er, -ir, and -re endings; each infinitive ending makes a class of verbs that determines how it is conjugated). I'm not familiar with Dutch or German, so I don't know how they form the infinitive. --Jayron32 16:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in English you can use the bare stem of the verb as an infinitive after auxiliary verbs, as in "I can walk", and even a few full verbs, as in "I don't dare ask him". After other verbs and after things other than verbs the infinitive is connected by to, as in "I would like to dance" and "I'm proud to serve my country" and "I bought a new car to impress my neighbors". This isn't really that different from using à or de or pour + infinitive in French, except English probably has more cases where the preposition has to be used than French does. The only real difference between English and the other Germanic and the Romance languages is that English doesn't have an ending like -er or -en the marks the infinitive, we just use the bare stem (as we do for all forms of the present tense other than the 3rd person singular). But the to isn't there to "make up for" the absence of an ending in any way, because the other languages also have prepositions (à/de/pour; zu; te) that they have to use with the infinitive in certain grammatical constructions. I don't think the to is an integral part of the English infinitive any more than à/de/pour are integral parts of the French infinitive. It's just grammatical "glue" that's required before the infinitive in certain constructions. Angr (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I find "te lopen" ("to walk") -without more complicated meanings than just the verb itself- being used is in signs, like "Verboden op het gras te lopen" (lit. "forbidden on the grass to walk"). I like Jayron32's answer. Joepnl (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, it's there to show that the word in question is a verb, and not a noun, or anything else. For example, if I were to ask you what bear, lean or break mean, you could answer two ways for both of them, not knowing that a verb is meant. In German (and I presume Dutch), you do it the other way around by including the article before the nouns. The problem is bigger in English because we have no endings to distinguish potential verbs from nouns. Also, we cant mark nouns because we have no grammatical gender. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French questions

"And they would tape that" as in "they would film those actions" - How would that be said in French? Also "And sometimes they would catch kids doing things or catch kids changing clothes." - How would that be said?

For context see Commons:TimedText:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg.en.srt in English

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the vocabulary, but for the grammar I'm pretty sure you would just use the normal passé composé with ils ont quelquefois.... Angr (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the imperfect. I'm Italian, and I'd use the imperfect in Italian. «Et alors ils enregistraient cela» or «Et parfois …», and «Et parfois ils parvenaient des enfants qui faisaient des choses ou des enfants qui changaient vêtements». Because it sounds like a customary action in the past, and in Italian that's the meaning of the Imperfect, and I think it's the same in French. In Italian you could use "solere" in the imperfect, which does mean "to have the habit of", but it's a weak stress on the "habit" part, it's more like a repeated action than a habitual action, at least in the way it sounds to me. In French there is apparently no such "weak" expression, being there only "être habitué à" and "avoir l'habitude de", so I advise a plain Imperfect. The vocabulary is either from my knowledge or from the Wiktionary. There might be better choices possible, but I don't know. Hope I've been helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGorrone (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In French we use, in this case, the imparfait to translate "would". Here "would" is used to describe a characteristic, a will, an habit that belongs to the past (La grammaire anglaise. Collection Bescherelle. Hatier pub., page 93.) In French: Et ils enregistraient ça/cela., ils filmaient ces actes/actions, Et parfois ils prenaient [en vidéo/en photo] les enfants faisant des choses ou en train de se changer. A better translation of "kids" would be "gosses" but it means "testicles" in Canadian French. — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MGorrone, French used to have an equivalent word, souloir, but it went out of usage a few centuries ago. Lesgles (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll try to finish up the draft so a French speaker can take a look at it and do any necessary changes: Commons:File_talk:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg/French WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above the word gosses is acceptable only in European French. In any event, I actually think enfants would be better, because gosses is more informal than kids, even if you are concerned only with European French. If you want an informal word that is acceptable both in Europe and in Canada, you can use gamins. Mousses would be a word you could use in Canadian, but not European French. If reference is being made to younger children, the words bambins, marmots or mômes (the last one in Europe only) can also be used.64.140.121.87 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem deciding where to place some information in Wikipedia

Can someone help me sort out where to put the information I submitted as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kwa, whether in Kwa' language, Kwa languages or Baa language, and maybe point to a better source of information? MGorrone (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everything you have is based on original research, which isn't allowed at Wikipedia. I would recommend submitting your work to a linguistics journal such as the Journal of African Languages and Linguistics or the Journal of West African Languages for peer review and publication. This is actually much better for you, too, since it allows you to take full credit for your work and it prevents other people from altering your work (here at Wikipedia everything is a collaborative effort and you have to accept that others will come along and change what you say). Angr (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

give the last button off one's coat for a chance to do

Would you please teach me the meaning of "give the last button off my coat for a chance to do" in the following passage? Many thanks in advance.123.227.223.236 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)denken[reply]

 Well, I just got here a little while ago, and I was saying to Ash that I’d give the last  
 button off my coat for a chance to see you tonight. It was a sort of sudden notion on my  
 part not to wait and make a date with you, but to come to see you right away.--Erskine 
 Caldwell,Episode in Palmetto, p.90.

I've never heard the expression, but I would interpret it as meaning "I'd give anything for a chance..." or simply "I really really want a chance...". Angr (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common idiom to say that you would give up something valuable e.g. "my right arm", "my eye teeth" in exchange for something, although I've not heard that particular version. Mikenorton (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The narrator is expressing his desire to see the person he is talking to in an illustrative way. It's somewhat similar to the expression "I would give anything to...". He is expressing the fact that he wants to see the other person so much that he would give up something very valuable to him -- in this case his last button, but he could just as easily refer to his "last breath," his right arm, or his last dime. While those things may be valuable to them, he doesn't value them as much as time spent with the other person. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

123.227.223.236 -- In the eighteenth century, sometimes coat-buttons could be silver (occasionally even actual coins)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine: Volume 53, January to June 1843 (p.577) says of an army officer being held to ransom; "I know for him the soldiers would give the last button on their uniforms.". Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's similar to the modern "I'd give my last dollar to...". Giving one's last button seems a bit odd, today, since most are incredible cheap, these days. But, back when the expression was used, buttons were far more valuable. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They were once so valuable, that until today, the Amish are forbidden to wear clothes with buttons, because it is unspeakably sinful to walk around publicly displaying such wealth. Sounds like they were once the equivalent of Rolexes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the hook and eye closure they use on many of their clothes is more valuable and ostentatious than the cheap plastic buttons most of the rest of the world uses. The Amish might want to get with the times, at least in this respect. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a modern clothing analogy: "He'd give you the shirt off his back". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ewwww, can't you just lend me the money to buy a new, clean shirt ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Etymology of the feminine name Tula

The name "Tula" is apparently used more or less everywhere in the world, both for women, maybe especially in Spain, and for places (e.g. those listed here). I'm mostly curious about the origin of it as a feminine name. The origin and meaning of personal names is quite a popular topic on the Internet; unfortunately, the sites devoted to that do not always seem reliable enough, and sometimes the explications given seem just the result of a free imagination. I found "mountain peak", "leaping water", "little hill", "cat", "able with spear", "taken" etc., with little or no reference to the original language. So I only understand that there could be many of them. Does anybody have a clue? Thanks. --pm a 10:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable source for first names I know of is A Dictionary of First Names by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges, which is refreshingly free of bullshit when it comes to the origins of first names. Unfortunately, the name Tula is not listed in the book, either in the main body of the text or in either of the supplements (first names in the Arab world and first names of the Indian subcontinent). Angr (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a common name in the English-speaking world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection to Tallulah, I wonder? Also spelt 'Talulah': we have examples of both as first names, as well as Talula as a song title, but I can't see anything about the origin. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the sorry case of a little girl named Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The personal name of Greek origin is perhaps better known under the Toula spelling. Most Aussies know of Con the Fruiterer, whose daughters are named Roula, Toula, Soula, Voula, Foula and Agape, plus "the two little gentlemens", Nic and Ric. See also Toula in the Urban Dictionary. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most plausible explanation I found is that -oula is a hypocoristic suffix (Anna → Annoula etc.), so if you add -oula to a name ending in -ta it ends in -toula, which can then be taken to be a nickname in itself (the only thing left from the original name is the "t"). AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very plausible. That's the origin of the girl's name Nina, too: it's the Italian diminutive ending -ina added to any name whose stem ends in n, like Antonina or Giannina. Angr (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comprehension word of 'apple'

what is the comprehension word for 'apple' for example comprehension word for 'boat' is goat , coat and for word 'old' is sold, gold, hold etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.37.129 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the examples you give I assume you're asking for words that rhyme with "apple". I've never heard the term "comprehension word" before. The only ones I can think of are "dapple" and "grapple". Rojomoke (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, if we can use name brands, there's always Snapple. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget about Scrapple from the Apple -- Ferkelparade π 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Chapel'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then you could add various prefixes to "apple", to get words like pineapple and crabapple. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a rhyming word really called a "comprehension" word? This sounds more like phonics, i.e. learning how groups of similarly-structured words are reasonably likely to be pronounced. It's easy enough to test each consonant prefix and see what works, as shown by the various editors. Unless that term "comprehension" word is in fact a phonics term (it's been a while since first grade). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a general term, just what they used for it on a homework assignment (perhaps an ESL class). That is, to increase the student's comprehension of the spelling of a word, they ask them to find rhyming words. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagne/lasagna

When googling 'elk lasagne recipe', Google shows results for ' elk lasagna recipe ', and I get 91,500 results. However, I actually wanted to search using the spelling I originally input, so clicking 'search instead for elk lasagne recipe', I get 25,700,000 results, and a message asking me if I meant 'elk lasagna recipe'. So, I have two questions:

1) Which is correct/more common here? Spelling in -e or in -a?

2) Why is Google favouring the spelling with the least hits? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I think the "e" ending is more Italian, and the "a" ending is more of the English translation (although if I translated it to English, it would be "lazanya"). StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) We can't know for sure, but I suspect that they think the more common spelling is "lasagna", in English. (They must have determined that you speak English from your previous interactions, so now look for the English version of words.) It probably would be better if they just left your search alone, in this case. Perhaps a future upgrade will fix this. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what little I know of Italian, lasagna is singular and lasagne is plural. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to a single or multiple noodle(s), or a single or multiple dish(es) ? StuRat (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Our article Lasagne (which uses that spelling - Lasagna redirects there), has a few theories of its etymology. I had my own, thinking until now that it meant 'layers' or something (completely made up etymology with no basis on fact, but which happens to be in the article too), and therefore should be plural, like 'spaghetti'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of the etymology, lasagne is indeed plural in Italian, like spaghetti, and singular lasagna usually refers to a single noodle/leaf. See it:Lasagne (gastronomia), it:Lasagne al forno. In English, though, I think it is usually perceived as singular, and pronounced more like lasagna than lasagne. Lesgles (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, in English, both would be pronounced the same, further complicating this matter. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian for these pasta dishes it is always plural when referring to the dish; the singular refers exclusively to the specific type of pasta (as an aside in Italian, we don't say usually pasta when talking about noodles and such but paste; pasta is more commonly pastry). Spaghetto, tagliatella, and vermicello are ridiculous. I don't see why lasagna must be the exception. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you did to get the results you did, but I got 199 hits for "elk lasagna recipe", and 8 for "elk lasagne recipe". Ths jives with my experience that lasagna is the more common spelling. It pretty much jives with my expectation of the number of hits. Tens of thousands or millions of hits for this rather uncommon dish is ridiculously high. Perhaps you searched without the quotation marks? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out why you got misled. Your results for elk lasagne almost all derive from a single incident. Ikea made a product that they labeled "elk lasagne", and it was found to contain pork, which caused a scandal with A LOT of coverage, which amounts to a lot of Google hits. That is why you got a lot more hits for "lasagne" when you searched without the quote marks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was indded the scandal that caused me to do the search. I just tried your method. However, would that not make your search give similar results, then, if you used the quotes? I thought quotes meant 'search for exact phrase' or does it mean 'search for exact phrase without IKEA' :) I am getting more and more confused. Searching for 'lasagna' on its own, gives 25,000,000 hits, and searching for 'lasagne' on its own gives 223,000,000 hits, and a message asking if I meant 'lasagna'. Same problem. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for -- elk lasagne recipe -- without the quotes, you end up (presumably) with the number of web pages that contain those three words, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with recipes for elk lasagne. If you search for -- "Elk lasagna recipe" -- with the quotes, all of the hits you get are recipes for elk lasagna, or at least pages discussing such recipes. "elk lasagna/e" is not a common dish, and would expect few hits for it under either spelling. HOWEVER, because of a single incident, "elk lasagne" gets a rather large number of Google hits, almost all due to the massive coverage of the Ikea scandal. The hits from that incident are so great in proportion to all the rest of the other uses of the term that they poison your results, giving you the false impression that the spelling "lasagne" was more common, rather than the unique whim of a single label writer at Ikea. In other words, 99% percent plus of the pages containing references to "elk lasagna/e" are references to only a single use of the word by a single person (who, by the way, was probably not an English speaker, hence the spelling). You have a hopelessly unrepresentative sample base to work with.

Now, the brutal truth. NOBODY in the world knows what the reported number of Google hits represents, including anyone at Google. Its just a number that some computer algorithm spits out, and it has only a sorta kinda, but certainly not always, weak correlation with the number of pages containing the phrase on the internet. Nobody at Google has the slightest idea of how the algorith works, or what the number is supposed to mean. It was written long ago by a programmer that has long sinced moved on and didn't leave any documentation. It seems to work better with low numbers that with high ones. It's certainly to be used "at your own risk", with a very, very large grain of salt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that "lasagne" is the predominant spelling in the UK, and can't recall ever seeing it spelt "lasagna" which looks very odd to me. To add substance to my hypothesis, I Googled the names of some well known British TV chefs and found; Delia Smith - Lasagne al Forno, Jamie Oliver - Simple baked lasagne and Gordon Ramsay - Classic lasagne al forno recipe. Also Stores withdraw bolognese and lasagne after French supplier issues and Tesco Lasagne 600G (Tesco is the UK's largest supermarket chain). In all of these searches, Google insisted that it was ignoring my search for "lasagne" and was showing results for "lasagna" instead, although it clearly was doing no such thing. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is it, you see. The spelling ending in -a looks odd to me, too, which is why I thought Google was acting a little strange.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You metioned above that "both would be pronounced the same". I've found some dictionary entries that seem to indicate that Brits pronouce it with the /ae/ vowel, whereas Americans pronounce it with the /a/ vowel (I'm American, by the way, and never heard the /ae/ pronunciation except perhaps as a joke. Also, the dictionaries say that the Brits pronounce it with an /s/ consonant, whereas Americans pronounce it with a /z/ consonant. Can you confirm the British pronunciation? If true, it would be a good example of AE vs BE pronunciation of foreign words, like baton, ballet and garage.

Another thing to consider is that the dish, and the name for it, entered the American diet and language long before it entered the British diet and language. From what I'm seeing, it appears that lasagne is still considered a "foreign" food there with at least a trace of novelty and exoticness. In the US, it has been more thoroughly assimilated. My guess is that the difference in spelling can be traced back to the fact that Americans got the term from poor peasants from southern Italy in the late 1800s, who probably did call the dish "lasagna" in their Italian dialect of the time, and Brits picked it up more recently from Italians speaking a different dialect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "lasagne" (in England at least) is rather variable, most educated people aim for an approximation of the Italian with a "z". The first Italian restaurants opened in London in the 1950s, at least some of them by ex-POWs who returned here after finding that there was no work for them at home in Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I watched a few cooking videos from the UK on YouTube, and see that the pronunciation is quite variable. Italian food came to the States with the great wave of immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was largely assimilated by the 1950s and 60s, earlier in the Northeast, and maybe a little later in the Midwest and South. I'm loving in Poland now, and it's still sort of new and exotic here, but rapidly becoming more popular. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by 'pronounced the same' was that the two words, 'lasagna' and 'lasagne' are pronounced the same, regardless of the -a and -e difference at the end, and was not commenting on different dialects. However, it is true, as said above, that there are different pronunciations in the UK depending on the dialect, as indicated in our article (but each dialect would only have one pronunciation for both words). Mine, for example, has /lə'zænjə/ (though stronger scouse would have /lə'zænjɛ/). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora -- Google is doing automated "stemming" for you, whether you want it to or not. Not sure how to turn it off... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add another AE/BE wrinkle the story here is about Ikea's [moose lasagna]. Elk being a completely different animal. Rmhermen (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that animal has always been known as an elk in Europe. Lesgles (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as moose in America. The American elk is a another animal altogether, different species, even different genus. It's related to the European red deer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is specifically about the animal found in Sweden, which is a European elk. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The animal in Sweden is actually called the "møøse" and is heavily involved in filmmaking. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, as has already been pointed out, that very same animal exists in America as well, where it is called the moose. For an American to refer to Ikea's product as "moose lasagna" is a perfect translation. For them to call it "elk lasagna" would be a typical false-friend translation error.

Now as to Clarity's observation, it is indeed interesting that a British comedy troupe would call the animal a "møøse". However, øne has tø remember that the directør, and persøn respønsible før a løt øf the møre surrealistic material in the film, was an Åmericån. Frøm Minnesøtå, which is cråwling with møøses. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, we call generally call the north American ones "moose" and the European ones "elks", rather like we have North American "buffalo" (which aren't really buffalo) and European "bison". Actually, some believe that moose and Eurasian elk are separate species.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "species" in biology depends on what kind of question you are trying to answer. There are several definitions, none of which is universally valid, or even meaningful. Classifications using different definitions often yield conflicting results. That's all fine as long as you remember to fit the right definition with the kind of question at hand. See Species problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. Our own Moose article lists several subspecies, Eastern Moose, Western Moose, Alaska Moose, Shiras Moose, Eurasian Elk and so on. I would only call the Eurasion Elk "an elk", all the others are clearly "moose", although some pedants might argue the toss. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]