Miscellaneous desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 22

Silkie Chickens

How noisy are silkie hens. I'd like to get one but I want to know if they would be to noisy. How far away can their clucking, crying and squwaking be heard.--Pufferfish4 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you contact a poultry breeder. This ref [1] says they are "reasonably quiet". Exxolon (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a couple as a child, quiet, yes, not entirely mute. Still think of them as sweet, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dating a singer sewing machine

I HAVE A SINGER TREADLE SEWING MACHINE WITH A NUMBER PLATE ON BASE OF MACHINE OF AA597705. LOOKING FOR A DATE OF MANUFACTURE AND MODEL NUMBER. I NEED SOME PARTS AND INFORMATION ON IT AND HAVE NO WAY OF FINDING THIS. I HAVE SEARCHED THE INTERNET WITH NO RESULTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryjanequilting (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could try asking the sewing machine to someplace nonthreatening at first, like say out to a coffee shop or something. Maybe invite it out with some mutual friends; perhaps being in a larger group would be less threatening. Eventually, you may find that you and the sewing machine have some things in common, and a formal date may be coming. I'd recommend something simple like dinner and a movie. The weird "horseback rides on the beach" sort of stuff may come off as awkward, and may send the wrong signals to the sewing machine this early in the relationship. Oh, and you probably want to avoid SHOUTING ALL THE TIME, as this may make the sewing machine feel uncomfortable. Perhaps thats why you haven't been able to get a date. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very excited when I saw this question. Now I just feel like a third wheel. Maybe one day I'll find love.[[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Essex looks hot! Julia Rossi (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Singer site [3] says your machine was madein 1925 at Elizabeth , New Jersey, USA. A subpage there[4] says it dates from August 11, 1925, and suggests it is a Model 66. Check the nameplate for the exact model number. Manuals are available at [5], either for purchase of hardcopy or for free download of a PDF file. As a child I enjoyed playing with my an old treadle Singer, but never quite figured out how a sewing machine worked without having it pass a threaded needle back and forth through the fabric! Understanding chain stitch was (and is) beyond my spatial skills. Edison (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I managed a large clothing factory for many years and can explain in intricate and fascinating detail how a sewing machine works, whether lockstitch (the kind the OP has) or chainstitch - which are the 2 commonest types, but it would take too long. I did see an animation of the process on a website once but can't remember where. Oh, I know all about the overlocker and the coverstitcher too - but in all these machines, the needle stays firmly in the needle-bar whilst picking up a thread from its partner spool, bobbin, or looper beneath the machine-bed and forming a knot of one kind or another. But for pure joy, the machine I really favoured was the AMF Handstitching machine - YES - a hand-stitching machine. It had a needle with points at both ends and a long slot for the thread instead of an eye. As the needle went down through the cloth it would part company with the upper needle-bar and be grabbed by another below the machine-bed - and a great big revolving wheel would collect any unused thread and pull it through the cloth too - you see - it could only deal with a fixed-pre-cut length of thread in order to create its "saddle-stitch" effect which was mainly used for decorative edge-stitching such as around men's jackets etc. Oh the joy of it - and the clunk-clunk it made as the needle went up and down. Pure joy. Hope the OP gets his spares though. 92.8.219.255 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to explain sewing machine, Lockstitch or Chain stitch. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For others no, but for me, yes. My query, is the sewing machine too old for you? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The human lifespan is beside the point here, Julia, as the machine is immortal and inhabits a different time zone. Even if Maryjane's friend lacks some of its faculties, they can be recovered. Strawless (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Singer of the same age. It has worked for 5 generations and has recently been serviced by the local agent. Produces far better results than many an electric machine.90.0.1.167 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)PW[reply]

I've been waiting patiently for someone to mention writing a song to their sewing machine, which would have given me the cue for saying "It's the Singer, not the song". But since nobody's given me the cue, I'm forced to take matters into my own hands. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English grammar

Is this sentence correct: "I ain't got no sock accounts."? Why do some people use two negative words in the same sentence? (in this case ain't and no).
I am not a native English speaker and I'd say it like "I don't have any sock accounts" or "I have no sock accounts" or maybe "I ain't got any sock accounts". Also isn't the first sentence conveying somewhat opposite meaning than what it's apparently supposed to? --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect, it's a double negative which, in English, cancels out so "I ain't got no sock accounts" actually means "I have got some sock accounts", which is probably not the intended meaning. As for why people make mistakes like that, I don't know, I guess they're just idiots. A similar thing which annoys me is people giving the wrong answer to questions ending in "isn't it?" or "aren't you?" or similar. In response to "You're Bob, aren't you?", "yes" means "Yes, I am not Bob" whereas people usually use it to mean "Yes, I am Bob". Of course, people get that wrong almost universally, which means if you get it right people will misunderstand you, so I usually answer such questions with "I am" or "I am not", avoiding "yes" and "no" entirely (and I shouldn't use 4 commas in one sentence during a discussion about bad grammar, but oh well!). --Tango (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while double negatives are officially wrong, they are widely used anyway, for emphasis. So, while "I ain't got none" officially means "I have some", since the negatives cancel each other, if you interpret it that way you will have a lot of misunderstandings. A better interpretation is "I REALLY don't have any". I once had this lovely sentence as part of the specs for a program I was writing: "If the program doesn't fail to receive an error, it shouldn't fail to report this error". As best as I could figure out, this meant "If your program gets an error, report it". StuRat (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have any at all" would be another way to emphasise it. I agree with your interpretation of the error reporting spec, put another way it means "The only time you should fail to report an error is if you fail to receive it". (Incidentally, I wouldn't say double negatives are wrong, they just often don't mean what people intend them to mean.) --Tango (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet double, even triple negatives can be a powerful rhetorical or even literary device in vernacular English. When Playboy published Alex Haley's interview with Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay at the time) in 1964, the magazine received letters, not only from angry racists, but also from Henry Miller, who wrote: "Just a word to say how much I liked the interview. Though it's in another category, it can take its place beside the one with Bertrand Russell — one of your best. . . . That last line, 'Ain't never been nothing like me,' is a gem." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three things about double negatives: There is certainly nothing inconsistant about them, MANY languages have grammar that demands that if something in a sentance is negative, EVERYTHING gets the negative. There's nothing inherently illogical about it. The formal English rule is as arbitrary as any other rule, and double (antd triple) negatives are not inconsistant or illogical, it's just not formal English. Secondly, they are unambiguous despite claims to the contrary. If I said "There ain't no way I am going to do that" or "I ain't never done that before" not a single native speaker of English, even the Queen of England herself, would even for a second misunderstand either of those sentances. They may not be formal, but they are perfectly clear. Thirdly, lots of English (or any language) is about idiom and not literal translation. Pedantic adherance to the "laws" of English prevents proper understanding of how real people actually use their language in all sorts of wonderful ways. There is a definate difference in meaning between "You have seen nothing like me" and "You ain't never seen nothing like me.", and to claim that they are interchangable phrases misses what makes language such an interesting and beutiful thing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it makes it a lot harder for those learning English as a second language. How on earth do you make somebody understand the structure of "I ain't never done that before", and how its meaning differs from "I have never done that before". ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way is by explaining that meaning often comes not from invidivual words, but from groups of words. "I have done that" is clear, and each separate word contributes its part to the overall meaning. "I have never done that" is also clear, but in this case we have to consider "have never" as a unit, because if we considered the words separately, the first concept is "have", which might appear to be suggesting something that has been done, until we get to "never", which negates "have", and tells us it's about something that has not been done, at least by me. In "I ain't never done that before", the "never" is not negating "ain't", it's actually emphasising it - not only have I not done it (today, this week, this year, or since I was 21), but I have not done it ever in my life. So, "ain't never" is a stronger negation of "done" than mere "ain't", and must be conceived as a single concept rather than 2 separate words. We see a similar thing with "ever". Take a sentence like: The first time that humans set foot on the Moon was in 1969. Many people would say The first time that humans ever set foot on the Moon was in 1969. The "ever" doesn't change the essential meaning, so one could argue it's a redundant word and does not belong in the sentence, but it emphasises the primacy of the event and has a use from that perspective. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three negatives might be less ambiguous as in "I ain't got no stinkin' sock accounts". 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or Prissy's declaration, "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies." As I'm sure Reluctant Philosopher knows, language aren't designed for ease of learning by non-native speakers (except Esperanto and other fantasy-league speech). And the more that context and nuance apply, the less easily speech or writing can be understood by someone lacking that context or missing that nuance. Even within one national language you have those regional variations that confound people from outside the region ("have a catch" versus "play catch," "wait on line" versus "wait in line," "wait on you" versus "wait for you"). --- OtherDave (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Just a quick note: whenever someone is in the position of having to claim that he ain't got no sock accounts, it is almost always more grammatically and factually correct for him to say, "I ain't got more'n three or fo' sock accounts". Darkspots (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ReluctantPhilosopher, every single language in the world uses idiom. There are hundreds of phrases and usages that, if translated word-for-word into English are meaningless, but which all speakers of that native language understand without trouble. That's because language is more than a code, and cannot be understood in isolation from the culture that uses it. While such phrases as "I ain't got none" may be confusing for non-native English speakers, this is not a situation that is unique to English; every person learning another language has to come to terms with problems exactly like this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, they might not be confusing for non-native English speakers, if their native language is one of the many that does not have an arbitrary pseudo-logical 'rule' against double negatives (eg French "Je n'ai rien). --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango says "As for why people make mistakes like that, I don't know, I guess they're just idiots." But no, that isn't it at all, they are dialect speakers. The double negative was correct in Middle English. It was used by educated people well into the 17th century and still survives in many (if not most) of the present-day dialects of English. It only rarely causes a problem for people learning English, but they do need to know that people speaking standard English (such as newsreaders, for instance) never use this dialectal double negative, so that in standard English two negatives do cancel each other out. Strawless (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not! (cancel each other out). They are certainly non-standard, and therefore judged as incorrect by those who believe this to be a useful concept, but in almost every case the meaning is perfectly clear to any native English speaker, and only the deliberately perverse will misunderstand. (The few exceptions are generally strongly marked, such as the example Stephen Pinker concocts, "Try as I might, I can't get no satisfaction from this result"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this on the language ref desk? Anyway, anyone who uses the phrase "ain't" is already making a mistake... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, except for the well-established usage in tag questions such as "I'm a human, ain't I?" . It was long used as the way to negate "am I", and Fowler still advocates its use. It became a pariah word when the schoolma'ams came along, but the ugly and grotesque neologism "amn't I" is far, far, far worse than "ain't I", imho. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Sheet at work

hi, how important is it to have an analytical hand on excel sheets to move further the professional ladder, or is it something which can be learned while on job and not feel incompetent about if one has the basic understanding of it? as i think it is one area i am lacking on....any suggestions would be helpful.Vikram79 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on what kind of jobs you want. There are plenty of courses available on using Excel, perhaps your employer would send you on one if you ask - many employers are keen to help their workforce improve their skills. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Tango's suggestion is a good one, lots of people have learnt Excel on their own, without attending a course. If you need to do this, then use the Help button frequently and don't be afraid to ask colleagues. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who and what can I believe - it's driving me to distraction?

No names - no pack drill. I am reading about an ongoing criminal trial in the UK involving a couple of guys accused of trying to explode cars in a public place in London, and also of driving a vehicle loaded with petrol and gas cylinders into Glasgow airport's terminal building on its busiest day of the year. They are accused of terrorist crimes. They are both qualified medical doctors. One of them has a father who is a University Professor of Medicine -his mother is a Pharmacist. As I write - under UK law - the accused are innocent of any crime until (possibly) found guilty by a jury of 12 UK citizens. OK? Good. The professor and his wife (both Muslims) write letters to the court (read out and now in the public domain) saying they are appalled at their son's (alleged) though admitted behaviour. They add that in Islam, any attempt of suicide automatically sends the perpetrator (in every case) to Hell - and add that any attempt at Murder is both socially anathema in Islam, and that their son "knows that". My question? Simple? If these 2 educated, cultured, loving and professional academics can claim in a courtroom setting that their educated, loving, cultured and professional son has been brought up in that peaceful, loving and forgiving religion - Islam - how can others of that faith encourage suicide and murder among its adherents. I don't expect this question to survive very long on this site - more's the pity - but I feel entitled to ask this question not just for myself, but for the many millions of others who might be "informed" by any "informed" responses. Thanks in anticipation. 92.22.93.42 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with any large group of people, there are differences of opinion between the members of the Islamic faith. The vast majority are peaceful and are against terrorism, there is a minority that is not. The same applies to other groups - take the Real IRA, the vast majority of Irish republicans are peaceful and against terrorism, but there is a minority that isn't. We have an article, Islamic terrorism, which may shed some light on the situation (I haven't read it). --Tango (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question. One could also ask how could a nominally Christian country like Germany go to war against other nominally Christian countries like France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, the UK, etc. and how could the German bishops lead public prayers for German victory while the French bishops led public prayers to the same God for French victory, and so on. How could a priest, who spreads God's teachings about love, sexually abuse children? How could a stock broker engage in insider trading? The glib answer is that it all comes down to human nature. Being a Muslim doesn't guarantee that the teachings of Islam are in your mind and thoughts at every moment of the day; just as being a Christian or a Jew doesn't guarantee that those teachings govern all of your actions. We all wear many hats, and they don't always all fit comfortably together. I might, for example, wear the hats of: Christian, doctor, humanist, anarchist, environmentalist, and supporter of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Some of these philosophies clash, and I have to choose whichever hat best fits the circumstances I perceive I'm faced with. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing it’s hardly just followers of Islam who have used terrorism. All three Abrahamic religions have their share of fanatics. See Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism (and also Category:Zionist terrorism).

As for Islam, unfortunately the Qur’an frequently contradicts itself. To handle these discrepancies some Islamic scholars came up with the concept of Naskh or “abrogation.” Where two verses conflict, the later is considered to take precedence. Unfortunately later verses in the Qur’an tend to be more violent. Thus some very conservative followers of Islam see a justification for disregarding more moderate verses. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's also the 72 virgins thing, which is (apparently) a mistranslation of "72 raisins of the best type" (or words to that effect).

As to who you can believe, the answer's simple - no one. Especially not me, or you. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reasons that a largely decent, honest, kind, caring, God-fearing population can accept the idea that its government kidnaps people and has them locked up and tortured without trial; or a government made up of individuals who went into politics to change the world for the better finds itself taxing the poor and sending soldiers to die for unclear or ignoble outcomes; or some Nazi mothers and fathers cheerfully gassed families just like themselves every day at work, then went home to kiss their children goodnight and read them a bedtime story. If a person can persuade him/herself that the ends justify the means, then they are capable of rationalising just about anything they do. This apparent contradiction is not specific to Islam - we're all savages under the skin. Ka renjc 23:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One small correction: "As I write - under UK law - the accused are innocent of any crime until (possibly) found guilty by a jury of 12 UK citizens" - not quite. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We treat them as if they will ultimately be found to be innocent - even if we're pretty darned certain that they won't be. Whether they are or are not actually innocent is a separate matter. I'm also puzzled (and perhaps a little offended) by your expectation that your question will be removed. The ref desk policies will be followed - legitimate questions stay here until they are archived in a week or so and then it will be carefully preserved for as long as Wikipedia continues to operate. This question is perhaps borderline - but it doesn't come close to the level at which we would delete it.

Anyway - to answer the question: People who claim to believe in particular religions frequently break their self-imposed rules. So-called Christians break the ten commandments all the time - some of them steal things, others murder, probably all of them go around coveting stuff - one in three (mostly Christian) Americans has an adulterous affair at some point in their marriage - the Bible is the most often stolen book in US bookstores - and most of the Christians I meet here in Texas seem quite happy with the number of prisoners who are killed here every year in the name of justice. The ten "commandments" are mostly treated as the ten "suggestions". Why would anyone expect followers of Islam be any different? People are just people...and people are fallible.

I personally think it's dishonest to claim to follow a particular set of self-imposed rules when you do not. I'm an atheist - so I try to obey the laws of the country whether I agree with them or not (although I'll admit to driving over the speed limit some of the time). But any moral principles are things I decided for myself and therefore have no problem sticking to. This is a more honest principle I think. I say what I do - and do what I say. I don't approve of gambling (because it's stupid) - so I don't gamble. I won't deal with companies who spam me or who cold-call me for no reason. I also won't be polite to people because of their religion - religious beliefs are utterly stupid and I have no problem telling people that. Sure, these principles are not up there with "Thou shalt not kill" - but we have laws to cover that kind of thing.

But to expect utter self-consistency amongst such complex things as human beings is unreasonable. Worse still, religious teachings are often vague and subject to centuries of 'interpretation' that can render some of them almost meaningless. I'm not familiar enough with Islam to give a clear example - so sadly, I'll use the Christian example again: "Thou shalt not kill" seems a pretty direct and simple rule to me - but that hasn't stopped millions of (so-called) Christians heading off to war with copies of the bible in their pockets and with the clear and direct intention to kill people. The "interpretation" of that rather clear guideline is that legitimate wars aren't counted...I have no clue why...but that's how it goes.

Judging people by your own moral standards doesn't work because theirs are different. Judging them by their own standards is better - but often unsatisfactory. In the end, that's why societies have laws - they are mostly pretty clear and we have the teeth to back them up.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, "Thou shalt not kill" is not direct and simple. The Hebrew לא תרצח is commonly translated as "Do not murder", which is entirely different. See Ten_commandments#Killing_or_murder. Gwinva (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Why didn't that come up as an edit conflict? Apologies for repetition. Gwinva (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief system is yours, and I am not going to try to convince you against it, but the phrase "You shall not kill" never appeared in the original text of the bible. The correct translation from the original Hebrew has always been "You shall not do murder" and, even 3200 years ago when these words were written, the terms "kill" and "murder" were not taken as synonyms. Killing is absolute; a living being is either alive or dead, and if it is dead because of your direct action, you killed it. Murder is contextual; many forms of killing are not considered murder. It isn't necessarily that the commandment was ignored; its that the forms of killing were not classed in the minds of the killers as "murder". The bible allows for this by not using the word "kill" but in actually using the word "murder", without further defining what "murder" is. If this makes you distrust religion the exact same way, that's fine too, but you might as well get your facts straight... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP. I don't know whether Jayron's comments were directed at me or Gwinva. I don't know whether being presumed to be innocent under the law is materially different from being innocent under the law (until proven guilty). I don't speak Hebrew. I don't know whether God (whatever shape or form he or she might take) would be pleased that I only murdered a previously living being rather than absolutely killing it. I don't apologise for Christians killing Jews or Muslims now or ever. I don't follow my own religion (Catholicism) because I don't agree that just because you are born into a community you have to be painted irrevocably in that colour. And as for the real IRA, there's nothing real about them. But you know what I do know? I know that I am glad I asked the original question because the answers above have reinforced my confident belief that Wikipedia serves an extremely worthwhile service in educating otherwise "ignorant" people like me. I have learned so much from the above answers. I may not like some of them. I may disagree forcibly with some of them. But I know from their diversity and range that I have much to learn and that I shall never live long enough to understand the vagaries of mankind. And something else, that simple understanding will at last STOP me from being driven to distraction trying to do so. Sincerely, thankyou very much. You will never know how grateful I am to all of you for your responses. I am just off to make a financial payment to Wikipedia in the hope that it continues during the remainder of my lifetime. You all perform an invaluable service. Long may that continue. 92.8.26.216 (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Nylon Shrimp That Squirts Blue Fluid

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=35754

i would like to read the corresponding wikipedia entery as i dont speak Japanese, alas, there is non that i can find. any one know what the video is of? deep sea animal that makes its own light as a defensive mechanism? a man made trick? just another wonder sea creature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampire Squid seems to have a similar defensive mechanism (described in that article at the bottom of the habitat section). I can't find a mention of a shrimp that does it, but I haven't looked very hard. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That shrimp appears to be Heterocarpus laevigatus according to some non-authoritative links I found. H. laevigatus lets out a bioluminescent chemical called oplophorus luciferin when threatened. This is apparently not totally rare among crustaceans. This article discusses the phenomenon fairly extensively and talks a bit about H. laevigatus. According to that article, the defense is present in all genera in the shrimp family Oplophoridae. The first time a bioluminescent crustacean was documented was in 1852. Evidently the substance is probably (as of 1985, who knows what scientists have found since then) a hepatic substance regurgitated from the mouth. In some shrimp it is relatively viscous and the effect lasts for some time, and in other shrimp it is watery and dissipates quickly. This article is about H. laevigatus specifically but I can't view it for free online through Harvard so I can't tell you what it says! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, isn't sea life so amazing and crazy?! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't that interesting: it says that the bioluminescence is created by a luciferin-luciferase reaction, giving a λmax of 465 nanometers - this is the wavelength of the light given off, the characteristic blue - as well as a cross-luciferin-luciferase reaction. Luciferin is a molecule of formula p-HOC4H4CH3, so luciferase presumably is the enzyme that works on it. (Dunno what the "cross" reaction is.) Then they did a series of extraction processes from frozen, dried individuals, giving a yellow solid that they then (through spectrometry, etc.) found the organic structure for. That's about it; short article.

So much for Harvard, though, by the way. ;-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC word usage

Time and again I hear on BBC Radio 4, the use of the word cleverer, and variants of the standard variants of comparison, such as, big, bigger, biggest, their error is such, big, bigger, biggerer. The BBC is supposed to be well known for its good use of the English language. I listen to the radio while I sleep as I am unable to sleep in silence, however, this wakes me up as it is wrong. Now, I have posted this here and not on the language desk because I don't need help on whether or not it is wrong, I would like to know how this can be rectified? As an aside i would like to know how this dreadful error managed to be in common use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleverer" is a valid word, as far as I am aware (the alternative, "more clever", sounds very strange to my ear). "Biggerer" certainly isn't, are you sure the BBC has used it? I've never heard anyone say "biggerer" and I'm not even sure what it would mean. Are you getting confused by the fact that the adjective, "clever" happens to end in "er"? The "er" in "clever" is not a comparative suffix, it doesn't mean "more clev", it just happens to be what the word is. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a difference between cleverer and biggerer. "Clever" is not a comparative like "bigger", so "cleverer" does make sense where "biggerer" doesn't. It is simply a matter of whether you prefer "more clever" or "cleverer". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy:happier. Smart:smarter. Sure:surer. Therefore clever:cleverer. Yes, it's a tad clunky to say, although not as clunky as "properer" would be, but there's nothing wrong with the formation of either in principle. As a (sadly) obsessive Radio 4 listener, I have never, ever heard "biggerer" used seriously - John Humphrys would never permit it. And as for "rectifying" this perceived error, English spelling reform contains helpful links to a number of articles describing attempts to direct or divert the progress of language change and their outcomes. It's possible, but not easy. Ka renjc 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think biggerer is quite common these days, but is always used jokingly, perhaps to mimic the way children sometimes speak. (My young son has been known to say 'biggerest' which always raises a smile.) I can imagine hearing the word biggerer on a certain type of Radio 4 show, but it would never be used deliberately instead of bigger because it is clearly not standard English. (Like others before me I have absolutely no objection to cleverer.) There are, of course, all sorts of very frequent speech errors on Radio 4. Many of these are excusable, because everyone makes mistakes when they speak ad lib. What is extraordinary is quite how much non-standard English there is on Radio 4 in scripted pieces. One hears plural verb forms with singular subjects very often, for example. And the difference between imply and infer is something that seems to pass most Radio 4 journalists by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.236.224 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clever is to big as cleverer is to bigger. (I got a 94 on the Miller Analogies test many years ago, when it was a 100 question test). Edison (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to the OP: this 'error' cannot be rectified, because it isn't one. ('Betterer' is, but I too doubt if you have heard it other than for comic effect). Radio 4 presenters, like everybody else, will continue at least sometimes to speak English, and not always confine themselves to an artificial language invented by pedagogues. Plural verb with singular subject is unexceptionable when the subject is an entity which can be treated as plural, like 'the government', 'Manchester United' or 'The Royal Bank of Scotland'. (In British English this is accepted even in formal use). And 'infer' meaning 'imply' has been around since at least 1530, and hardly ever leads to ambiguity. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betterer could be a correct word, if better is used as a verb - one who betters himself is a betterer. Or a self-betterer. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeniouser and ingeniouser, Little Red Riding Hood! Strawless (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, one betters oneself, and one aims to best one's opponent, but one goods nobody at all. Think about this while you're feeling the worse for wear after eating too much wurst. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, it used to be possible to good people. We could try to bring back this usage, if you think 'novomundane' isn't enough of a gift to posterity. Algebraist 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Darling, I'm feeling bad, so could you please spend some time gooding me". Not sure about that one. Don't worry, Algebraist, my gifts to posterity will make for a rich and highly enjoyable obituary/eulogy. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking juice after brushing your teeth

Why does juice/wine/etc taste so bad right after you brush your teeth? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've got it.[6]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]