Miscellaneous desk
< August 28	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 30 >

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.

August 29

International Phonetic Alphabet

Can someone convert the word Nexus into the phonetic alphabet? I'd like to add // to an article I'm working on. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: /'nɛksɨs/ for General American (including Canadian) and Received Pronunciation. I can imagine Northerners and Scots saying /'nɛksʊs/ μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have /'nɛksʌs/, I think, but would probably be a little less specific on the unstressed vowel and write /'nɛksəs/. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The /ʌ/ vowel is not used in reduced positions, only full ones like "cup". The schwa /ˈnɛksəs/ is acceptible, that's what the OED has, although I definitely use the higher reduced vowel. See Wikipedia:IPA for English for /ɨ/ as in "roses" as opposed to /ə/ in "Rosa's". μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of the smartphone is pronounced the same as the word itself, then, any dictionary will tell you the answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, only a dictionary that uses IPA. Those tend to be fairly specialist dictionaries, I think, because most people don't understand IPA. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that reference and grammar books published in Britain and Europe almost always use IPA when they offer phonetic transcription. It is certainly no more difficult to use than the systems dessigned by Merriam Webster and others, and a lot less subjective and idiosyncratic. If the IPA is metrics, US Dictionary pronunciation keys aren't imperial units, they are furlongs per fortnight. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHACKLOCK BICYCLE

I am researching the name of "SHACKLOCK", and find listed in the Australian 'VICTORIA POLICE GAZETTE' of 14 January, 1915, on page 151, the following notice under 'STEALING OTHERWISE THAN FROM THE PERSON OR FROM DWELLINGS' -

BANBURY, JACOB, labourer, yallock, reports stolen at Koo-wee-rup, on 28th ult.,a Shacklock bicycle, No. 243, enamelled carmine redwith single yellow lines, Eadie free-wheel, 28 by 1 3/8 Oceanic tires (sic), Taylor handles. Value 11 pounds 10 shillings. - 0.11494. 12th January. 1915

I write to inquire who and where was the manufacturer of SHACKLOCK bicycles? Ian Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.187.90 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shacklock appears to be a motorcycle manufacturer from Manby Street, Wolverhampton ([1]). There is a Wikipedia article about it, but it's in Dutch. It doesn't appear to give a lot of information about the company. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did bicycles really cost such large sums of money in 1915 ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They were a high tech sporting hobby that workers indulged in. Bicycles were a combination of personal transport, leisure and sporting capacity. And cycling was big time sport. Compare to contemporary US hot rodding. £11/10/- Australian in 1911 is equivalent by CPI (a poor measure) to $1,042.37. That shows more how ridiculous the RBA's CPI series is than anything else. A $1042 bicycle isn't particularly pricey in 2011, that's about a good price to pay for a heavy duty commuter. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - Cucumber Mike's link above is to a motorcycle rather than a bicycle. You would expect a motorbike to be rather more expensive than the leg-powered type. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should say, though, that I'm not sure that the item in question was a motorcycle - it has an 'Eadie Freewheel', something that you'd really expect to be on a pedal cycle. I guess it could be some sort of Derny though. My suggestion was that it's a pedal cycle made by the Shacklock Motorcycle Co. - it seemed more likely than the other Shacklock I found, an Australian wrought-iron stove manufacturer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were British Motorized bicycles at that time - an example is the Phelon & Rayner 1.75 hp. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I found Northern Territory Times and Gazette for Thursday 19 August 1915, in which is advertised the "Universal Bicycle" which was "built of B.S.A. parts" with a "two speed coaster hub" and Dunlop tyres at the price of £12 and 10 shillings. So a reasonably upmarket unmotorised bicycle would have been in that price bracket in 1915. (Also available: gelignite at 87s 6d per case!) Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cash

Does anybody know the approximate value of all the cash that's going around in the world right now? Thanks in advance! 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the global gross national product is around 44 trillion United States dollars. 169.199.30.228 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't cash, that's production per year. It isn't 44 trillion dollars, it is 44 trillion dollars per year. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retarded. 169.199.30.228 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See money supply. If you want physical currency (notes and coins) then it's the M0 money supply. I don't know if you'll find a global figure - it's usually done by currency. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This program is about 4 years old, so it is getting a bit dated, but it is VERY well done and explains for lay people how the global money supply works. --Jayron32 22:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 2007 estimated the total global M0 money supply at around 3.25 trillion US dollars, using the prevailing exchange rates. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]