Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 October 12

< October 11	<<Sep \| October \| Nov>>	October 13 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

German

Can one say "Er ist Realschulabschluss" to mean he has finished school? Ken 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, it doesn't make sense as you've written it. What you wrote means "He is school-completion certificate". The correct way to write it is "Er hat einen Realschulabschluss." This means "He has a school-completion certificate." More specifically, it means that he has a certificate demonstrating completion of the Realschule, a technically oriented secondary school in German-speaking countries. There are other school-completion certificates, such as the Abitur. A more generic way to say "He has finished school" would be "Er hat die Schule abgeschlossen." Marco polo 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was looking for just Realschule in particular but couldn't say it in English. Thanks for your answer. Ken 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APA 5th Edition

Hi, How do I cite an article from Wikipedia in APA 5th Edition? I researched Niccolo Machiavelli and now need to cite your source.

WP:CW#APA style. How can we make that easier to find? —Keenan Pepper 05:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the toolbox in the left margin of the article there is a link "Cite this article". Follow that link. It also provides the APA style; I hope it's 5th edition. The question is actually not a language-related question and not even a reference desk question; it should have been posed at the Help desk for questions on how to use Wikipedia. It is also item nr. 6 in Very Frequently Asked Questions, which is referred to from all help pages. This very page, in its very first paragraph Search first, states: "Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia, ...". Maybe this paragraph should be in 24-point lettering instead of small print. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specacity

I've had occasion to wonder whether or not "specacity" is a recognised word. It's not in Wikipedia, Wiktionary, or any other dictionary I've found. But it scores 3 Google hits. One looks like a word made up on the spot in a radio interview about sport (or it could be an error on the part of the transcriber), but the other two appear in otherwise credibly written scientific papers. What does it mean? (PS. If it's a word, it's an anagram of "cityscape"). JackofOz 03:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a modification of perspicacity: acuteness of perception.Edison 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a plain old misspelling of "speciacity" which isn't a real word either, but a failed attempt at constructing a noun from "specific", where the correct result would be "specificity" :) --BluePlatypus 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both "scientific" hits are from one site: Wiley InterScience. If you search for "site:doi.wiley.com specacity" you even find six hits. One mentions "The Specacity of Cell Surfaces. Ed. B. D. Davis and. L. Warren." Now that is clearly the book The Specificity of Cell Surfaces. It looks to me this is an artifact of some specific conversion method used by Wiley InterScience for data entry, perhaps OCR. The six hits display many other oddities like periods that shouldn't be there. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very plausible, IMHO. I've seen such artifacts in PDFs before. --Kjoonlee 03:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a sports usage, how about a shortened form of "spectator capacity", or the number of people a stadium holds ? StuRat 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, your response resonates best with me. Thanks. Btw, what is the word for a thing that looks like a word but isn't. Does a collection of letters acquire the status of a word only when a meaning is ascribed to it and it is accepted into some dictionary? Or was it always a word from the moment someone came up with the spelling?

Personally, I'd think that a word is a collection of sounds that has an understood meaning by at least two different persons in a conversation. However, I don't think the question has a real answer. 惑乱分からん 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word comes with a meaning and some usage, even poetic. After, it enters the dictionaries, or not. Shall "tatorcap" become one ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 23:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's after it has acquired a meaning. What about things that don't have a meaning? I could spend all day making up new "words": splongle, murdescent, framblitude, ergotraplistic, mitrine, kremble, glombard, venomastor, prefend, distart, herpeticious, seriaxable .... you get the idea. These have no meaning, not even to me. They might appear to be words, but but they would fail any definition of "word" that I know of. What label should I give these .. things? I don't think they qualify as ghost words since they didn't come about through typographical error or misinterpretation, but rather from the incredibly creative processes of my obviously diseased mind. JackofOz 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental lexical gaps, maybe? --Kjoonlee 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those examples seem to obey the phonotactics of English. --Kjoonlee 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm obeying rules I didn't even know existed. Thanks. JackofOz 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just cause I'm bored, I will write some disobedient words here: "prnjazzrfgboeyz", "vwvnvlluwchg" "oodfnrpthabb", "knuptps" and "mbruhhg". (Be careful to pronounce all consonants with as few epenthetic vowels as possible.) 惑乱分からん 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKT:ghost word --ColinFine 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfeasible or Infeasible

Which is correct? Is it one of those American vs British spelling things? - 150.203.2.85 05:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wordwizard.com/ch_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18752

I'd go for infeasible. --Kjoonlee 05:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how strange. Until now I would have sworn that I'd never heard the word infeasible, but maybe that's just my brain canceling out the "i" sound because it expects a "u" sound instead. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how in- is not productive and un- is, it's to be expected that lesser used cases would tend to switch from in- to un- over time. (pls don't give me counterexamples, I said tend). So, in doubt, use -un you're probably with the wave of the future. mnewmanqc 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it would be better to just say "not feasible" instead. :) --Kjoonlee 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, you use "un" if it is a germanic root, and "in" if Latin root. A quick look at an online dictionary tells me that feasible has a Latin root of "facere", indicating the need for "in" as a prefix. This rule is mutable though, particularly in modern English. User:Zodiac7

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REFERENCE DESK

If you haven't been paying attention to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, you may not know that a few users are close to finishing a proposal (with a bot, now in testing and very close to completion) which, if approved by consensus, will be a major change for the Reference Desk.

Please read the preamble here, and I would appreciate if you signed your name after the preamble outlining how you feel about what we are thinking.

This notice has been temporarily announced on all of the current desks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, I propose any reactions to this anouncement be limited to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#PROPOSED_CHANGES_TO_THE_REFERENCE_DESK. DirkvdM 07:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing with titles

In the acknowledgements of a report, I wish to address (in English and French) the recipients of my gratitude with their proper titles and really want to get it right. So, I'd like to know if these my suggestions are correct ways to mention people.

English:

Professor X
Research Eningeer Y

French:

Professeur emeritus Z
Ingénieur de recherche U

In particular, I want to know how to use the titles in a sentence. Do I simply substitute "Research Engineer Y" for "Y"? I would also like to hear if the capitalisation is right. (Note that X, Y, Z and U are four distinct persons, so none of my tries is supposed to be a translation of another.)

Oh, and how do I refer to a fellow student? "Mr."? "Mister"? "Comrade"? ;-) Thanks! —Bromskloss 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake with the capitalisation at number 3 and 4. This is what I intended:

professeur emeritus Z
ingénieur de recherche U

—Bromskloss 10:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure (i.e. you have been specifically told) that this person's French language title is "Professeur emeritus"? The word "emeritus" does not appear in any of the French dictionaries I have; "Professeur émérite" is the translation I have seen of "Emeritus professor". Do you know whether he or she matches English meaning of "emeritus" (that is, retired, no longer having the post of)? Notinasnaid 10:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a warning, that's a vrey loose, and not the strict, English meaning of "emeritus". Not all retired professors are emeritus professors: being an emeritus professor is an additional honor, formally bestowed by the university, that permits the use of that title. So it would be embarassing to use it for someone who has not had it actually given to him. -Nunh-huh 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of anything! :-) Actually, you are right. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess I had the Latin inheritance of the French language in mind and assumed too much. —Bromskloss 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer any advice on the use of titles in French, but here are my thoughts on English: It sounds as though you will be referring to these persons in narrative text, rather than addressing them directly, as you would in a letter. If I am right that you want to say something like "I am grateful to X, Y, Z, and U for their support and assistance, without which this project would not have been possible", then I think you should write the following: "I am grateful to John D. X, professor of [discipline name, e.g. Biology] at [university name, e.g. University of London]; John D. Y, research engineer at [name of facility or institution]; Jean D. Z, professeur émérite of [English name of discipline] at [name of French university]; and Jean D. U, ingénieur de recherche at [name of French institute or facility]. Without the generous assistance of these people, this project would not have been possible." I would refer to your fellow students as "colleagues". If you want to refer to them by name, I would not use a title such as "Mr." It is too old-fashioned and formal for a statement of acknowledgements, which is meant to be more informal and personal. Instead I would say something like "I am also grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions of my colleagues at [name of university], John D. Surname1, Jane D. Surname2, and [add more names if needed]." Marco polo 14:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best way to do it. Thanks for your comment. I was thinking of being intentionally uptight as a humourous thing, but I don't think I will. Btw, as it turns out, I will not be writing any of it in English, but in French and Swedish, actually. The only question that remains now is whether I should capitalise anything in the French titles. Anyone? —Bromskloss 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anywhere English-speaking which uses 'Engineer' as a title, like 'Doctor' or 'Professor', (as opposed to as a profession). --ColinFine 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swarf.

In metal engineering terms what is the meaning behind the word SWARF.

is it an acronym ?

I know it means fine metal shavings - but where did the word come from.

I am learning to become a teacher here in Australia and this question was asked in class.

Andrew Jenson in Victoria Australia.

It doesn't seem to be an acronym, see swarf and swarf and swarf. ---Sluzzelin 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A borrowing from Old Norse, apparently, seemingly somehow related to the same Germanic root as swerve. 惑乱分からん 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a shot in the dark that could could possibly be related. In Swedish, "svarv" means "lathe". —Bromskloss 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems related, SAOB mentions Old Norse and Icelandic "sverfa" (to file) in connection to svarv. 惑乱分からん 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a borrowed word, but a true Old English one: sweorfan "to file" (evolved eventaully into to swerve), which of course is cognate to the Old Norse sverfa. Both from a common Germanic root which according to the OED had the original sense of "agitated, irregular, or deflected movement" and which possibly also yielded swarm. Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Woerterbuch gives the indogermanic verb *su¸erbh- "to turn, sweep", cognate to Welsh chwerfan `"whirl for a spindle'" and Russian sverbit "itch". --Janneman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it would be related to "Milf." Edison 04:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, "milf" is an acronym, just as "golf" isn't. 惑乱分からん 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new pronoun

What is the solution to the recent problem of replacing the phrase "he or she"? For brevity's sake!

See Gender-neutral pronoun#English. --Ptcamn 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and s/he (which isn't mentioned in that article) ---Sluzzelin 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, s/he has always been ambiguous. It looks like it presents two options: s or he. Wouldn't (s)he be better? Just a thought. -- the GREAT Gavini 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short of inventing a new pronoun (le is my choice) I prefer "he or she". It has unambiguous pronounciation, whereas s/he and (s)he are unclear. Should I say them as "s-ʃ-he" to illustrate that I don't mean just "she"? Another option is to use singular they. We use "you" as singular and plural, so why not use "they" as both too? Hyenaste ^(tell) 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The desire to be politically correct has led to avoidance by some of the gender usages still common in many other languages. "They" has been adopted by some as a gender neutral singular pronoun: "If a student is late, they must report to the office, where their tardiness will be noted." This is easier than saying ""If a student is late, he or she must report to the office, where his or her tardiness will be noted." Previously, rather than forcing a plural pronoun to become singular, a masculine pronoun was used: "If a student is late, he must report to the office where his tardiness will be noted." In Spanish, the masculine pronoun is used if it refers to males, or if it refers to unknown gender, or if it refers to a mixture of males and females. The feminine pronoun is used only when it refers to females only, as in ""If a nun is late, she must report to the office where her tardiness will be noted." There is no confusion due to this usage. The Spanish language usages are regulated by the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy), while English usage is dictated by consensus. The best solution to "he or she" in my opinion would be to follow Spanish usage. A more likely solution will be use of singular they.Edison 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read 'The Descent of Woman' by Elaine Morgan for some of the problems caused by 'the Spanish usage'. But then, I'd recommend everyone read it anyway. Skittle 12:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could always go Hungarian! :) neki (he/she) and őt (him/her) Which might cause some slight pronunciation problems though.. Otherwise extending the use of "they" is probably the path of least resistance. --BluePlatypus 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common misconception that singular they is a new usage. In fact, use of plural with semantically singular antecedents goes back to at least Middle English (ironically before they itself was imported as into English. See the singular they article. mnewmanqc 03:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a little thought, most sentences can be rewritten to avoid using he or she, e.g. "students who are late must report to the office..." --Auximines 14:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original citation from Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On [1987] is needed

I am translating a book of my father (who is a chemistry professor) from Russian into English. It his book he quotes the words of Randy Shilts from his book "And the Band Played On" (1987). Wordly translated he quotes the following:

“It seemed, as if the whole world has gathered near the Statue of Liberty. Ships from 55 countries brought seamen to Manhattan, who merged into billionic human crowd adoring the pyrotechnics. All the night long bars were overcrowded by seamen. All admitted, that there was no such a celebration before, than that in New York. Later epidemiologists vainly pondering on the question of its origin will remember this bright night in New York harbor...”

I found the book in Amazon.Com and the quoted phrase seems to be on the first page, because Amazon quotes the first phrase of the book, which shows some resemblence with the text I have. Although I have an account on Amazon.De and bought some books from it, it doesn't allow me to view this content (though in a bit controversal way: first it says, that the content I am trying to view is only for Amazon.Com (not .De clients), and offers only the first page for preview, but whenever I try to view it it just hangs. Could somebody help me get the original text of this quote? Alexander.

The translation smacks of Russian-English conjoining, like the comedian Yakov Smirnov ("America! What a country!"). I do not have the original English version, but it would doubtless have said something like "It seemed as if the whole world had gathered near the Statue of Liberty." The word "billionic" is very unlikely. "All admitted, that there was no such celebration..." is very unlikely. It reads like something translated by http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr and back.Edison 04

47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is just a rough translation for you to get an idea, it will be polished later on. Alexander.

July 4, 1976
New York Harbor
Tall sails scraped the deep purple night as rockets burst, flared, and flourished red, white, and blue over the stoic Statue of Liberty. The whole world was watching, it seemed; the whole world was there. Ships from fifty-five nations had poured sailors into Manhattan to join the throngs, counted in the millions, who watched the greatest pyrotechnic extravaganza ever mounted, all for America's 200th birthday party. Deep into the morning, bars all over the city were crammed with sailors. New York City had hosted the greatest party ever known, everybody agreed later. The guests had come from all over the world.
This was the part the epidemiologists would later note, when they stayed up late at night and the conversation drifted toward where it had started and when. They would remember that glorious night in New York Harbor, all those sailors, and recall: From all over the world they came to New York.

- Nunh-huh 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot!!!! Alexander.

You're welcome! A pleasure to be of service. - Nunh-huh 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream of the Red Chamber

... could anyone recommend a good translation of this work? Thanks! --Philosofinch 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the classic Penguin five volume set, translated by David Hawkes and John Minford (ISBN 0140442936 etc.). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZERO hour?

Hi all! Um, little question: isn't the prominently used zero hour expression grammatically incorrect? Shouldn't it be ZEROTH hour? Or at least 'hour zero'? If it's correct, then is it correct to say three hour, or five hour, and so on? ('cause I think not...:) Kreachure 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of people who believe that 'grammatically incorrect' is a phrase that has meaning tend not to think that 'zeroth' is a word. --ColinFine 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth is a relatively new word (the first quotation given by the OED is from 1896), and it is generally used only in math-related contexts. Zero hour came into use not much later (1917), in the specific sense of "the hour at which an attack or operation is timed to begin". This is an attributive use of the noun zero, rather than an ordinal number. If we were creating the expression today, perhaps we would choose to say zeroth hour, but in the end, what matters is that zero hour is idiomatic (the OED lists quotations from Wodehouse, Joyce, and Huxley) and zeroth hour is not. Lesgles (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About space, we do not say "I'm on the 35 parallel", but 35th. About time, ancient people would use "he died on the 3rd hour". Also, they didn't use zero. Something changed - I don't know when, do you ? - and won't come back. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]