< September 3	Language desk archive	September 5 >

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.

< August	September	October >

September 4

Pauses within pauses

Are there any rules governing the use of pauses within pauses, like for example:

blah blah blah -- yada yada yada; woot woot -- blah blah.

--Impaciente 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to the answer, because it will explain the question to me. ---Sluzzelin 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there are rules concerning such things - style guides will vary. I can't think of a sentence in which you would actually use such a construction anyway. —D a niel (‽) 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even give him a chance to speak—the last time I saw him, he said, "Eat beans, fart bag!"—though I wonder if I should have. Does that answer your question? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A parenthesis is a convenient device, but a writer indulges his own convenience at the expense of his readers' if his parenthesis is so long that a reader, when he comes to the end of it, has little chance of remembering where he was when it began." H. W. Fowler. MeltBanana 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a writer use a three-level deep nesting of parentheses, but for jocular effect. I can't remember the instance, but something like: "Our villain, whose father (if it was his father, but in any case the husband of his mother (if his mother was indeed his mother)) was also a villain ...". (That was only two levels.) If you use dashes here to offset the parentheses, it becomes hard to decipher: "Our villain, whose father – if it was his father, but in any case the husband of his mother – if his mother was indeed his mother – – was also a villain ...". --Lambiam ^Talk 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read a similar Swedish cartoon once. The speaker was jumping back and forth between the different levels and it was barely intelligible. 惑乱分からん 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French: "de manière à ce que" vs. "pour que"

In French, what is the difference between:

de manière à ce que
pour que

Perhaps to make it more concrete, I was doing the following exercise where I had to fill in the blanks. I put "pour que" but the answers say it should be "de manière à ce que". Why is "de manière à ce que" better?

Les aiguilleurs du ciel suspendront leur mouvement de grève pour le weekend ....... le retour des vacances de Pâques se fasse normalement.

Thanks! Rugops 14:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one fits better in this sentence because the auguilleurs are about to perform a motion. My French is bad, but my instinct says "pour que" would mean "because" or "because of", not "in order to". Hopefully, some true Francophone would come up with a better explanation. 惑乱分からん 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pour que" implies intention. In the sentence above it would mean that the controllers interrupted their strike with the intention of letting Easter traffic return home normally. "De manière à ce que" does not imply intention, merely causality. It just means that they suspended the strike in a fashion that allowed the traffic to run normally.---Sluzzelin 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that you can't fill in the blanks like "they" want you to unless you have additional knowledge. How should one fill in the blanks in "The air controllers will suspend their strike over the weekend ... the return from the Easter weekend will proceed normally", with a choice between "so that" and "in order that"? --Lambiam ^Talk 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astute, as usual! ---Sluzzelin 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the formulation awful. "afin que le retour", or "de manière à faciliter le retour" should be enough. Frech people discovered "à ce que" quite recently and use it sometimes well, but it occurs (recurs frequently) badly, e.g. : "attendez à ce que" instead of "attendez que" (wait for). -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ça bouge"

I noticed alongside the motorway in Belgium some safety posters warning that children move, so to beware when driving. However I don't understand the way the French is written. The English translation is I'm pretty sure something like: "Children, they move (about)". However the French says, "Les enfants, ça bouge!". Now, why does it not say "Les enfants, ils bougent?". Why does it use "ça" rather than "ils"? Why is "bouge" in the singular? My guess is that it is a sort of poetic way of saying children as a grouped object. Mais vous les francophones, qu'est-ce que vous en pensez?

Thanks, Rugops 14:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "bouge" is in the singular, because its "ça", but I'm not sure that it even refers to the children. 惑乱分からん 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ça bouge, ça roule, ça joue. Maybe it's referring to a national exercise campaign sponsored by Danone (with Zizou as their spokesperson). Their slogan is "Faut que ça bouge" ("You gotta move") and is directed at children and teachers. ---Sluzzelin 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By itself "ça bouge!" is an idiomatic expression, having a positive connotation, like "that swings!", or "it's very much alive!". An English campaign on not leaving kids in overheated cars might use: "Kids, that's cool!", where the verb is also singular. You wouldn't say: "Kids, they are cool!". --Lambiam ^Talk 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would. Quite often they are cool, although there's always exceptions. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I approve Lambian's word, and I would add something about the singular found in English for flock/herd : in the posters, children (les enfants) is really plural but still conveys a collective sense, something like "youth". Is it a little more clear ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a campaign in Montréal that went ça bouge au centre-ville (it's cool in downtown?). Anyway, I ran into this kind of construction in Le Déclin de l'empire américain. The guy was annoyed by all the discussion and one of the women said "les intellectuels, ça parle !" The English subtitles said something to the effect of "intellectuals love to talk." From what I gather, this type of construction refers to something habitual. You may also want to check out the lyrics to the show Un gars, une fille on this site - it's used extensively there. --Chris S. 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good noon?

If there'ssuch a thing as good morning, good afternoon, goo evening, and good night, is there such a thing as "good noon"?

No. Though there is "good day". Rugops 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And "good night" is not a greeting like "good morning". It is an expression of farewell, like "goodbye". --Lambiam ^Talk 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When would you need to say "good noon"? At exactly midday? It's not a fixed phrase. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In English, noon is considered a point in time, not a part of the day. Greetings are only for parts of the day.--Cam 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I want to greet someone around noon, like when entering a store, but I'm uncertain whether the transition happened already: my watch says 11:57, but the store clock has 12.05. It would be useful for such occasions to have the expression "good noon", so as not to have to resort to "Hello love!" or worse. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just, "Hello"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before, jokingly, when it was 12:05 or something. Technically, you should just switch from "good morning" to "good afternoon" as soon as it strikes twelve, but it doesn't really feel like afternoon at 12:05. In any case, the phrase could only be interpreted as a joke, unless you are obviously not a native English speaker, in which case it would most likely be seen as a mistake. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fond of "good morning or whatever". --π! 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Good morning" and "Good afternoon" are short for "Have a good morning" and "Have a good afternoon". So, even if it's still a.m., there's nothing wrong with saying "Good afternoon", particularly if there's so little left of the morning that wishing the person well for that tiny amount of time would seem ludicrous. They may already have had a crappy morning, so hoping their afternoon turns out to be better is always a positive. JackofOz 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you just can't be bothered working it out, try "Good day", or in Aussie-speak, "G'day". That covers all the bases. JackofOz 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if "good morning" is short for "have a good morning" then why is it a greeting? It's possible to use such phrases as a farewell, but it feels archaic. "Good day." "Please sir, could you, perhaps, reconsider?" "I said good day!"AEuSoes1 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it making much sense unless it stands for "have a good morning". But maybe sense doesn't come into it. JackofOz 10:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that "good afternoon" is formal and not very often used. "Good morning" is used more often, but usually fairly early in the morning, especially upon running into a person that you see nearly every day, such as a family member or coworker, for the first time that day. "Good evening" is also fairly formal and not so often used. "Good night" is used a little more often, but usually between family members, close friends, or intimates at the end of the evening before going to bed or (if already both in bed) to sleep. In other settings, in the United States, people just say "hi" or "hello" or use a slang greeting, like "hey" or "wassup". Marco polo 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to catch them with your wishes for a good morning as early as possible; that's why it is usually used as a greeting rather than a farewell. NonUser

Ancient Greek vowels

I've been studying Ancient Greek for a few days and have found it to be fairly easy, phonologically speaking, with the exception of the pronunciation of certain vowels. What exactly is the difference between η and ε and o and ω? Is it a matter purely of length? Bhumiya (said/done) 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has the various phonetic values in IPA for each of the letters you mentioned. They are indeed different: η is /ɛː/, ε is /e/; ο is /o/, ω is /ɔː/ . -- the GREAT Gavini 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I still see very little difference between the two O's. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a little like the "o" in hope; the second is like the "o" in doll. Sort of. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the "o" from doll is lengthened (which is important if you're reading hexameters and such). The truth of the matter is, however: (i) We can only guess how the sounds were pronounced, and while the guess is not entirely uninformed, we can't be really sure that, say, η has not the value of /æː/, or ω of /oː/; (ii) "Ancient Greek" is a collection of dialects, and different dialects must have had different vowel values – sometimes reflected in writing, like a (presumably long) α where Attic has η, but possibly often without change of spelling. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See IPA chart for English. There is, of course, going to be difficulty learning vowels of another language but that might help you understand the symbols. Most dialects of English don't have a pure /o/ and /ɔ/ only occurs in American English before /r/. AEuSoes1 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. This has been very helpful. I realize the phonology of Ancient Greek is a matter of interpretation and reconstruction, but I just want to be on the same page as a well-informed philologist of Greek. I'm learning it mostly so I can read Greek literature, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to pronounce it intelligently, and I'm curious anyway. Poetry demands recitation. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learning a foreign language

Hi

I am frm Delhi,India) doing my CA(PE-2) n B.Com(hons.)2nd yr..(frm a regular collg).

I'd like to ask that which foreign language, i.e. french, german, russian r ny othr wd b worth learning for me.. n how can i proceed towards doin' the same.

Also, lemme know if such learnin' can b done online through some websites or e-newsletters etc. and how much time will it take to learn a lang.

An early reply'd b appreciated..

Thanks..

User:Geetika007 [e-mail removed]

Well...French would be a useful language to learn, considering it's widely spoken and fairly simple to learn. french.about or ielang.com would be good places to start. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French... simple... can those words be used in the same sentence? --π! 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every language is incredibly complex, so they're about the same in simplicity. So it follows that French is just as simple as English. --Kjoonlee 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona is simple, albeit useless... ;) 惑乱分からん 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people actually started using it, I'm sure it will grow complex just like pidgins and creoles do. ;) --Kjoonlee 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Sonja Elen Kisa. She'd have need to enforce language regulation to protect the speakers from communicating. She'd already have unleashed a monster by slipping out the ability to use the word for hand/arm for the secondary meaning of five. @_@ 惑乱分からん 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After Edit Conflict) My first impression is that you should start by learning English spelling... =S Otherwise, If it would be worth the effort to learn another language is a question you probably are better equipped to answer, yourself. 惑乱分からん 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he's just trying to be informal through his spelling. But you're right - he's probably better equipped to answer himself. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question didn't sound too serious. If someone seems to completely lack any particular interest in the culture, poetry and people associated with a certain language, I'd absolutely doubt he or she could maintain enough motivation to learn it to any useful level. My impression is that Geetika007 has begun at the wrong end. Otherwise, any of the languages mentioned could clearly be useful for a various number of reasons. 惑乱分からん 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.Gulbenkian

Hi dear Mr>Gulbenkian

I am Meganush Boghosiam, i am armenian from Iran.

i want to ask u about your foundation educational helps likes scolarships or other educational helps.

please answer me. thank you.

Who is Mr. Gulbenkian, and why do you think you'll get an answer from him, here? 惑乱分からん 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calouste_Gulbenkian is an article about an Armenian called Gulbenkian, but he is long dead.

So, that would mean that the best bet to get in touch is possibly a séance? 惑乱分からん 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he has a foundation, reinforcing the hypothesis that the late Mr. Calouste Sarkis Gulbenkian is the intended addressee. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Meganush, please forward the question to the foundation's official website: http://www.gulbenkian.org/english/main.asp , and excuse my earlier irony... 惑乱分からん 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in favour of nominating Mr. Gulbenkian to be used as the official name of the omniscient being that is so frequently addressed as "dear sir" on the reference desk raise your pipes. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*pipes under the table* -- the GREAT Gavini 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. — Jéioosh 23:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Gulbenkian ? StuRat 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little busy right now. - Gulbenkian.

Anyone else think this would just be another cliquey in-joke that could put new-comers and nervous English-as-a-second-language questioners off? Skittle 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, sorta, but I agree anyway. Sorry bout that. TheMadBaron 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]