What language are the words SUI SUN (it means west wind)

The name SŪI SŪN was on a plaque at our old house, we were told it means west wind in a British Columbia, Canada, First Nations language, which one I don't know. I want to know what language it is and what the translation for east wind would be. Thanks Mary Frances

hi. i think you should send this question to SSILA:

http://www.ssila.org/

peace – ishwar vxnghvbngvhnmjghkl,yuffgchh (speak) 04:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "adage'

What is the etymology and definition of the word: adage;v'kmv;l,k ?

www.dictionary.com

en.wiktionary.org

--Mib orovsky

03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition (with brief etymology)

more detailed etymology

Chuck 20:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translate "Cantina la Guerreo" into English for me?

Could I get a quick translation, if any Spanish speakers are watching and willing? The marquee of a bar, glimpsed in a shot from Out of the Past: "Cantina la Guerreo." Thanks. --Brasswatchman 06:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Cantina" is bar, and "la" indicates that the next word would be a feminine noun. However, as far as I can tell, "Guerreo" would be a verb meaning "I do war." (I don't think English has an equivalent verb.) And if it were a noun, it would be masculine. Perhaps the producers were aiming for "Cantina la Guerra," or "Bar (of) the War?" Garrett Albright 12:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, "la" is not only a singular femenine definite article (meaning "the"), but also a femenine singular personal pronoun, functioning as the verb's object (meaning "her"). So a translation for "Cantina la Guerreo" would be "Bar I war her", or "Bar I make war to her". It is however a rather nonsensical phrase and a very unusual name for a bar. It didn't occur to me, being an educated native Spanish speaker, that "guerreo" could be a form of the little-used verb "guerrear" until I read about it righ here... 200.112.140.242 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"To war" is an English verb, though not a common one; the King James Bible has a couple of verses of "he warred against X". "Warring" is a reasonably well-used modern form. Shimgray 14:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure its "Guerreo" and not "Guerrero" or "Guerrera"? –Hajor 14:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. They go to Acapulco, right? Acapulco is in the state of Guerrero. –Hajor 14:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha indeed. A chest full of booty for your good work, Hajor. Arr. Garrett Albright 16:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xoder. Los piratas ingleses atacan nuestro bello puerto. Quieren hundir la Nao de China. ¡A los cañones! ¡Cubran las almenas! ¡No pasarán! –Hajor 17:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Thank ye kindly. And watch y'back for those dirty ninjas. Arr. --Brasswatchman 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hajor, Garrett - truth be told, I asked this question while researching an academic paper. Would it be all right with you if I cited this posting? --Brasswatchman 04:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that the posting will go away, so use the "permanent link". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Anything else you need to know? Bet you're sorry you asked on International Talk Like a Pirate Day, though. –Hajor 12:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here either. Actually, anything submitted to Wikipedia (including content on these pages) can be re-used for any purpose so long as credit is given, so asking like this is unnecessary, but thanks anyway. See Wikipedia:Copyrights Garrett Albright 15:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nevym

what is the meaning of the word 'nevym' thanks for help --- goa

It's not an English word, so far as I can tell. Is it from another language? Garrett Albright 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know. it might even be artificial - but it's got to have roots in some language... --- goa

What's the context? Anything we could offer would be a shot in the dark without context.--Prosfilaes 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

somebody told me, this word means 'nobody' in some ancient language. but i couldn't find any clue either in books or on the www... --- goa

A Google search turns up lots of pages that use "nevym". A number of them appear to be in Czech. — Nowhither 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevyn, meaning "nobody", is a leading character in Katherine Kerr's Deverry series of fantasy novels. Deverryan is heavily based on Welsh somewhat adjusted orthographically to suit English-speaking readers, but in Welsh it would be two words, "nef un". -- Arwel 23:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

english translation of 'tsumi'

does anyone know what the english translation of the word 'tsumi' is?? some sources i have found say "sin" or "crime" but i'm not entirely sure... can anyone help with this one??

thanks

kattus

WWWJDIC gives the following:

罪【つみ】 (adj-na,n) crime; fault; indiscretion
詰み【つみ】 (n) checkmate
辜【こ; つみ】 (n) sin; crime; fault

—Cryptic (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, off of the second meaning, in the game of go, tsumi-go refers to endgame problems posed as puzzles. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how many characters r there in the South Korean language?

Arr, there be 51 jamo in the written Korean language. You be findin' more information at the Hangul article. Arr. Garrett Albright 16:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arr, don't ye be forgettin' that the South Korean language be usin' Hanja borrowed from China (they looted it, I hear, harr). Nevertheless, their use be decreasin', I hear Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 16:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Well, maties, if you arr really going to count arr all up, you must not forget the widespread use of the roman alphabet for metric units and standard abbreviations. Arr. --Diderot 17:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arr, but Hanja be an institutionalised and inseperable part of the Korean language! --Mib orovsky

23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absent parties?

Is there a specific literary term for absent parties, such as a photograph over the fireplace of a dead father who, though he is not actually there, weighs heavily on the plot and minds of the characters? It's a form of leitmotif, but I think there is something more specific for this. Perhaps something akin to Godot in Waiting for Godot, if there's a specific term for that. My mind is going back to high school literature courses and thinks that there was a term given, but can't come up with the specific term. Absent characters? Absent parties? Absent presences? The word absent is sticking with me for some reason. Help! I want to make a hip literary allusion but I'm not hip enough. :-( --Fastfission 22:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could borrow from theater and use "offstage characters", though that can imply a vocal presence. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a foraml term for this. You could say "present in spirit" to ephasize the degree to which they are in a sense present, in the minds of those who are physically there. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
or "in absentia", to accentuate the existence of the character despite their absense. "Father somehow manages to exhert his influence in absentia."

Rolling r's

Yep, what it says. How exactly does one roll an r such as those found in Russian, Spanish and German? --Mib orovsky 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Practice? It's rather hard to explain it over the internet. Note that an r roll in Spanish is a bit different than in Russian or German, in my experience -- usually involves more and looser rolling (both Russian and German have very tight rolls). If you try to purr like a cat, it's basically the same tongue movement -- a running of air over the tip of it and lightly flicking it. I've met people in language classes who claim to be unable to do it no matter how much practice they've had, so I imagine it might be something that some people just can't do (like making one's tongue into a taco shape, which is apparently genetic). But it's hard for me to say, because I've never had difficulty doing it in either of those three languages. --Fastfission 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The /r/'s in Russian, Spanish and German are not all the same. Russian and Spanish both use a kind of apical /r/ that is either rolled or tapped, depending on the context. That means the top front of your tongue taps the top of your mouth while your throat vibrates and you expel air through your mouth. When it's rolled, you tap it over and over again. The German /r/ isn't made with the front of your tongue, it's made with the back. You vibrate your throat and expel air through your mouth, but you tighten up the muscles in the back your mouth so that the back of your tongue is constricting the air flow. It sounds a little like clearing your throat. Now, some Russians make /r/'s like Germans, and not the way I described it for Russian, but it's considered a hick dialect. In French, the "German" /r/ (actually, it's called the uvular /r/) is considered prestigious, while the Russian and Spanish /r/ (the apical trilled /r/) is considered hick. The English /r/, in contrast, is made by curling your tongue so that the very tip touches the top of your mouth. That's called the retroflex /r/ and it's very rare in European languages.

Unless you can practice with someone reasonably fluent, it's hard to learn to make the sounds of an unfamiliar language, and I don't think my explanations will help. --Diderot 02:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice though that some German dialects use a forward rolled r rather than the uvular flap. — Laura Scudder | Talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The northern ones, IIRC, the ones that start to sound less like German and more like Platt, Franconian, Limburgish and Dutch. --Diderot 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the northern German accents have the uvular r. It's the southern accents of Bavaria and Austria that have the alveolar trill. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Austria, no. Bavarian dialects, yes, but I can't think of an Austrian dialect where the r would be alveolarily trilled. ;) —

ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really not Austria? I said Austria because my entire exposure to German between the ages of 7 and 17 was to Austrian German, and I'm quite sure I only heard alveolar R's. At any rate, I went to Braunschweig when I was 20 and was very surprised at the "French-sounding" uvular R's I heard there. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Belgian Dutch and my mom's Platt are certainly alveolar, I would have thought it to be another variable in the Germanic dialect continuum. I never really learned any of the European dialects except standard German. You learn something new every day. --Diderot 08:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your mom from? I have also heard alveolar R's from people originally from East Prussia. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, but her native language came to Canada from Ukraine, and to Ukraine from the Vistula delta, so yeah, it's sort of East Prussian. See Plautdietsch. --Diderot 11:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not too surprising then. The uvular R in German is definitely an innovation; I wouldn't be surprised if it never spread to German-speaking areas outside of the core of Germany/Austria/Switzerland (and of course not even entirely within that area). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

interpretation

what is the literal meaning of the german gesunheit?

Gesundheit = healthiness --Diderot 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply "health". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In more detail, German "gesund" means "healthy". It is related to the English "sound", as in "of sound mind and body". The suffix "-heit" (or "-keit") means essentially the same thing as the English "-ness". Thus: healthiness. And, yes, it is generally best translated as "health". — Nowhither 19:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

etimology "grandmother"

Um, it's from the words "grand" and "mother". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's etymology. JackofOz 06:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Grand" is not etymologically the same as the English word "grand", which means "great", but the French "grand", meaning "tall". the word is from french "grand-mère". Circeus 15:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the English word "grand" is etymologically from French grand. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the meaning of the French grand is more general than just "tall". It has all sorts of uses as "big" or "great". — Nowhither 19:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin language question

Could anyone please tell me what the word PIETASAV means in latin? I have found translations for the word "PIETAS", but nothing for "PIETASAV". Needless to say, I know nothing about latin myself.

It's not a Latin word. What's the context? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds no matches. Maybe you mean "PIETAS AV", which is apparently an abbreviation for "Pietas Augustorum". See http://www.cgb.fr/monnaies/rome/r15/gb/monnaiesgb1061.html?depart=441&nbfic=543 , and I hope you can read French. — Nowhither 19:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

substantive

(no question)

In some older grammars, the word is used to refer to the word class of nouns, where the word nouns is used to refer to both nouns and adjectives. However, in a few other places, substantives is used to refer both nouns and adjectives. As this question was posted between two on Latin, I assumed that this was the context you were looking for. Otherwise, look it up in a good dictionary. Gareth Hughes 21:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin verb list

Where may I find a Latin verb list, that is, a list of verbs in Latin categorised by conjugation (similar to this list)? Gratia, Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Um ... how about at the link you gave? — Nowhither 19:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a somewhat longer, more exhaustive list. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This one has more. David Sneek 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Origin of the name, Skip

I've seen people who are named, "Skip". What is the origin of this name? Or is this just a variation of Skipper? I can't believe someone would baptize their son, Skipper so I've got to believe Skip is a derivative of some other name like, "sam" or something. Thanks.

According to A Dictionary of First Names by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges (Oxford University Press 1990, ISBN 0192116517), "Skip" is indeed just a short form of "Skipper", which is "originally a nickname from the vocabulary word skipper boss (originally a ship's captain, from Middle Dutch schipper), or else representing an agent derivative of skip to leap, bound (probably of Scandinavian origin). It is now sometimes used as an independent given name, especially in America." Apparently people really do baptize their sons Skipper. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know at least one person who's name is "Simon" but whi is invariably known as "Skip", and he has no navel or nautical conections that I know of. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Kip" is a not entirely uncommon first name, note; it may be a variant from that. But silly naming is perfectly common - look at the number of people who call their daughter Colleen - lit. "girl". Shimgray 21:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USER:e-mail annjohnson@hotmail.com please come to my house baby so i can F*** you :) i hope you come baby ahh ohh yesss !!!!!:):) lol

Sayings

What is the origin of the term "The whole nine yards"?

I have heard (and this seems most logical) that it refers to the length of the gunbelts that WW1 fighter pilots fed through their machine guns during combat. When a pilot said "I gave 'em the whole nine yards", he meant that he had completely exhausted his ammunition belt in a given encounter with the enemy. In modern usage, it is loosely used to describe any instance in which one gives all he's got. For instance, to his partner, a lawyer might describe his court room efforts as having entailed "the whole nine yards", meaning he had referenced every relevant fact and made every plausible argument.

Is this - the pilot stuff - the true origin of that saying?

Jay Dunham, Esq. Tulsa, Oklahoma

World War Two is the most common point of origin cited, but this site has an extensive (and interesting) treatment of the subject. You can also check our article at The Whole Nine Yards, though it's less comprehensive. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own hypothesis; as far as I know it's original to me. I also fully acknowledge this is purely speculation, and I have no hard evidence to back it up. Note the progression of the world record in the men's long jump. Although they are shown in meters on the site I've linked, most of these are converted from the original measurment; in earlier years long jumps were measured in feet and inches. (You can find plenty of sites noting Bob Beamon's record-shattering 1968 jump at 29 feet 2½ inches.) Now, note that 27 feet, or 9 yards, is 8.2296 meters. The first person to break the 27-foot mark in the long jump was Ralph Boston, who did it on May 27, 1961--just about the era we're looking at for the origin of the phrase. Perhaps some sportswriter, writing about the new record, noted that Boston was the first person to jump "the whole nine yards." Chuck 22:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to be in the middle of reading Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends by David Wilton (ISBN 0-7394-5593-1), who cites detailed references for the debunking of various origin stories. His book mentions "my website's online discussion forum" but it doesn't give a URL. In any event, he notes that the first proven use of this phrase was in 1966 in a book about Viet Nam War aviators. That pretty much discounts a WWII origin--hard to believe that it wouldn't have been used *somewhere* in a quarter century if it truly started back then. But its appearance in the book suggests that it might have been in use by VN aviators casually before then. However, as noted above, there's no proof of what it meant or whence it came. He also notes that discussion about "9 yards" of all kinds of things appear in thousands of places (perhaps including sportswriters talking about jumping the whole 9 yards instead of 8.99 yards), but that it's never used in any sense that indicates that it means "everything, the whole kit and kaboodle, the whole ball of wax,", etc.; all of these other references simply flow from the context (perhaps e.g., "she bought 9 yards of fabric.... and used the whole 9 yards"). Elf | Talk 23:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dustjacket has the URL of his site, though I've immediately forgotten what it was!

I believe one of the sources for Word Myths was alt.folklore.urban; I wrote much of the current Whole Nine Yards article when someone there mentioned the wiki page was vectoring a UL, so this is kind of appropriate :-). Every now and again someone comes up and adds one on... But the answer to the original question is "almost certainly not". It seems very logical, but almost certainly isn't the case; someone would have written it down, given how insanely well-documented WWII was. (In addition, no-one's ever actually worked out where these mythical nine-yard ammo belts were used...) Shimgray 21:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Dope also addressed this question, and came up with several answers, none of them definitive. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Meteoric Rise'

I am curious about the vernacular behind the common phrase "Meteoric Rise." It seems rather odd to me that the term seems to suggest a successful advance in career or socual position, yet contrary to its apparent meaning meteors actually fall and burn. In fact this phrase exists on this website within several definitions but in and of itself has no definition. So this begs the question: What is the official definition of this oxmoronic slogan and how did it come to mean something positive instead of implying something sarcastically negative?

- BC

Phrases and slogans generally do not have "official definition". Note however that the name "Meteor" for something short-lived seen in the sky goes back much farther than our understanding that Meteors are falling rocks from space. The word "Meteorology" is derived from this older meaning. DES ^(talk) 00:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the original meaning of meteoric is "pertaining to the sky", so "meteoric rise" could simply mean rise into the sky. Shantavira 08:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that people used to talk about "meteoric fall", and someone decided to use the reverse, ie "meteoric rise". A bit like "catastrophic success". I could be wrong, though.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th edn) gives one definition of meteoric as "resembling a meteor in speed or in sudden and temporary brilliance <a ~ rise to fame>". But the etymology of "meteor" is Greek meteōros "high in the air", so maybe that's the meaning behind "meteoric rise". I don't know if a meteoric rise is necessarily temporary. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the conotations are more "fast, suddden, and brilliant" than temporary, although often rapid riese are followed by swift falls (another relevant old saying is "up like a rocket, down like the stick"). I suspect that 'Hight in the air" as well as "fast" and 'widely visible" contributed to this expression. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hills Like White Elephants" by Hemingway, the girl's name Jig

In Hemingway's story, he uses the name Jig for the girl. I wanted to know if there is any other meaning to this name. I know that it was written in the 1920's and the story takes place in Spain. It would be great if you can help out with this! Thank you! 24.185.34.126 00:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking, but Jig (disambiguation) should provide you with several different meanings of the word "Jig". Valiantis 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. To clarify, in the story, the girl's name is Jig. I've never heard of that as a name anywhere else and I was wondering if it is a name is some language, or a nickname for another name, or simply something Hemingway came up with. The character and the story have absolutely nothing to do with a "jig" in terms of the dance, or any of the other meanings on that page. Is anyone aware of the significance (or "meaning") of the name in the story?

What does "folding barrier " mean?

Not sure how to answer this. It's a barrier that folds. Probably used for temporary purposes, so that it can be unfolded and used to prevent access or to hold something in (animals, water, whatever) as long as it's needed and then folded out of the way or folded up to be moved elsewhere. Can you give some context as to why this was unclear? Elf | Talk 16:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what's wrong with these sentences, grammer? thanks...

There might be something wrong with the construction of these two sentences. In particular, with the beginning of the second sentence, 'It builds upon...' . We would appreciate any critique, correction, and especially a grammatical explanation of what (if anything) is wrong with the sentence here. Thanks if you can help.

"Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of People’s Republic of China (PRC) enjoying a high degree of autonomy. It builds upon the concept of ‘one country, two systems’ through which the Chinese Government claims to accommodate the differing social systems by eliminating the anti-thesis between the two, out of considerations for the interests of all the various segments concerned." - anon

The piece is OK, if a little bit stodgy. It might help the first sentence if you used a relative pronoun: "..., which enjoys a high degree of autonomy". Starting the second sentence with the pronoun it is part of the problem. It would be far better to say exactly what you are talking about, and I would recommend replacing it with "Macau's status" (replace status with anything more appropriate). The verb builds is awkward in the active voice, because we're really talking about an abstract concept. Therefore, "Macau's status is built upon..." would be a better wording. You might also consider a comma before "through which", or splitting up the second sentence into two halves. Gareth Hughes 11:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hughes. In particular, I think that the second sentence rambles on a bit, and would be difficult for many readers to follow. How about this:

"Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of People’s Republic of China (PRC) that enjoys a high degree of autonomy. It is based on the concept of ‘one country, two systems’ which the Chinese Government claims accommodates the different social systems of Macau and the PRC. According to the Chinese government, it eliminates the anti-thesis between the two and considers the interests of the various segments concerned." Ground Zero | t 13:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the word "anti-thesis". It does not appear in my British English dictionary, and I can only conclude it means "something opposed to a proposition or academic essay". There is an English word antithesis that might fit. However, it is a difficult word, and if this is for a general readership I would recommend finding a different way to express the concept. If, on the other hand, the Chinese government has used this phrase and spelling, the phrase should be in quotes and might even merit the addition of (sic). Notinasnaid 15:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dash in antithesis and considerations should be singular. The rest has to do with anaphora and verb frames. Chinese students make these kinds of mistakes, particularly this kind of poor anaphora resolution. I'm guessing you've got some kid from the area in a class? Here's what I'd try:

Sentence 1: What is the topic of this sentence?

a) SAR implies "a high degree of autonomy", in which case the sentence is an explanation: Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of People’s Republic of China (PRC), which means that it enjoys a high degree of autonomy.

b) Not all SARs enjoy a high degree of autonomy: Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR) is highly autonomous region within the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

c) Macau is a SAR and therefore naturally enjoys a high degree of autonomy: Macau is a "Special Administrative Region" (SAR) - a highly autonomous region of People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Sentence 2: What is verbing what?

a) "Macau" cannot in ordinary language be the subject of the verb to build upon when the object is an abstraction, because you cannot create things of substance on abstractions. Macau SAR is not built on a concept, it's built on a big rock in the Pearl River delta. Yes, sometimes people say similar things metaphorically: America is built upon an idea of freedom or The Army is built upon a sense of duty. But this is explicitly metaphorical language, and the use of the passive structure is a give-away that something funny is going on here. In ordinary language, things of substance can't be built on abstractions.

b) The Chinese government doesn't make claims through concepts. That is incorrect English. One can claim something through some sort of representantive: The company claimed through its spokesman that it was in full compliance with all applicable regulations and that it would fully cooperate in the investigation. In order for X to claim Y through Z, Z must in some way be a representative of X and Z must be capable of communicating Y. A concept - or other abstraction - cannot be Z.

c) There is no useful antecendent to help us to understand "accommodate the differing social systems". Whose systems are different? It should read "accommodate the PRC and Macau's differing social systems" to minimise unnecessary ambiguity.

d) It's hard to tell which verb is modified by "out of consideration for the interests of all". What is being done out of such a consideration? Is China making the "claim to accommodate the differing social systems" out of consideration for people's interests? Or is it "eliminating the anti-thesis" because it is so considerate?

e) The "various segments" of what? There is no antecedent here to help us understand that either. An explicit reference to "segments of society" or something comparable has to appear before we can figure out what "segments" means.

Good luck. I spent years working on verb framing and anaphora issues with Chinese university students. It's a real struggle unless they work hard to listen to and talk with natives, because it's something that they can't learn in a book or figure out by analogy with Chinese. The real trick is to get them to understand that languages do not have rules nearly so much as they have structures, and that the structures are acquired by listening to them and then using them repeatedly. Verb framing is just a fancy linguists' way of saying that. --Diderot 21:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as another ni-pick, in English it's usual to refer to the country as "the People’s Republic of China" rather than simply "People’s Republic of China". -- Arwel 23:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vorsprung Durch Technik

What does vorsprung durch technik mean in english? The phrase is German.

"Progress through technology". See Audi. –Hajor 17:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and its talk (Talk:Audi#Vorsprung?) -83.129.43.18 17:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I was going to say "leadership", but I saw "progress" on the article page and assumed that was the canonical translation. Interesting discussion on talk. –Hajor 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It even has its own article: Vorsprung durch Technik, where it's translated "Advantage through technology". Vorsprung doesn't really mean "progress", it means an advantage or an edge in a competition, it can mean the amount by which one is ahead of one's competitors, with an amount of time it can mean a "head start" (Er hat zehn Minuten Vorsprung = "He's got a ten-minute head start/a ten-minute lead"). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is it just us Brits who get foreign language taglines in our car adverts? There's "Vorsprung durch Technik", of course, and "auto emoción" (SEAT), and "createur d'automobiles" (Renault), and "Aus Liebe zum Automobil" (VW, I think). -- Arwel 23:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

createur d'automobiles is used by Renault in germany as well, never heard auto emoción (as far as I remember I never seen a SEAT add, so it may be used). -83.129.20.224 23:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with both the above statements. I've also heard créateur d'automobiles in Germany, but have no recollection of ever seeing an ad for Seat in Germany. But I do remember Fahrvergnügen in ads for VW in the United States. (And yes, Aus Liebe zum Automobil is also VW.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 01:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Fahrvergnügen is the only foreign-like word that I can think of in U.S. ads, but then I don't really watch TV and mostly ignore ads in magazines, so I might not be the typical audience. Elf | Talk 01:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that Seat is now a VW subsidiary, so there may be some corporate commonality there. Logically therefore we ought to see Skoda ads with Czech taglines, but I don't think many people in the UK know any Czech beyond "pivo, prosim!" :) -- Arwel 01:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

time idioms and metaphor

Where I can find a listing of time idioms and metaphor?

Best regards,

Alexandre Duhamel

What is the difference between the words either, and neither?

I've used the two words so often, and have caught myself thinking, "What exactly is the difference here?". If anyone can help me out here, that'd be great. Thanks.

"Neither" is "not either". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In origin, yes, but it is now used in ways that "not either" would not be. "Either this or that" means that thre are two acceptable alternatives. "Neither this nor that" means that there are two choices, both of which are being rejected by the speaker. But the basic difference is an element of negation in "neither" that is not in "either" alone. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me there's nothing wrong with "not either this nor that"; it's just long-winded. "Not either" isn't used much because the word "either" exists; is there some semantic difference? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, sometimes they're interchangeable, as in "I don't like garlic ice cream." "Me (n)either." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, in that sort of elided informal use. DES ^(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Me, either" sounds completely wrong to me as a response to a negative statement. I am a British English speaker. Perhaps this sounds acceptable in American English. Valiantis 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"not either this nor that" feels incorrect to me, soemthing about the construct just seems wrong, although I can't cite a rule it violates. If I wanted to constuct such a neagative use of "either" I think the negation ought to be moved a bit farther back. For example "I cannot accept either this or that" means the same as "I can accept neither this nor that." and both usages seeme fine to me. Also the construct "either...nor" feels wrong to me. But I could be treating my own preferences as a rule here, I'm not sure. DES ^(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "either...nor" is wrong based on switching from a positive alternative to a negative alternative, but that may be my programming bias towards or/nor/xor creeping in. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think your two examples ("I cannot accept either this or that" and "I can accept neither this nor that.") mean entirely different things. Namely in the first case, you are implying that you can accept either both or neither (in other words it is not XOR), whereas both is clearly unacceptable in the second case (a NOR). So the truth table would in my opinion look something like:

this	that	not either this or that	neither this nor that
F	F	T	T
F	T	F	F
T	F	F	F
T	T	T	F

That's just my interpretation, but I think it might have been what Lomn was trying to get at. — Laura Scudder | Talk 22:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mistake to try to force the English word "or" into a specific, consistent truth-table-style meaning. For example:

Person A: You may have beef or chicken.
Person B: Can I have both?
Person A: Hmmmm ... I suppose so.

I think that most of us would consider this to be a reasonable exchange. And yet, what does the "or" mean? Typically, we would say this is an exclusive "or"; however, if that is the case, then Person A just told Person B, quite clearly, that having both is not an option. And so the question was already answered. But then after the question was asked, Person A gave a different answer. Was Person A lying initially? Most of us would say he wasn't. I think most of us would also say he wasn't lying if the answer to the question had turned out to be "I'm afraid not."

In short, truth-table-style definition does not work for this version of "or".

On the other hand, Person A is communicating quite clearly. He is saying that there are various options available. Among these are (1) beef, and (2) chicken. Further, while other options may be available, they are not typically chosen (or, at least, they are not on the "primary option" list).

Back to the original question: "Either" and "neither" are usually used in this "list of options" sense. "Either" indicates that both of two objects are on the list (and, sometimes, that we are not allowed to choose both). "Neither" indicates that both objects are not on the list. Thus, "you may have either beef or chicken" means that "beef" and "chicken" are both among your options; it also suggests that "beef and chicken" is likely not an option. "You may have neither beef nor chicken" says that "beef" is not an option, and "chicken" is not an option. It also almost certainly means that "beef and chicken" is also not an option.

— Nowhither 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the person stating this might be more flexible, but that as a listener that is how I would interpret the two statements. Just like when someone uses or, they may assume they can ask for both, but they recognize that it was not the intention of the statement. I was merely using the truth table to explain the semantic differences I see in the statements, rather than trying to strictly enforce logical meanings (if I wanted to be strictly logical I could point out that if I added either this or that to the truth table and then not-ed it, I would get exactly what I interpreted neither this nor that as). — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rule I was taught, and still recommend, is "either takes or as neither takes nor." Although I've never delved into logic, the construction seems legitimate.--Tristanjay7 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A state of uncertainty, anticipation, or curiosity concerning the outcome of a plot or the resolution of a conflict

subjunctive

There was no question here, but if there were I'm sure the answer could be found at the subjunctive page on wikipedia. And yes, pun intended. -Parallel or Together? 07:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian for the verb to change

I would like to ask about clocks changing time (ie. going back) next month when I go to Italy, but there are so many verbs for change. How do I sort out which is correct?157.228.37.208 08:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This remains a good question, but if you want to bypass the Italian language part of the question, all EU countries follow the same Daylight Savings (not completely sure about the new states), described here - http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/g.html. Notinasnaid 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to glean something useful from it:Ora legale. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

What Does Dejarik Mean???

It's that holographic chess-type game Chewbacca and Luke Skywalker are playing on the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars. --Diderot 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding grammatical case.

Greetings, gentle Wikipedians. I'm hoping you can help clear up a few things regarding case.

Suppose the following sentence in a case-marking language: "The wallet was stolen from Renee by the theif."

With my knowledge of case (and assuming we're dealing with a Latin-like language) 'the wallet' should be in the nominative case, 'Renee' should be in the accusative case, and 'the theif' should be in the ablative case. And, I suppose, the verb 'stolen' should agree with the subject's ('the wallet') case. So, my first question is: am I correct in this?

Now, in order to convey the sentence above properly in a language that uses case, would it be sufficient enough to say:

"Wallet.nom stolen.past.nom Renee.acc theif.abl"?

In summation, my questions are as follows:

1. Did I correctly label the cases in the example sentence? 2. Am I correct in having the verb agree in case with the subject? (Or should it always agree with the nominative/ablative/etc.?) 3. In a case-marking language, would it be sufficient to say "Wallet.nom stolen.past.nom Renee.acc theif.abl" for "The wallet was stolen from Renee by the thief."

My sincere and many thanks in advance, --anon

1) I think Renee is in genitive, actually. But don't take my word for it. (And by the way, you misspell thief). 3) I think you definitely need to mark passive voice and possibly other things. Ornil 19:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of Latin has faded, but it seems to me that Renee has to be in the dative (ab Reniae or de Reniae - I forget), while thief does have to be in the ablative. You do have to mark passivisation. And, yes, in Latin the verb agrees with the subject.

The third question, however, poses the real problem. Not all languages are Latin. (Deo gratia!!) In Russian, I expect the case choices would be different, but I have to confess that I don't know how to make a passive sentence in Russian. Furthermore, many languages use Ergative-Absolutive case schemes that are radically different from Latin. Basque, for instance, would have thief in the absolutive and wallet in the ergative (I think - I don't really know Basque). In Cree, either Renee or the thief has to be in th obviative case, which totally doesn't exist in Latin, and the verb has to agree with both subject and object. In Inuktitut, I think the thief has to be in the instrumental case, and verbs do not display agreement in the sense you mean. In short, your answer is yes, in a language with the right kind of case morphology and morphosyntax; but no, in the sense that many morphologically complicated languages do not operate the way Latin does. --Diderot 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The case of "Renee" has to do with the nature of the verb "steal", not the passive voice. In German, for example, "to steal something from someone" is etwas_ACC jemandem_DAT stehlen, and that dative remains when the sentence is passivized: Renee_DAT wurde das Portmonee_NOM durch den Dieb_ACC gestohlen. (Dieb is in the accusative because of the preposition durch.) In Latin the sentence would be very confusing because "to steal something from somone" is aliquid_ACC ab aliquō_ABL surripere but the agent of a passive is also formed with ā/ab + ablative, so you'd wind up with something like Ā Renātā_ABL sacculus_NOM ā fūre_ABL surreptus est, and only context could tell you whether the thief had stolen Renee's wallet or Renee had stolen the thief's wallet. Both Renātā and fūre are in the ablative because of the preposition ab/ā. As to question (2), verbs don't agree in case with anything, because verbs aren't marked for case (at least not any language I'm aware of) unless they're participles (like surreptus in the Latin example, which agrees with sacculus "wallet"). Basically, there's no one answer to your question that's good for any case-marking language (even excluding the ergative langauges Diderot alluded to). Each language has a different way of saying "to steal something from someone" and each language has a different way of marking the agent of a passive sentence. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to generalise these things: each language will have different grammatical features. Note that the verb is in the passive voice in English here, and there is no direct object (thus no strict accusative). The subject (the wallet) would be in the nominative case. Renée is the indirect object of the verb (though a language with ergative case would mark these differently). As such, the dative case would be more typical, but the use of a preposition might alter the case (some languages would use strict case markings to underline the syntax, where others use prepositions, often with case endings). The grammatical agent is tagged on to the passive construction (as it is in many languages), and might employ an instrumental case instead of dative or ablative. Gareth Hughes 21:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a translation: Dutch to English

Vandaag is het een zonnige dag. Vele mensen gaan naar he (sic, should be de) strand. Maar wij, studenten, moeten maar weer eens naar school. Maar nu is het Woensdag-middag en hebben we alle tijd om the (sic, should be te) chatten met de mensen van

Thanks.

Today is a sunny day. Many people are going to the beach. But us students, we have to go to school again. But, now it's Wednesday afternoon and we all have time to chat with people from...

The last sentence is incomplete. 39 words at €0.15 per word, plus 35% for copyediting (correcting gross errors in the text) is €9.56 (including VAT). Next time, you get a bill. --Diderot 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

€0.15 a word? Is that the going rate for translators these days? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's usually closer to €0.20 for an individual translator's base rate for new contracts, but most work is done through agencies that really only pay around €0.05-€0.12, while billing anywhere from €0.20 to €0.50 per word to the client, calling the difference "project management fees". These rates too are often discounted for large contracts, but I'd say €0.15 per word is roughly the mean fair market price for good quality translation in the French-German-Dutch-Scandinavian markets, and €0.05 for copyediting is fair. Prices are maybe 30% lower in Spanish and Portuguese markets because of aggressive Argentine and Brazilian pricing; 50%-75% lower for eastern European markets since costs are generally lower there; and twice or three times as high (I've heard of bill rates as much €1.50 per word) for east Asian markets. If you want to make a killing as a translator, you want to know Japanese, Chinese and Korean. --Diderot 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's "het strand", btw. David Sneek 07:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frell. Ik moet volgend week mijn niveautest doen. Ik zou niet meer dit soort fout maken. --Diderot 09:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ik zou dit soort fout niet meer moeten maken. -- Don't worry, you're doing fine. --fvw * 09:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

What is the definition of the slang perjorative "tool" ? As in, "he's such a TOOL!"

I've never heard it, but at a guess I'd say it means he lets himself be used. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You think? I'd say it's a euphemism for DICK. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is right. The example that comes to my mind is from a Saturday Night Live sketch based on Total Request Live: "Thanks for watching. I'm Carson Daly. I'm a massive tool." Not to be confused, of course, with having a massive tool, which would be what I think Jpgordon is going for.

Our tool (insult) article supports Angr's definition as does Wordnet see [1]. It is a person controlled by others and used to perform unpleasant tasks. Of course, JPGordon is also correct in that it is also a slang term for a penis but Angr's definition is correct for these purposes. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I disagree with Capitalistroadster. Although tool can be used to mean a person controlled by others ("That poltician is a tool of organized labor."), in general, when used as a pejorative, it's a synonym for dick. ("You are such a tool.") User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cassell's dictionary of slang says tool meaning unskilled workman dates back to the late 17th century usually as poor tool or dull tool. Tool meaning penis or idiot is only recorded from the 19th century. But Shakepeare uses a tool in a slighly dubious way much earlier: Henry VIII (play) v. iv. 35 Or haue wee some strange Indian with the great Toole, come to Court?
I'm going to have to side with the penis-euphemism camp here too. I think our Tool (insult) article might need some updating. Anyone have a decent source? --fvw * 09:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of goes both ways. For example, if you say "Paul Wolfowitz is such a tool", either interpretation is reasonable. But, if you say "George W Bush is such a tool" you are either implying that he's being manipulated by someone else (*cough* Cheney *cough*), or you are using the word as a synonym for "dick". In the early days, when this was still "left coast" slang, it very much implied someone willingly doing someone else's dirty work, implying not only that they were doing dickheaded things, but that they weren't even doing so to their own benefit. This - for example - is the meaning implied by the Carson Daly example: It implies that he is a mere shill for Viacom. As the term expanded in public usage, the definition simplified, so that as it became a more popular term, it came to signify nothing more than general putzhood. --Diderot 13:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At my college it never meant a dick. It was always used in the context of being a "corporate tool" (which comes up quite often at an engineering school), and that was the accepted definition of the shorter "tool". But I would agree with Diderot's more general definition of putzhood, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People always seem to want a simple linear etymology for words when they often have a blend of different meanings and are influenced by many different sources. Also the same slang word can re-arise to mean a similar thing after laying dormant and seemingly dead for many years: e.g chav. Another factor is that a form of censorship hides a word's less polite slang origins and so polite and impolite forms can co-exist as in this case, or the original meaning can be forgotten such as berk. Certainly the "one manipulated from above" definition fits both uses of the word tool. MeltBanana 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In further support of the manipulation idea, I've heard it used as a verb. "You've been tooled" means that someone else has succeeded in manipulating you. JamesMLane 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

egypt

What about it? Please don't just make a section heading, ask a question. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference books for French and German

Dear friends, if I were to keep within easy reach a reference grammar and bilingual dictionary, in English, for each of French and German, which tomes would you suggest I use? Gareth Hughes 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best English-German/German-English dictionary in my opinion is the Oxford-Duden German Dictionary. I don't know of a good reference grammar written in English, though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like Cassells' English-German dictionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a Duden fan, but my grammar favorite is German in Review (although they have a newer edition now [2] to replace my old friend). It's small, clear, and has a good index, so I kept it handy until the USPS decided to dispose of it for me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, it sounds like there's a story there... I had thought that the Oxford-Duden would probably top the list for a German dictionary. I'm not sure about German in Review: is that a teaching grammar? Any thoughts about French? Gareth Hughes 11:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I have no idea. However, when you do French immersion at the university level, the mandatory grammar reference is the Bescherelle - it was a required purchase when I started out. The Grévisse (Le Bon Usage) is, however, the classic big book on all things related to French usage, including style issues. Of course, those books are all in French. As for a bilingual dictionary, I swear by my Robert & Collins.

German... I keep a Duden in the house, but the wife, who has much better German, is loyal to Pons. I hear good things about the Pons Learner's Dictionary - a number of new dictionaries for European languages are coming out based on the groundbreaking, hugely successful Collins COBUILD, and they vary a lot in quality, but on the whole they represent a large improvement over the olden days. But steer clear of Langenscheids. I don't have a reference grammar for German on the shelf though, since I've always just put all the verbs at the end and hoped for the best.

--Diderot 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German in Review is supposed to be used as a textbook, but I ended up using it as a reference. It does cover the basic stuff a little thoroughly for an advanced German speaker, and since it's a textbook it's a little expensive. I think on Amazon you can look through it a bit to see if it's what you want.

There is definitely a story behind the USPS comment: namely that I am now short an entire box of German textbooks and the many novels I'd accumulated abroad. I still can't get any sort of response from their lost parcels department more than a year later. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the Oxford-Dudens probably wins in its category, and perhaps Bescherelle in its. The French dictionary equivalent is the Oxford-Hachette, but I don't know if this is anywhere near as good. Does anyone have any thoughts on Harrap's New Standard Dictionnaire Français-Anglais? I'll certainly have a look at German in Review too. --Gareth Hughes 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German in Review would be on my short-list, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is the correct term for Peeping Tom?

Voyeur? --fvw * 01:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although a voyeur is not necessarily a Peeping Tom, because Peeping Tom suggests lack of consent, and voyeur does not. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "peeping tom" unsatisfactory? — mendel ☎ 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people named "Tom" find it questionable. Just ask John, Dick, and Peter. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our Peeping Tom article is a disambiguation states that it is a slang term for voyeur. he was a character in the story of Lady Godiva. According to a later version of the story dating from circa 1700, he was a tailor who disobeyed legend by looking at Lady Godiva riding through Coventry and was supposedly struck blind. To answer your question, Peeping Tom is an acceptable phrase to use in most circumstances. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thích Quảng Ðức

I was wondering how the Vietnamese name Thích Quảng Ðức would be pronounced in English.

Maybe our article on Vietnamese language or Vietnamese phonology will help. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General call for help

The MDAC article is in a definite need of a cleanup. Does anyone feel up to the task? A barnstar to anyone who sorts it out :-) 203.134.166.99 05:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does apple translate to in yiddish

עפּל (transliterated epl). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce "Wikipedia"

How do you pronounce "Wikipedia"? I know the name came from the combination of "Wiki" and "encyclopedia", so I assumed it's pronounced "weekee-pedia". However, my friends tell me it "wick-uh-pedia". Which is it?

I always pronounce it "wicky-pedia", with the "wiki" part rhyming with "Vicky" or "tricky". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use either pronunciation in conversation, although if pressed I'd pick the first as the more correct. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think i know what you're saying. It's just like the "i" (ɪ) sound isn't very pronounced in words like "fanciful" or "beautiful" and many people pronounce it almost like an "e" (ə). i think either way is fine, depending on your "slang" or accent. --Plastictv 07:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A linguist might be able to best tell whether or not the "i"s should be voiced or unvoiced. Often times combining words does affect the status of their vowels in many languages (in Russian, for example, one can generally only have one voiced vowel per word, so certain constructions can radically change the sound of a word). Of the four possible variations:

Wee-kee-pedia (voiced voiced)
Wick-ee-pedia (unvoiced voiced)
Wick-uh-pedia (unvoiced unvoiced)
Wee-kuh-pedia (voiced unvoiced)

I'm most inclined towards either the second or the third. But I have no idea what would be most linguistically appropriate, based on normal stress patterns. --Fastfission 22:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say Wick-ih-pedia. Superm401 | Talk 22:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced is a term usually applied to consonants rather then vowels (at least as I've always used it). I'm assuming the distinctions you are making are between /iː/ and /ɪ/ and between stressed and unstressed vowels, or possibly whether the syllables are open or closed. FWIW, I pronounce Wikipedia ˌwɪkiˈpiːdjə or ˌwɪkiˈpiːdʒə i.e wicky-pedia. Probably this should be ˌwikiˈpiːdjə to reflect the root of wiki, but that just sounds wrong to my ears. Valiantis 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say Wick-ih-pedia, with the middle part being a cross between an "ih" sound and an "uh" sound. (And my friends all look at me cross-eyed because they've never heard of Wikipedia. Go figure.) Hermione1980 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

obviously, since it's a Hawaiian-Greek compound, wiki-παίδεια, although, if you're from Ni'ihau I understand (from Hawaiian language), you may also say witi-παίδεια :o)

Has had and had has

Can you tell me in what condition we should use had has and what condition we should use has had?This seems confusing since English is not my mother tongue.

You never use "had has" at all. Your choices are "has had" (which is the perfect tense of have) and "had had" (which is the pluperfect tense of have). You use the perfect tense "has had" when you're discussing the past as it influences the present: John has had two cookies already (you're saying something about John right now). You use the pluperfect tense "had had" when you're discussing how the more remote past influenced a point of time in the past: John had had two cookies before his mother told him to stop. (you're saying something about what John's situation was when something else happened). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And just for fun, "had" has the same usage as "has had" (and throwing out the "s, I just used "had has"!) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"had" does not have the same usage as "has had", any more than "wrote" has the same usage as "has written". Read perfect aspect for more on the difference between the present perfect and the past in English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "had had" and other variants is often strange and looks "wrong" to me even as someone who speaks English as their native tongue, so don't worry, you're not alone. I usually re-arrange sentences to avoid them. --Fastfission 22:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you guys all remember this one, right?

Punctuate this:

Angr where Lomn had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

Answer:

Angr, where Lomn had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

Elf | Talk 23:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite: "The kittens that the cat he had had had had had had black fur." -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As grammatical sentences go, 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo' is pretty unbeatable. :) --Ngb^?!? 07:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo explained before, but I think I'm going to have to ask you what yours means still. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(The) Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo (in turn) buffalo (other) Buffalo buffalo'. Which is pretty much the same as yours, I think, except reversed. --Ngb^?!? 08:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like yours better. — Laura Scudder | Talk 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish forum

This place is nice for asking one-off questions, but does anyone know of an Internet forum or board especially good for learning and practicing Spanish? 63.215.122.7 17:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formal replacement for "and/or"

What is the best way to say "and/or" in a formal context? As in (for example), "We are certain that the court will declare the appointment and/or the law unconstitutional." Superm401 | Talk 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

""We are certain that the court will declare either the appointment or the law,or both, unconstitutional." Elf | Talk 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that would work. I was hoping for something a little smoother. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything else, and I rewrite those sometimes dozens of times a day. (Having just come from editing a 100-page technical manual filled with A/Bs...) All my style guides and usage guides are at home, but I'm pretty sure that's what they suggest. We could use technogeekese: "...declare the appointment inclusive-or the law..." :-) There are different ways to use the "or both"--e.g., "...declare the appointment, the law, or both..." or use emdashes to set it off "...declare the appointment or the law—or both—unconst..." or you could move "unconst." to "declare unconst the law, the..." but I think that's more awkward. Elf | Talk 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "either X or Y" means exactly the same thing as "either X or Y or both". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think not. "You're either going to stop throwing a tantrum or I'm going to lock you in the closet for another week" doesn't usually mean both; "I'm going to solve this problem or kill myself trying" doesn't mean "or both". Leastwise not when I say it. (And I'm thinking that we recently had this exact discussion on this or some other page (but probably not both :-) )...) Elf | Talk 01:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort. I guess there just isn't a good way to do it. Who says grammar is efficient :) ? Superm401 | Talk 01:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "And/or" is itself a phrase I would expect to use in a formal context if needed. I think one can find "and/or" in more contracts than love letters. --Metropolitan90 01:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean so formal it was jargon. Superm401 | Talk 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPELING

HOW DO YOU SPELL WARRENTEE

Warranty usually. Elf | Talk 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, someone who is the subject of a warrant would be a warrantee. So it depends on which meaning you intended. Again, Elf | Talk 00:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking epigram by Martial

Greetings.

I am seeking an epigram, in Latin, authored by Martial, in which he — in contrast with his usual pejorative portraits and nasty numbers — comforts a friend whose daughter has died.

Thanking you, Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Grumpy Troll: FYI, you are not just being ignored. I saw your earlier post on RD/misc, did some research, and came up with nothing remotely like what you are asking about. Sorry. :-( Anyone else? — Nowhither 11:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort. I posted my request on this page, thinking that a message on the miscellaneous reference desk was too easily dismissed, and that someone who could provide an answer to my post would be more likely to read this page. Once again, thank you! Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 11:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Were you thinking of epigram 61 from book 10? David Sneek 13:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hic festinata requiescit Erotion umbra,

Crimine quam fati sexta peremit hiems.

Quisquis eris nostri post me regnator agelli

Manibus exiguis annua justa dato.

Sic lare perpetuo, sic turba sospite, solus

Flebilis in terra sit lapis iste tua.

predator

can we take "-or" as the suffix for predator?

You have to do your own homework, but think about this: a suffix has to be added to a stem. If -or is a suffix in predator, what is the stem? Is there independent evidence that such a stem exists in English? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we're talking about Latin, and not English, then you've got a winner. —

ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even in Latin, although praedātor has a suffix, -or isn't it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition. Okay, technically, prædor can't build the PPP, so prædator is only an analogon to the sequence imperare - imperatus - imperator, but -or is still the suffix for "person who does something" when added to the PPP of any Latin verb. —

ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 10:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant is that the stem of praedor is praedā-, so the suffix is -tor, not -or. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; they way I learned it, and the way it's written down in Stowasser, for instance, is, that you add two suffixes to the stem to arrive at prædator; namely -t- and -or. Somehow like Lego, or such. ;) —

ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's pedagogically easier, because it helps you better predict things like professor from profiteor/professus, but etymologically it's better to say the stem is fat- plus the prefix pro- and the suffix -tor and then various sound changes apply to get professor out of pro-fat-tor. Theoretical linguists 20 years ago would have said that was true synchronically as well, but nowadays we're not so sure anymore! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"synchronically true" when? For Plautus? For Caesar? For Isidore of Sevilla? Or for contemporary highschoolers? The suffix was almost certainly tor in Old Latin, and without any doubt in PIE, but it's difficult to say what is "synchronically true" in a dead language :)

Synchronically true for whatever stage of Latin you happen to be looking at. The question is whether a child learning Latin as a first language (at any stage of Latin's existence) can deduce the suffix -tor from a word like professor. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but what makes you think that the likelyhood of a child analyzing -tor remains exactly the same between 400 BC and 400 AD? As you say the analysis '-or' is due to the fat-tor to fess-or sound change. When did this occur? 500 BC? Did 'synchonic' grammar decide the suffix was -or now immediately? After 2 generations? After 10 generations? Never? I don't know, but if they switched from -tor to -or in "internal representation", this would have happened over some historical period, likely in late Vulgar Latin. So I don't see why a child learning Latin in 300 BC should necessarily have the same conditions as its descendants half a millennium later? The point is that after etto goes to esso, -etto- is not a possible sequence in Latin. So -esso- is really perceived as identical (allophonic) to -etto-. In Italian, of course, -etto- again becomes permissible. This may begin with Lucan, who gives the option "Vettones aut Vectones". So I imagine that -esso- could not have been analyzed as mere Sandhi of et-to for a learner from the 1st century AD or so (Silver Latin). 130.60.142.65 15:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Еру пкфььфешсфд ыекгсегку ща еру Утпдшыр дфтпгфпу

I'm not sure, but I found the word "дфтпгфпу" on this page, which makes me think it may be "Old Samanid." Nevertheless I'm a bit skeptical, because I doubt any Iranian language has consonant clusters that formidable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the online translators, language identifiers and transliterators I've found all either give up or report it as gibberish. If it is Old Samanid that might my results, if if it is a string of primarily consonants then perhaps it is abbreviated? Thryduulf 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like gibberish to me, but I did get a fair number of independent Google hits for "дфтпгфпу". The trouble is, they were all in languages like Russian and Estonian which I can't read. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the Google hits for the word "дфтпгфпу" (http://members.tripod.com/~barashw/authors/goldst.htm and http://www.bthsnews.org/forums/index.php?s=f5888115f284e4990abaae2e71161d3a&showtopic=1405&pid=23620&st=0&#entry23620)

call it gibberish. ПРАВИЛА ПЕРЕВОДА С ДРЕВНЕСАМАНИДСКОГО ЯЗЫКА НА РУССКИЙ (from http://www.debilizm.com/hystery/gate3.html) translates as THE RULES OF TRANSLATION FROM OLDSAMANIDS LANGUAGE TO RUSSIAN as the page implies. The ones in Estonian don't make much sense to me either - its a card catalog entry for a book about the difficulties students have learning English. --Diderot 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the "Samanid" page:

A - Ф  J - О  	S - Ы
B - И 	K - Л 	T - Е
C - С 	L - Д 	U - Г
D - В 	M - Ь 	V - М
E - У 	N - Т 	W - Ц
F - А 	O - Щ 	X - Ч
G - П 	P - З 	Y - Н
H - Р 	Q - Й 	Z - Я
I - Ш 	R - К

It's a font issue. Somebody's custom font doesn't display for us.

Еру пкфььфешсфд ыекгсегку ща еру Утпдшыр дфтпгфпу
The grammatical structure of the English language

In fact, I think this is an effect of unthinklingly converting old documents in the KOI-8 format, with non KOI 8 parts undergoing the same transformation (i.e. the English bits are treated as if it had been Cyrillic in KOI 8. This accounts for the same error occurring independently in Estonia and Russia :) User:Dbachmann

*Smacks own head* Doh! --Diderot 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring that out, dab! I already had developed this theory that this was a Cyrillic transliteration of a text written in the Arabic alphabet, hence the absence of vowels. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, then I assumed that ф must be a vowel to give a decent syllable structure. Still not sure what's at the bottom of this, it must have been some 7-bit cyrillic encoding, not KOI 8, maybe Soviet era computer texts? 130.60.142.65 11:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The grammatical structure of the English language

If our English language article and sub-articles don't have information you are looking for, please come back and ask a specific question. Thryduulf 15:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know this heading is just the "translation" of the previous heading! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do you pronounce Wriothesley?

IPA: [ˈɹaɪəθsli]. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means. Answering with solely IPA pronunciation is not helpful, as 90% of people cannot understand it, even with using the article. Phonetically, it's pronounced roe-thesley. Proto t c 12:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two thousand years ago 90% of people couldn't read at all. There's still hope. The IPA I provided can be represented also as "RYE-uth-slee" if you don't want to take the 30 minutes required to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a far better answer, Angr. Well done. Now, if we could cut out the snippy sarcasm at someone daring to criticise one of your answers, you'd be perfect. And I've tried to learn the IPA - it takes a lot longer than 30 minutes, and is counterintuitive, particularly for this poor guy who just wanted to learn how to pronounce an unfamiliar name, not learn a whole lingustic pronuciation structure. You could have said "RYE-uth-slee" in the first place (although, using your new, more friendly, format, Wriothesley would actually be pronounced "ROWth-slee". Two syllables, emphasis on the first.) Proto t c 14:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, of course, it wasn't. It was a far worse answer than my original one. Saying it's pronounced "ROWth-slee" is completely ambiguous; I have no idea if you mean /ˈɹəʊθsli/ or /ˈɹaʊθsli/. The pronunciation I provided first is that given in the English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones and revised by Alfred C. Gimson and in Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary by John C. Wells. I didn't know there was an alternate pronunciation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Phonetically, it's pronounced roe-thesley" is not a meaningful statement, since "roe-thesley" unlike IPA doesn't have a well-defined phonetical meaning. English speakers all over the world will pronounce that string with considerable differences, and let's not even go into how speakers unexposed to the Great vowel shift will pronounce it. You may as well answer (maybe appropriately to the format the question is 'phrased' in), "Wriothesley".

There is no way to give a pronounciation that will be accurate and unambigious without IPA or something like it. I don't see how any of the written out forms have been clearer than the original spelling.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

true; maybe "ˈɹaɪəθsli (see IPA)" would have been a nice gestures, though

IPA may be unambiguous, but it's also not very helpful for non-linguists. In this case, it's not even unambiguous, since there are several (oh, so many) ways of pronouncing "Wriothesley", none of them clearly the "correct" one. Some will say it in two syllables (eliding the first 'e'). Some will say it in three syllables. The "W" is silent. Sounds like "Roths-ly". Sounds like "Rowth-slee". Sounds like "RYE-uth-slee. " Any of these are more helpful for ordinary humans than "it looks like /ˈɹaʊθsli/ in IPA". As I understand it, its pronunciation is a more-debated-than-you-would-think proposition because of arguments stemming from Shakespeare's use of the word. - Nunh-huh 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More helpful for ordinary humans how? Most of humanity is still mispronouncing the vowels. I have no idea what vowel sounds you're getting at. If you know English, you know how to pronounce the consonants and that the W is silent. Again, if you want to give some vague idea of how it's pronounced, tell the reader that it's pronounced as it's spelled. If you want speakers of Indian English and Canadian English and American English and English English (and all the other dialects) to get it right, you've got to use something more unambiguious than "RYE-uth-slee". --Prosfilaes 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More helpful for ordinary humans in terms of giving them a clue. The questioner is asking for a semblance of the pronunciation, not an exact replica, as there is no single acceptable pronunciation. And if it were "pronounced as spelled" there wouldn't be a question, would there? - Nunh-huh 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPA isn't "very helpful for non-linguists", and mathematical notation isn't very helpful for non-mathematicians. Yet if someone asked a mathematical question over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and got an answer using mathematical notation, I doubt anyone would accuse the answerer of giving an unhelpful answer. Anyone can learn the IPA, it's really not difficult. Professional singers, famous for having, in the words of Anna Russell, "resonance where their brains ought to be", learn IPA regularly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asked what two plus two was and got a quadratic equation in response, or were told to come back for their answer when they'd learned about complex numbers, you'd have an analogy going. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So you think the pronunciation of Wriothesley is something every 6-year-old should know? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that it's ridiculous to expect someone to learn IPA in order to learn to say "Wriothesley". - Nunh-huh 07:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you learn IPA you learn a lot more than just how to say "Wriothesley". There was a time when education for its own sake was valued. There is no reason why IPA couldn't be taught in the ninth grade. It would take one class period for students to learn how to read IPA transcription, a few more for them to learn how to write transcriptions themselves. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, ninth-graders can't learn everything that is worth learning, and if they did, most of it would quickly be forgotten through lack of use. And requiring someone to learn a phonetic system, no matter how much you personally esteem it, in order to pronounce one specific word is absurd. - Nunh-huh 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one specific word; it's to stop every dictionary and every encyclopedia and every mention of pronunciation using its own ad-hoc method. They can always look at the pronunciation key if they have to, but there should be a chance to learn otherwise.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if only the world would dance to your chosen drummer.... - Nunh-huh 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to specify the pronunciation of Wriothesley unambigiously without IPA or something similar. That's not two plus two; that's asking for how far a ball will fall in n seconds, and complaining about getting a quadratic equation in response.--Prosfilaes 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to specify the pronunciation of Wriothesley unambigiously. You'd have been correct if you stopped there. - Nunh-huh 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why wasn't "pronounce it like spelled" good enough?--Prosfilaes 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not? - Nunh-huh 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, the real answer is that it's pronounced like RIZ-LEE. Unfortunately I can't provide a reference for this, but after years of wondering myself, I chanced upon the answer somewhere, sometime, now forgotten. Cheers JackofOz 01:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahing

I have a paper here that claims that the Bahing for "man" is /m* r*/, while the word for "monkey" is /m* r*/, a subtle difference in the vowel system. The asterisk is a filled circle in the actual layout. I suspect that somebody was having font problems with weird IPA caracters. Can anyone tell me what the actual Bahing words for "man" vs. "monkey" are? User:Dbachmann 20:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Uh, maybe ● is intended? I never knew this was an IPA symbol for "Near-close near-back unrounded vowel?? Still that doesn't change that /m●r●/ looks exactly identical to /m●r●/. Maybe the claim is that there is a distinction of ● vs ʊ in Bahing, contrary to the claim on near-close near-back unrounded vowel???[reply]

solved it, the paper is online [3], the intended reading is /mərə/ "monkey" vs. /mɯrɯ/ "man". I wonder why libraries are supposed to buy these expensive "proceedings" volumes anymore, when you still have to check the free online version because they mess up the formatting :)

"Kicking ass and taking names"

Where does the expression "kicking ass and taking names" ultimately come from? I can find quotes all over the place but no ultimate source. I suppose "kicking ass" on its own is older. The "taking names" part is a little unclear; it seems to allude to names being crossed off an imaginary hit list, or maybe being added to them. 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done no research, but here's my gut reaction: I've always assumed the "taking names" part meant adding names to a list, the list of people to be exposed for some sort of misconduct. The sales clerk is rude to you, so you find out her name and tell the store manager of your dissatisfaction. The cop whacks your fellow demonstrator over the head with a nightstick, so you look at the cop's nametag for his name to file a complaint or a lawsuit. The students get in a fight in the stairwell, so you make note of which students are involved and give them detention. JamesMLane 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's generous. I, like the questioner, assumed more of a death list sort of thing. Superm401 | Talk 08:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't kick everyone's ass at once, so those whose asses you can't kick at the moment, you add to the list, so that you can remember to kick their ass later. Garrett Albright 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase strikes me as something that might have come from a cop film or TV show. Dirty Harry, maybe, or something of the sort. I've always preferred "Rowdy Roddy" Piper's formulation in They Live:

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum."

--Diderot 11:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did try searching IMDB's quote collection before posting here, but only derivatives showed up. If it was a movie or TV show quote, its origins have been obscured (unlike Piper's well-known impromptu). 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I Think the "taking names" part derives from such sources as the folksong "There's a man goin' round taking names" meaning an authority figure taking names of "troublemakers" for later retaliation. I have also seen it used in early labor union sources in a similar context. DES ^(talk) 05:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shesh-besh game

I'd like to know what does it mean the name "shesh-besh", the ethymology of the word, and maybe a little bit about the history of the game, who invented it etc.

Thanks, Ver

apparently, [4] "six-five". shesh would be from Hebrew, besh from Turkish itself. Don't know if that's true though.

Word to describe Chinese, English etc

What would be an appropriate name for the Countries section of the Dab's mainteneacne page? Listings include: Chinese, English, Finnish, French, German etc, so they are words that can describe a country/language/person from the country. --Commander Keane 10:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"National adjectives"? Shimgray 10:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"nationalities"?

"Nationality adjectives"? "Adjectives of nationality"? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good word in French gentilé. My Robert & Collins says it can be translated as gentilic, which redirects to Demonym. Ethnonym strikes me as more modern term, but since demonym already has long article in Wikipedia, I'd run with that. --Diderot 11:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Travellers

My father was brough up in rural Ireland in the 30s and the word he uses for Gypsies/Travellers is "diddycoy" - in trying to look this word up on Google I find numerous spellings such as "Didakai", "didicoi", "didicoi", but I only get a few hundred hits for these spellings. Id there a version of this that is in more common usage? Jooler 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[5] gives a dictionary entry (of sorts), [6] has a longer discussion on Usenet. Doesn't seem to be much live usage of it anymore. 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Chambers Dictionary has "diddicoy, didicoy, or didicoi /did'i-koi/, didikai or didakei /did'ə-kī/ n an itinerant tinker or scrap dealer, not a true gypsy. [Romany]" Gdr 18:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Irish Travellers really Romany? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where it gets confusing. Here's how I understand it - there were gypsies, Romany travellers. Then there were also other travellers, not actually Romany, who basically filled the same economic niche, lived the same lifestyle, &c &c. These were the "didicoi", a Romany term. However, to the average man on the Dublin omnibus (to coin a phrase), the two groups were pretty much indistinguishable, so the term for one got used interchangeably for the other... Shimgray | talk | 21:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Irish Traveller, the Travellers are "of Irish origin", which I intepret to mean ethnically nondistinct from the majority population of Ireland. The Roma, on the other hand, originated in India. The Travellers have their own language, Shelta, which is unrelated to Romany. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that's how I understood the matter, and how I phrased it on didicoy for the moment :) dab 10:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So how does this differ from Pikey? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About 'Linkers' in English Grammar.

(1) What are the linkers? (2) Why and how are they used?--220.224.3.170 02:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a context where you saw this term? --Dpr 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could try conjunctions. --Gareth Hughes 11:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly copula (a.k.a. "linking verb"). — Nowhither 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese, Vietnamese, Homophones, and Writing Systems

I'm curious to hear people's perspectives on this. Vietnamese is written using the Roman alphabet, but is highly mono/disyllabic; this doesn't appear, however, to lead anyone to protest the Roman convention and suggest a return to Chinese characters.
If Chinese...taking, purely for this question's sake, Mandarin, as an example...were to be written primarily in Romanization, do most people familiar with the language think it would be more difficult to read than it currently is with characters? Are characters truly indispensable? Perhaps it would take slightly longer to read each word (zi or ci), but after a reader were accustomed, it would probably not be very noticeable or impairing, right? I suspect some studies must have been done on this subject... Thanks!! --Dpr 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no linguistic reason why Chinese couldn't be written in the Roman alphabet or in some other alphabet. Chinese children learn to write Pinyin early on in school, and generally master it quickly if they come from a northern dialect area reasonably close to the standard pronunciation that Pinyin reflects. To the best of my knowledge, it does not take any longer to read Roman alphabet text than characters, and may take less time because of the way spaces in the text assist in reading.

There is a myth in public beliefs about literacy that experienced readers look at each character in a word, and that a Han character takes the same amount of time to process as a Roman letter. Neither is true. For emxalpe, a lot of plpoee konw taht you can rdisnoame the ltteers in a wrod, laneivg the fsrit and lsat lretets iantct, and siltl raed it. You can do this because you don't actually have to process all the letters in a word to figure out what it is. Reading characters, in contrast, requires looking carefully at each one. In the end, reading speed is comparable, perhaps slightly faster for westerners, among experienced readers. Of course, there are far more experienced readers in the west, because it's far easier to learn to read with an alphabet.

At present, Chinese written language represents something of a foreign language for 30% to 70% of the Chinese population, depending on how you count. Chinese characters do not reduce the load on students when learning the standard language - which is a myth many Chinese people believe. However, moving to a phonetic writing scheme would expose the awful truth about Chinese: China does not have any genuine linguistic unity, and half of the population finds the standard language incomprehensible, while half of those who do understand it have learned it as if it was a foreign language. If China doesn't have a single language, is it really a nation composed of a single people? China has often had to contend with centrifugal powers and local separatism. The myth of the great unifying Chinese language is what keeps characters from any serious reconsideration. --Diderot 06:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I can't figure out is "rdisnoame". The context wants "rearrange", but that's not it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

randomise --Diderot 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I don't think I would have recognized it even as "rdiznoame", though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Reading Chinese characters does not "require looking carefully at each one". You don't have to process all the strokes in a character to figure out what it is, you can skim it very quickly when it's presented in context in a sentence where only one particular character would make sense. This is more or less the same as in English, or in most other writing systems: context and mother-tongue knowledge of vocabulary and extensive prior reading experience effectively create an enormous amount of redundancy, as your scrambled English sentence shows. I don't know why you imagine this is unique to English. Chinese has the additional advantage that it's visually more compact, so that when movies and TV shows have subtitle captions, every single word of dialog can be reproduced exactly and in full, in a single line, as opposed to English close-captions, which take up a much larger chunk of screen space (multiple lines) and yet often present only an abridged version of the actual dialog spoken by the actors. -- Curps 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you have to process all of the strokes, but for the more complex characters you have to pay a good deal of attention to them. Nor did I say that you can't use abbreviated reading strategies in other languages Yes, context and gestalt form will tell you some things, in some cases enough to read, but not nearly as often as English. My point is that this sort of strategy is less effective in Chinese. After one year of Russian, I was far better able to distinguish the words I knew in print that I was after four years of Chinese. And, I question whether Chinese subtitles are genuinely readable at the same font size on screen that Roman alphabet ones are. It's true that many Roman alphabet schemes are not optimally visually compact - Dutch is the paramount example - but this is a trade-off against vastly shorter learning times to attain literacy. --Diderot 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese subtitles are actually at a considerably smaller font size than English subtitles typically are. That's how they fit on a single line onscreen. Go to your local Chinatown and rent something from Taiwan, I believe they automatically subtitle everything, and see for yourself. As for the rest, well, you can never hope to read as quickly or as well in something that isn't your mother tongue. -- Curps 08:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curps, the problem is that I can read fluently and easily in several languages that are not my mother tongue, and I know Chinese people - from Taiwan and children of the uppermost classes of PRC society - who have a hard time reading Chinese. The biggest reasons are that 1 - written Chinese is quite different from their native languages and 2 - the mastery of a repository of some 4000 chracters is difficult to acquire and maintain. As for the subtitles, I'll have to see the next time I rent a Chinese film - it has been a few years since I've lived near an Asian video rental - but I don't remember the characters being written as small as you think.

Thanks for all the interesting feedback. Sorry, however, that I wasn't so clear initially, but the main thing I was getting at (hence the comparison with Vietnamese), is, does the fact that Chinese is so mono/disyllabic mean that its number of homophones mean that it would be more difficult to understand in Romanization than other languages written with an alphabet--in other words: is there truly a high cost to using anything other than hanzi/Chinese characters? (I suppose the answer would be vastly different for modern Chinese vs. Classical). --Dpr 09:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you overestimate homophony in Chinese. Many Chinese characters are homophones in modern standard Mandarin. Few Chinese words are.

Second, take a look at Dungan language. It is a dialect of Mandarin that has been written for some time exclusively with the Cyrillic alphabet, and not only does it use a more or less phonological alphabet, it is a three tone dialect that does not mark its tones in writing. Despite this, literacy and reading abilities seem to be pretty good. So, no, homophony is not an adequate reason to use Chinese characters. --Diderot 10:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis, I think you're right about the first issue--that seems to be the missing realization I was needing. As to the second, I think you've essentially concluded the matter. Thank you for the that. ::But I must say that this is an amazing coincidence. I was literally about to insert some material for discussion when I noticed your comments; what I was about to insert related precisely to nothing other than the case of Dungan! (Just for FYI sake, Dungan has also been formerly written, very successfully one assumes, in the Arabic and Roman systems!). From noted Sinologist Victor H. Mair:

The cardinal rule Chinese script reformers must always keep in mind is this: do not panic! If something of substance can be said without ambiguity in the spoken language, then it most assuredly can be written with suitable phonetic symbols. Unless we assume that the content of spoken Han languages is decidedly less colorful and interesting than that of written Chinese, then, as the Dungans have shown us, we need not fear that a written language based on phonetically transcribed speech will be necessarily inferior to tetragraphic writing and may even be superior in some aspects. Unless we assume that the lectures of Chinese professors are babyish and the tales of Chinese storytellers are bland, then there is nothing to prevent the emulation of SD by MSM. Just as Cyrillic SD is already a reality, so can MSM gain an auxiliary Roman expression by following its path.[7] (SD=Soviet Dungan; MSM=Modern Standard Mandarin).

I think these words from a master, which accord with yours, settle the matter nicely. Thanks again! --Dpr 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You should hear my spiel on how I think Chinese written language ought to be reformed. Basically, it is more or less the sole and unique thing where I find myself in complete agreement with Mao Zedong and Stalin, and disagree with Mair. I think Chinese should have a writing system unique to Chinese, and that like Korean and Japanese, it should have a home-grown writing system. I think the best approach would be to standardise fanqie writing rather than an alphabetic scheme, and I think it could be done cross-dialectically enough that Cantonese speakers could use the same kinds of techniques to read standard Mandarin that enable French speakers to read a little bit of Italian or Spanish.

I started out as a student of language policy, so this is sort of my bag professionally, although I've moved a bit afield since then. --Diderot 11:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculate all you like about reforming Chinese writing — it may be a fun intellectual exercise — but realize that it will never happen. Sure you can cite eminent Western professors who support the idea (you could also mention John DeFrancis for instance), but then again I could cite George Bernard Shaw as an eminent authority who fervently believed English spelling should be drastically reformed (see Shavian alphabet). Realistically I think you realize there is zero chance of a fundamental reform of English spelling to a phonetic system (just try getting the United States to go metric first), so why do you imagine this could be accomplished for Chinese?

Even minor reforms like the recent German and French spelling reforms (which leave the vast majority of words unchanged) provoked ferocious opposition which hasn't died down a decade or so after they were first proposed. A reform which changed almost every single word (which would be required for phonetic writing of English or Chinese) would be far worse, because reasons for opposing it would not be mere traditionalism or resistance to change (as in the French and German cases), but enormous economic costs.

U kood riid ðis sentns wiþ a bit ov efert, but imajin riidiŋ ðis speliŋ ol dei, uud go kreizi, and more importantly your reading speed would take a huge hit. Imagine working on Wikipedia if your reading speed was cut in half: your productivity would go way down. Now imagine you were working in an office actually getting paid to read and write reports, and imagine hundreds of millions of others like you, and try to calculate the global economic impact of this lost productivity.

A fundamental top-to-bottom spelling reform (one that changes the way almost every single word is written) might be a boon to future generations of schoolchildren, but it imposes an enormous handicap on those who are already highly literate in the existing writing system, who are among the most economically productive members of modern societies. It's too much of an upfront cost. -- Curps 15:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chinese was very nearly reformed on such radical terms only a few decades ago when Mao was in charge. The shift from wenyan to to baihua was every bit as radical as writing reform, and that was less than a century ago. Russian underwent an enormous reform after the revolution. Dutch had a big reform in 1954. Japanese after WWII. Korean not too long ago. The Scandinavian languages have been regularly modified by standards bodies. Heck, half of the languages in Europe are less than 200 years old in their literary forms, and Norwegian was practically invented whole cloth in the 20th century. The truth is that most languages have a history of fairly regular reform that usually doesn't cause serious fuss.

Revolution is a regular part of Chinese history (as is language reform), so I would be careful with the word never. Indeed, I suspect it's inevitable, since the spoken language and the written - in Chinese as in English - will just keep moving apart until the written language poses too large a burden to ignore. But China needs the reform, badly and now. --Diderot 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the "enormous" Russian reform consisted basically of dropping most ъ and changing all ѣ to e (the rest was just detail), which altered the appearance of a lot of words but in principle was a straightforward change. But in any case, spelling reform was a much easier proposition when only a small fraction of the population was literate, or when the economy was mostly early industrial and not a modern "knowledge" economy.

If you look at the great difficulties implementing the French and German reforms (which leave the vast majority of words unchanged, and might yet be overturned or remain ignored in practice), the window of opportunity for even "tinkering" spelling reforms may be closing, and a drastic top-to-bottom change of writing system affecting every single word is simply unrealizable (absent extraordinary consensus and political and social will, as in the former Soviet republics switching back to a Latin alphabet after Cyrillic was imposed on them during the Soviet period). Even the Cultural Revolution, when anything related to past traditions and practices was targeted for destruction, didn't create any kind of lasting writing reform.

From outward appearances, China sure doesn't seem to "need" writing reform... if their current writing system is hurting their economy, they're doing a good job of hiding it. Would you argue that the Anglosphere "needs" the Shavian alphabet "badly, and now"? If so, are you crusading in favor of its implementation? If not, why do you claim that China "badly, and now" needs a phonetic writing system but the Anglosphere can nicely do without one? -- Curps 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume conditions have changed so much recently. France and Germany both have unloved governments that can do nothing right in the eyes of the public. This has a significant bearing on things. The 1995 Dutch spelling reform wasn't any smaller and went without trouble. As for China's need for language reform, it doesn't need it, so long as no one expects much literacy out of Chinese people. Yes, economies can grow without literacy. The industrial revolution was accompanied by a great deal of economic growth without widespread literacy. Of course, the industrial revolution was not accompanied by a rise in standards of living for large segments of the population. Unsurprisingly, recent growth in China is also not having much of an effect in improving the lives of a large part of the population. A nation can grow richer without literacy, but it isn't likely to distribute that wealth any better than Victorian Britain did. --Diderot 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The French reform was originally proposed back in 1989, the German reform was signed in 1996 but discussed for years earlier, so it's been a very long process with many changes of government in the meantime, and even after all this time, you'll find the new spellings mostly in textbooks and dictionaries for schoolchildren, not in daily newspapers or elsewhere. So the resistance can't be blamed on any one particular government or party in power, although it probably can be attributed to an increasingly pervasive mistrust of all authority figures and institutions, which only supports the argument that spelling reforms are increasingly impossible to implement in modern times.

Illiteracy is only a serious problem in areas where children don't get adequate schooling because of poverty. Among China's emerging middle class, who number perhaps 100 million, you would be hard-pressed to find statistics to indicate that literacy rates are any less than for Western countries. The growth of Chinese usage of the Internet (including serious predictions that use of Chinese on the Internet will surpass use of English in numerical terms in the next decade or so) certainly belies your presumption that the writing system precludes literacy. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the issue of why the US and UK can do without phonetic spelling reform of the kind you advocate for China. Surely the same arguments apply... however, you probably intuitively grasp how utterly impractical and infeasible it would be to achieve spelling reform for English. However desirable it might appear on purely blue-sky theoretical grounds, it isn't going to happen, and you realize that. The same applies to Chinese. -- Curps 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reforms in Germany were implemented under the Schröder government, and the French reforms were also linked to a lot of political issues, and it had been quite a while - since the Revolution - since France had attempted meaningful language reform, while it's been barely a century since the last time it happened in Germany. But geez, Curps, are you old enough to vote? Never is a very long time, and its exactly the same amount of time as when people expected another Republican president after Watergate. Times change. You think people were less suspicious of authority in the past? Read some French history. The ability of government to mobilise in favour of meaningful social reforms comes and goes. I remind you of how the same arguments were mobilised against the metric system, and still are in the US. If it's not very fashionable right now to consider using government to do anything useful in the west, it isn't necessarily so elsewhere, nor will it be so here forever. Have a sense of time! I pointed out that quite real language reforms have happened recently - which suggests that the well-publicised French and German examples are not really very informative. What seems so impossible to an anglophone who doesn't even think spelling reform is possible, much less as commonplace as it is, isn't necessarily so impossible.

As for English, it is far less in need of such reform that Chinese because mastering English literacy is easier. I should think that to be a no-duh! English does need spelling reform, more so than German, and I think more than French although opinions differ. And there are somewhat less drastic alternatives to Shavian writing, for example reforms that try to take dialect diversity and etymology into account. But there is a much better reason why it won't happen anytime soon in English. Dutch has the Taal Unie as its formal oversight body. French has the Acadeémie Française. And English has... Microsoft Word?

As for claims of Chinese literacy, the US reports 99% literacy, but more than 1% of the US population is physically incapable of reading. Stay away from official statistics of the kind used in WIkipedia. If the level of Chinese necessary to read a newspaper in standard Mandarin is has been mastered by more than 20% of the Chinese population or over 50% of its urban middle class, I'd be truly shocked. Half the Chinese population can't speak Mandarin, and half of those don't use it regularly. That people who don't even use Mandarin regularly could read and write it with the same ease that even the poorest sectors of French or British society can use their national languages is a claim that I find impossible to believe. Literacy is only a realistic option for a quarter of China's population as things stand, and what portion of that population actually is literate and comfortable writing on the Internet is, I'm certain, a great deal smaller. Compounded with the complexity of computer data entry schemes for Chinese, I wouldn't invest in a big Chinese Internet boom just yet. --Diderot 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Min Nan Wikipedia is written in Pe̍h-oē-jī (a Latin-style alphabet), not in Chinese characters. To what extent is this standard for Min Nan? Are there newspapers and books written in Pe̍h-oē-jī in Min Nan? At any rate, it seems to be another case of a Chinese language successfully being written in an alphabet. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's another example. At present, I'm not sure how much it's used in regular publications. zh-min-nan: is something of an experimental platform for Taiwanese localisation activists. But, it was once a widespread writing scheme, particularly in Protestant communities in Taiwan and pre-1949 on the mainland. The major reason why it has been fully rejected in the PRC as the basis of an approach to romanisation is that it is closely associated with Christian missionary activity. Wi-vun "Taiffalo" Chiung talks a good line on Pe̍h-oē-jī, I'm sure one could google for his website.

There is a piece in the archives that ought to be here. It was posted to the beginning of the page on the 23rd by someone who hadn't read the instructions that covers some of the political logic behind rejecting romanisation. It's here in the archives. Phonological writing leads to questions of which dialect should be its basis, and this breaks the myth of Chinese linguistic unity as well as challenging the material basis of Chinese class structure. --Diderot 12:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here's a follow-up question to that -- say I'm a Chinese Aristophanes, and I want to write a comedy about a funny Southerner stranded in Beijing or something. How would I represent his out-of-place dialect, seeing that everybody is speaking in Kanji anyway (in the written script)? 14:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, at present written Chinese reflects the way novelists used to use Chinese characters to transcribe the speech of Beijing. If you're willing to use characters for their phonetic value to write words without clear etymological roots in Middle Chinese, you can transcribe pretty much any variant of Chinese in Hanzi, but your audience will only understand it if they have some familiarity with southern speech. Alternately, you can use characters for their phonetic value and use them to transcribe the accent of southerners trying to speak northern dialects. But I can't think of having encountered such a case. On the other hand, I should make plain, my Chinese stinks. I haven't spoken it in over a year, and the four years I've spent studying it are nowhere near enough to be able to really read it withtout a dictionary. So I haven't read enough Chinese to express a truly expert opinion. --Diderot 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koom bye ya

Could you please explain the meaning of the words 'Koom bye ya' as in the song

According to the article Kumbaya, it's Gullah (an English Creole spoken on the Sea Islands of South Carolina and Georgia) for "come by here". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LETTER

I WANT A LETTER FOR GRAND PARENTS ON GRAND PARENT`S DAY IN HINDI

and a pony!

Are you saying you want someone to write a letter for you? If so, you probably won't find many people willing to help. You can your own letters. On the other hand, if you want your grandparents to write to you in Hindi, then I guess you will have to ask them directly. — Nowhither 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "uh" and "eh" for the article "a"

Here's another one from my students… Most commonly, when I use the "a" article, I say "uh" as in "duck." However, I sometimes switch to a long A sound, like "eh" as in "bay." They asked what the difference was. I tried to explain that I would use "eh" for emphasis, but even as I was trying to explain it, I found myself unconsciously breaking that rule and switching between "uh" and "eh" seemingly randomly. I'm convinced that I'm not actually doing it randomly, and that there is some pattern to it; at the same time, I can't come up with a way on elaborating on just what that pattern is. Perhaps you can…?

On the same token, are there any other words in the English language in which the letter A makes an "uh" sound? I just noticed that that seems to be unique… Garrett Albright 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you can certainly optionally say "ey" for emphasis. But there may be other contexts, maybe irony or mock decorum. Or similar. You should give a couple of examples of your "random" use. It will be rather difficult to study this, since you need a corpus of spoken English to work on, in a transcription that notes this difference. 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The linguistics blog "Language Log" has actually done a lot of research on this topic, which they call "emphatic unreduction". Here's a recent article about it. Searching their site for the word "unreduced" will turn up earlier ones.

The letter A often makes an "uh" sound; in fact, in English, most vowels that are not accented make that sound, which is called a schwa. For examples, think of the A's in "about", "media", or "Wikipedia", or both A's in "America".

RSpeer 17:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so the short answer is that the "unreduced" form occurs,

for emphasis
when hesitating (sometimes without an actual pause, because the unreducing buys you enough time to continue fluently already)

I think the unreduced forms are also very frequent before "filling noises" like "um", "ah", "like" etc.(in support of the 'buying time' hypothesis) :) 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your posts. I still think the distinction might be hard to explain, but I guess I can give it a try… I managed to successfully explain the difference between "I want to ___" and "I would like to ___" today. Garrett Albright 12:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you call the people from Munich?

Hello!

I'm someone from Munich, Germany! And that's my problem! People from London are Londoners, the happy ones from Paris are Parisians, Madrid's inhabitants call themselves proudly Madrileños and in English you call them Madrilenians.

How do you call someone, who lives in Munich? In French it's "Munichois", and in English? Perhaps Munichoites like the Tokyoites, or perhaps "Munichians" (sounds like an extraterrestrial species)?! If it helps you, the nameless people from Munich say "Münchner"... ;)

Thanks a lot!

Actually, not all places even in England take an English single word name in this way. I don't think Worcester does, for example. Or the county of Leicestershire. Yorkshire seems to lead to Yorkshireman. Not an answer, just more complication. Notinasnaid 20:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen (albeit quite rarely) people from Worcester, Massachusetts refer to themselves as "Worcesterians", but I've never heard that used about people from the English city (and I live in Worcestershire). As for someone from Yorkshire, a rather colloquial but very widespread word is Tyke. Loganberry (Talk) 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a word. I suppose one could build on the Latin name for Munich Monacum and call people from Munich "Monacans" (as opposed to the people from Monaco, who are the Monégasque). But probably the best solution is for you to move to Berlin so you can call yourself a Berliner! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately for your suggestion, there is already the Monacan tribe of Virginia :) -- "Munichian" is not exactly high brow, but it appears to have been coined (65 google hits)

The German name would be appropriate in English. We don't really have a consistent system for these kinds of names, but go with the one that sounds best (i.e. Dallasite versus New Yorker versus Los Angelene) and Münchener beats most of the alternatives. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that is, Münchner has two sounds that don't exist in English (/ʏ/ and /ç/), making pronunciation difficult. I don't see that there's a problem with there being Monacans in Virginia. After all, there are Georgians in the southern United States and Georgians in the Caucasus, and that doesn't seem to cause too much trouble. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I've heard it in English (which isn't all that often, and I've never been to Germany either), it's been Münchner. It's just pronounced like an American would pronounce Edvard Munch's name, with the u not "munch" like "lunch", but more like the oo in book. Elf | Talk 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me when I lived in Munich as a kid, AFN had a radio show entitled "Luncheon in Muenchen". And yes, it rhymed. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could call them Munichs. Hmm, maybe not… Garrett Albright 03:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bavarians? Capitalistroadster 05:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a Munichman" sounds great, what's wrong with that? In more snobbish contexts' I'd use Munichois after all. English took over all the spellings from French anyway (Munich, Cologne, Zurich etc.). Zurichois would fly too, I suppose. Not too sure about "Zurichman", though. Hm, and "Homme de Cologne"? 19:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Munichman"? I think not. But what's so wrong with Municher, Zuricher, and such? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Municher is neither English nor German. If I saw this word written down I would probably guess what it meant. If someone said it to me I would most likely be puzzled - You're a mew-knicker??.

As there is no uniform system in English for deriving names of inhabitants from cities (unlike in German where the suffix er can be almost univerally added), even for cities in Britain (compare Liverpudlian, Londoner, Mancunian, Brummie, Glaswegian), the best way to say you are from Munich is to say I come from Munich. Using any word that doesn't have widespread recognition, no matter how cleverly constructed - Monacan indeed! - risks baffling rather than enlightening the person you are speaking to. Valiantis 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think I'd just use "Münchner" - but then, I have a general dislike for "translating" placenames and the like. I recently decided to refer to "Köln" (Cologne) as "Kolin", since the only rational reason for not using the German name is that it's "too foreign" - in which case, why use the French one instead? The other one that really annoys me is "Bayern Munich" - surely it's either "Bayern München" or "Bavaria Munich"?

But, to get back to the point, since we don't have a consistent way of deriving such terms, using the local name seems more consistent than anything else in this case (it's still closer to "Munich" than "Mancunian" is to "Manchester"); the only other contender, simply for comprehensibility, would be "Municher" (on the slightly erroneous pattern of "Berliner", "Berlin" happening to be a placename we don't feel the need to "translate"), but it does sound rather forced somehow. - IMSoP 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a moon-shnur? My point still stands. Münchner may be tolerable in writing, but should be avoided in speech (unless you know your audience is cosmopolitan and multi-lingual).

I doubt there is a pattern in Berlin - Berliner; I very much suspect Berliner was borrowed directly from German (probably only becoming widespread since John F. Kennedy's famous Ich bin ein Berliner). Valiantis 13:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's perfectly alright to say that someone is a Berliner (although that's also a kind of cake, but only if you don't live in Berlin), and was so before JFK visit to Berlin. Lectonar 13:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long before, in fact. The OED gives the first printed use of "Berliner" in English from 1859. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest Berliner was wrong in English, merely that one cannot deduce a pattern from Berlin - Berliner that can be applied to all other places in Germany when speaking in English. I also didn't suggest that Berliner only arrived in English in 1961 - merely that this famous usage increased the currency of the term in English.Valiantis 18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives the words "Municheer" and "Munichite", but they mean a supporter of the Munich Agreement, not a resident of Munich. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Did you have a question? Otherwise, you can see Hamlet. Superm401 | Talk 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman to Vietnamese transliterator

Hi. Can someone point me to standard romanisation of Vietnamese alphabet? Also, I wish to know which script is widely used to write the Vietnamese language, online and offline. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnamese alphabet as we know it today is already a romanization, that is, it uses letters from the Roman alphabet although with heavy use of diacritical marks. The script used to write it offline is the Vietnamese alphabet as shown in the article by that name. Online, the characters can be written in Unicode if that is available, but if not, the Vietnamese Quoted-Readable system can be used instead. --Metropolitan90 06:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Metro. ViQR was definitely useful. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction of the alveolar-flap, the alveolar-lateral-approximant, and the alveolar-approximant.

Are there any languages that distinguish between the alveolar-flap (I believe Japanese has this sound) and the alveolar-lateral-approximant (English L) but not the alveolar-approximant (English R)? And, if the answer is yes, how common is this?

Thank you, --anon.

To the best of my knowledge, what Japanese has is the alveolar lateral flap /ɺ/, which doesn't contrast with any other liquid in that language. I don't know what /ɺ/ might contrast with in other languages, though. As for languages that contrast the (central) alveolar flap /ɾ/ from the alveolar lateral approximant /l/ without having the alveolar approximant /ɹ/, I imagine there are quite a lot, since /ɾ/ is one of the most common rhotic consonants in the world, the English /ɹ/ sound being cross-linguistically quite rare. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language puzzles

I have a question about an english construction that I have always found strange. I am not a native speaker, I learned most of what I know by endless hours of american sitcoms and Batman. It's quite common for english speakers to say something like "I'm making things worse, arn't I?". It is the ", arn't I?" that I am curious about. If you expand it, you find that what you really are saying is ", are not I". This seems very wrong, not only is the verb in the wrong form but order seems out of whack. Again, I'm not a native speaker but the way that sounds right to me should be ", am I not?" This can obviously also be used in the beggining of sentances like "Arn't I the most pretty thing you ever saw". I guess my question is this: Is this grammatically correct use of the english language? Is there some obscure bylaw in the Axioms Of English that says that this kind of construction is ok? I realise that it is mainly used in speech to speed things up by removing a syllable, but is it ok to do this in written language as well? gkhan 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is correct use of English. Or rather Aren't I? is correct English while *Are not I? (* is the symbol linguists use for an intentionally false example) is not. ~~Are~~ Am I not? is correct if somewhat stilted English. There is no obscure bylaw in the "Axioms of English" to account for all this, or rather if there is it is of no significance. English, like all languages, is simply not a creature of axioms. --Diderot 20:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is more common to expand Aren't I? as Am I not, although Diderot is right that Are I not also technically works. This is a quirk of English that I hadn't ever thought about before. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think *Are I not? is correct at all; for me it's completely ungrammatical. It's most useful to say that aren't can be a contraction of am not as well as of are not, but as a contraction of am not it can stand only before its subject pronoun. (Because *I aren't interested is ungrammatical while They aren't interested is fine.) It's interesting to note that Hiberno-English has the contraction amn't used exactly the same way: I'm making things worse, amn't I? and Amn't I the prettiest thing you ever saw? but not *I amn't interested. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was a typo - it should have read Am I not. --Diderot 21:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that "you are not" can be contracted in two ways, depending on emphasis, viz. you aren't and you're not. Neither aren't you nor aren't I are strictly speaking contractions of anything, since "are not you" is just as wrong as "are not I". aren't just crept into the inverted question by analogy and cannot be analyzed as a contraction anymore (in spite of orthography!). The explanation is that you aren't was reverted back to aren't you instead of the correct and original are you not. ~~I wonder when this happened, but I think it must have been after Shakespeare.~~ this definitely happened post-16th-century, I cannot find a single instance in either Shakespeare or Milton (and Shakespeare portrays rural clowns, mind you). Maybe a 19th century innovation? 18th century? In any case really pedantical English will not use aren't you at all, but rather are you not. User:Dbachmann 21:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the transition may be in Shakespeare's time after all. I count 5 strings "are you not", besides 5 strings "are not you". After this inversion, the contraction is straightforward, of course

Love's_Labour's_Lost.txt:    But are you not ashamed? Nay, are you not,
Love's_Labour's_Lost.txt:  ARMADO. [To HOLOFERNES] Monsieur, are you not lett'red?
Measure_for_Measure.txt:you colour it in being a Tapster, are you not? come,
Merry_Wives_of_Windsor,_The.txt:the bear loose, are you not?
Merry_Wives_of_Windsor,_The.txt:     Fie, fie, Master Ford! are you not ashamed? What

A_Midsummer-Night's_Dream.txt:Call'd Robin Goodfellow: are not you he
A_Midsummer-Night's_Dream.txt:Am not I Hermia? are not you Lysander?
As_You_Like_It.txt:And browner then her brother: are not you
Comedy_Of_Errors,_The.txt:   Adr. And are not you my husband?
Tempest,_The.txt:     Sir, are not you my father?

User:Dbachmann

Actually, aren't I is hypercorrection. Originally, the contraction of am not was ain't, so am I not was ain't I (the repositioning of not is seen with other pronouns too). However, in the casual speech of Early Modern English, this contraction began to be used with other pronouns: ain't you. Because of this, the use of ain't was severely punished in schools throughout the English speaking world, even to the extent of banning it in its original use. Without an appropriate contraction to hand, we began to use the plural aren't. Nowadays, most English speakers consider this to be the correct contraction for am I not. --Gareth Hughes 21:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol! that's a fantastic explanation, and I am sure I will bother many people who don't really care with this in the future. Do you have some reference for that? Would that have happened in 19th century grammar schools? Of course ain't I is recharacterized already, expanding to am I not I. The correct contraction would just be a'in't, as in "I'm great, a'in't?" :) 21:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much a reference, but there is a nice article on this at alphaDictionary.com. --Gareth Hughes 00:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "is hypercorrection", I think you intend to say "has its origins in hypercorrection". Gdr 20:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment, then, definitely was hypercorrection. --Gareth Hughes 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you guys, you rule. Very interesting discussion (I mean, what more can you ask for than Shakespeare). gkhan 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. "Aren't I" is plain wrong, no matter how often it may be encountered in everyday speech. The only correct term is "ain't I". The problem is that we were all taught in school that "ain't" is to be avoided at all costs. But there is one exception, and this is the very one. Thanks to our over-zealous English teachers, this very useful (and perfectly correct) bit of English has been consigned to the rubbish bin, but it's time it was revived. Those teachers are also responsible for such disasters as "there's no disagreement between he and I", which of course should be "between him and me". JackofOz 01:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC

This use of "ain't" is American English, is it not? "Amn't I" is the correct usage in Scottish English, not just Hiberno-English--Nora Brown 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collocation

I'm in urgent need of opinions on our Collocation article. What is the delineation between collocatin and idiom? Is

collocation is defined as a pair of words (the 'node' and the 'collocate') which co-occur more often than would be expected by chance.

an acceptable definition (whose terms are 'node' and collocate'?); are Non-compositionality, non-substitutability and non-modifiability just properties 'sometimes' observed in collocations, or are they by definition required? I'm plodding through [8] at the moment which seems to give some decent background, but I'd really appreciate more opinions (I'm working under a deadline here...). btw, re semantic prosody, do you agree that "set in" has negative connotations? Does that explain the funniness of Monty's "breakfasts that 'set in'" in Withnail and I? cheers, dab 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer the following almost certainly contested definition: A collocation is a purely statistical property of the words that appear in a representative corpus. Two words that appear together regularly - whether they are indicative of a linguistic function of some kind like an airplane, or if they form a single lexical item like New York, or they have particular relative distributional properties due to a semantically motivated selectional restriction, like heavy rain - all are collocations. Lexical function refers only to semantically motivated selectional restrictions. Idiom would strike me as a purely semantic test: does a structure have a meaning not intrinsically discernible from its parts? I suspect few linguists would agree with it, but it strikes me as the most theoretically motivated distinction. --Diderot 21:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so would you use collocation as a synonym of cooccurrence? (I know they're really all just synonyms anyway, syntaxis, conlocatio and compositio really all mean the same thing)

Yes. --Diderot 05:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R.L. Trask's A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (ISBN 0340652675) supports Diderot's intuitions. He defines collocation as "the tendency of certain words to occur toegher, such as grill (or broil) with meat and toast with bread" whereas idiom is "an expression whose meaning cannot be straightforwardly guessed from the meanings of the words in it, such as let the cat out of the bag, not get to first base, a pig in a poke or turn the other cheek." A cooccurrence is rather vaguely defined as "the relation between two linguistic objects which are bothpresent in the same syllable, morpheme, word, phrase or sentence." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so collocation is a tendency of cooccurrence. Noncompositionality doesn't seem to enter the definition, it's just a frequent property. The boudary to "idiom" is fuzzy, I suppose: surely you wouldn't call "strong tea" an idiom, although the preference of "strong" over "powerful" is really just governed by convention/collocation.

No, I would call strong tea a lexical function. The choice of the noun tea places restrictions on the adjectives that can be used to describe it. --Diderot 05:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, seen from the point of the view of the lexicon, it simlply means that 'strong' among other things covers a property of tea as part of its semantic field, while 'powerful' does not. People have made quite a fuss over this very example being noncompositional though. I have similar thoughts on 'semantic prosody': So 'commit' is used mostly with negative connotation? Big deal, this is inherited from Latin, it's the word's meaning, not some obscure 'aura'. My point is that these notions of semantic prosody and noncompositionality blur the domain of the lexicon; much of it could just rightfully be stuffed into the lexicon and left there. Does Trask endorse the "note" and "collocate" terminology, btw? 213.3.66.218 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, I'd recommend a glance at the work of Igor Mel'cuk who has made a lot of headway with lexical functions. (Full disclosure: I used to be one of his students.) Unless I'm misunderstanding noncompositional he would argue that strong tea is compositional enough. As for stuffing things into the lexicon, I'm from that branch of linguistics that tends to see practically everything as being in the lexicon, so it doesn't do much for me to think of lexicon as where you put thorny problems so that you can ignore them. I've always identified that position with the worst excesses of Chomskyism. --Diderot 05:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not at all (brushing problems under the carpet, viz. into the lexicon and out of sight) -- [full disclosure, I am of the firm opinion that Chomsky has bombed American linguistics back into the stone age, at the very least costing the field three fruitless decades. I have yet to see a statement by Chomsky that isn't (1) so obvious that Panini could have told you in 500 BC or (2) patently false :] I was just questioning whether "semantic prosody" is well defined. I do think it is relevant to check whether usage in collocation 'bleeds into' the lexical meaning; but there seems to be a risk of confusing (a) the inherited meaning of a word that is visible in collocations, and (b) a secondary meaning that is acquired through certain collocations. if "to cause" is used mostly negatively, that's probably (b). In the case of "to commit", more likely (a). 'semantic prosody' shouldn't just lump a and b together is all :) 07:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

is there an online paper dealing with Mel'cuk's notion of lexical function in particular somewhere? I'll do an Igor Mel'čuk article later if you tell me :o) 07:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Depends... In French, yes, I can point you to a few. I would recommend this one (in PDF). Or, for a brief but relatively complete discussion, Mel'cuk's introduction in the Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain is the most current summary of the theory. Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire (ISBN 2-8011-1106-6) is the one I have in the house. Alain Polguère's paper here (also PDF) justifies the approach from a computer engineering/artificial intelligence standpoint.

In English... Mel'cuk's book Dependency Syntax (ISBN 0887064507) is comprehensive, but not available online. This paper is new - I haven't read it - and it's over 100 pages long. Polguère discussing the computational linguistics issues behind lexical functions here (in PDF) is in English.

That's all I can find online at this moment. There is also an extensive bibliography in Russian, but I doubt any of it is online. A biography article ought to discuss how and why he left the Soviet Union in the 70s, but I don't think that story is in print on the web, just in old linguistics journals. I haven't written an article about him or Meaning<-Text Theory because I'm pretty POV, but you're welcome to. It's the same reason I haven't worked on the Chomsky/Transformational Grammar/G&B/Minimalism articles - my opinion of his linguistics is roughly the same as yours. --Diderot 22:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that's great. My interest is from a computational linguistics angle. ~~Unfortunately, precisely the SNLP2000.pdf file appears to be broken, but I'll have a look at the others.~~ I think I found the intact file here. 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

re Chomsky, gnihihih-muarhar (evil chuckle) -- let us conspire, then, into the Collocationalist Cabal and pov-push/group-revert Chomskyan/Generativist pov off the face of Wikipedia (Panini may continue hanging out with us though) >:-)

Alas, if I didn't have to get a presentation together (on collocations, as it turns out) for December, I'd love to join in a lexicalist-cognitivist jihad. Hein, you might be able to talk me into it anyway. :^) --Diderot 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Words ending in -tate

I am looking for words ending in "-tate" for a talk about different kinds of people. We are having baked potatoes for dinner and I would like to compare people to taters like an "aggitater" or a "dictater". Please let me know what you come up with! -Kim

Hesitate, amputate, decapitate, devastate, to start with, which can become people who do them. Elf | Talk 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anno-tater, commen-tater, facili-tater, imi-tater, prestidigi-tater, resusci-tater, spec-tater" should get you started. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ummm -- Tate? :p
    - adju-tater, agis-tater, agi-tater, ampu-tater, anno-tater, antis-tater, archagi-tater, argumen-tater, assen-tater, attes-tater, auscul-tater, can-tater, capaci-tater, ci-tater, coadju-tater, coagi-tater, coattes-tater, cogi-tater, commen-tater, commu-tater, compo-tater, confu-tater, cunc-tater, decapi-tater, depu-tater, devas-tater, dic-tater, dila-tater, discep-tater, dispu-tater, disser-tater, dis-tater, downs-tater, exci-tater, excogi-tater, exhor-tater, experimen-tater, facili-tater, felici-tater, gravi-tater, habili-tater, habi-tater, hemis-tater, hesi-tater, hesi-tater, hor-tater, hospi-tater, imi-tater, incan-tater, incapaci-tater, incrus-tater, irri-tater, levi-tater, medi-tater, miss-tater, mu-tater, na-tater, no-tater, orien-tater, out-of-s-tater, outs-tater, permu-tater, perscru-tater, photos-tater, plan-tater, por-tater, po-tater, precipi-tater, pregus-tater, premedi-tater, prestidigi-tater, protes-tater, protono-tater, punc-tater, rehabili-tater, reins-tater, resusci-tater, ro-tater, sal-tater, scru-tater, sec-tater, spec-tater, sternu-tater, supercommen-tater, susten-tater, tes-tater, trac-tater, Up-s-tater, ups-tater, vice-dic-tater, visi-tater? — mendel ☎ 14:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A flock of satellites?

If a large flock of satellites ganged up and all snapped a photo at the same time, they could pool their data and give an image fairly quickly, but that would be extremely, extremely expensive.--Joel 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That came from Joels detailed answer to a question regarding satellite resolution on the Science Reference Desk. I'm now curious as to what a large group of satellites should be called - is it really a flock of satellites? Or is the whole flock/school/gaggle thing limited to describing animals?--inks 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term is a collective noun, and I'm not aware of one being in any sort of regular use for satellites; I think they're pretty rare for anything but animals. --fvw * 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, it's a constellation of satellites. See List of collective nouns for objects and concepts. Bloody hell, wikipedia really does have everything. --fvw * 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that you can only use a collective noun for things that are close together? If so, the noun might be collision. Notinasnaid 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the most correct term for a group of satellites would be a "fleet" since they are spacecraft. -Drdisque 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

Is there more than one correct spelling of ole as in Ole Miss or Grand Ole Opray? If so, please provide other spellings. Thanks, Tom

Old is sometimes shortened in speech to Ol' (leaving off the d perhaps because it's easier to say the following word without the intervening d sound). Ole is the way that Ol' is pronounced, and hence it's come to be written that way. In Grand Ole Opry, that's part of the proper name, so there's no other way to spell it. But I'd imagine that "Ol' Miss" would be an alternative there. Elf | Talk 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Ole Miss" as a nickname for the University of Mississippi is also in effect a proper name with a fixed spelling. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin meaning

The latin phrase "Dom Spiro Spero" or "Dom Spero Spiro" means what? It is the motto of St. Andrews Golf Course. Thanks

it's dum spiro spero, and it means "as long as I breathe, I [have] hope".

As opposed to "dumb spiro agnew". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who said " Oh That we all could be kings"?

I've had no luck tracking this down last night; it's not familiar to me and I didn't find anything like it online or in my various hardcover quotation books. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote:

The world is so full of a number of things,

I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings

but on the face of it, it doesn't seem to mean at all the same thing as what you're looking for. Elf | Talk 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) ...I'm wondering whether you know that that's an exact quote, or whether it could be something that means the same but uses entirely different words (e.g., "If only we could all have our own kingdoms...") Elf | Talk 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't any exact matches either, but wikiquote:Humility gives "If every fool wore a crown, we should all be kings" as a Welsh proverb.
There's also a somewhat similar biblical quote: "Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we also might become kings with you." from 1 Corinthians 4:8. Of course the exact wording various with the translation. --David Edgar 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GERMAN TRANSLATION

Hi I was wondering what the Translation for the phrase" NEVER SURRENDER" is in German. i know in modern german it is"ÜBERGEBEN Sie NIE"

but I am interested in High german, or any other German translations! feel free to email me at <removed e-mail>!

Übergeben Sie nie or much rather Übergib nie (I find it highly unusual to give the polite form as the translation...) is only correct if you wanted the translation of "never surrender" in the transitive context of "never surrender something". If you want a translation of "never surrender" in its intransitive context, that would be ergib dich nie, gib niemals auf or kapituliere nie.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and I guess most Germans would rather use the form "Nie aufgeben!" (at least, that's what I would say :P ) - Ferkelparade π 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. For some reason, I was under the impression that he wanted the imperative. ::scratches head:: Well. Anyway. Aye, I concur. (Even though I'm not German, but you might've guessed that. ;))

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I guessed that...I don't know, something about your signature was a giveaway ;) I also think he wanted the imperative, but in this special case, the imperative form is almost never used in German (dunno, something about "Gib niemals auf" sounds totally strange, although it is of course grammatically correct). So as a translation of the phrase "never surrender", the more common form that is actually used by native speakers makes more sense than the literal translation :P -- Ferkelparade π 10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, on the other hand, would most certainly never say nie aufgeben! — I'd rather say gib nicht auf!. Something about the vowel clash between nie aufgeben just doesn't suit my linguistical feeling for what's "right".

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about niemals aufgeben! then? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mh... better, yeah.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ÜBERGEBEN Sie NIE is a perfectly fine translation of NEVER SURRENDER. Assuming that the object not to be surrendered is the content of you stomach :p

No, that is the literal translation; I would translate it with Gib niemals auf, but could agree with Angr. You obviously mean Übergib Dich nicht (Don't puke) :)Lectonar 13:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...which is still written übergib dich nicht. ;)

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't; when you adress a single person (as in this case), it becomes Dich (as in Du, Du bist gut or Dir, Geht es Dir gut)):) Lectonar 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doh, the context is obviously a heraldic motto or something like that. Of course Übergib Dich Nicht will be penned capitalized, on a parchment scroll winding its way between unicorns and laurel leaves. (incidentially, I think this is what was meant with "High German" as opposed to "Modern German": something in lofty style, fit to be chiseled in marble; I do think the ipv "Ergib Dich Nicht" is conceivable as a 17th century heraldic motto).

Lectonar, the German spelling reform of 1996 includes among its various improvements the abandoning of the silly capitalization of the familiar 2nd person plural pronouns du, ihr, and their inflected forms, unless they're the first word of a sentence. (Or Unless Every Word In The Sentence Is Capitalized, As The Previous Poster Suggested.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously the problem with being a native speaker; you don't really take notice of changes like that; I transmitted only what I learned in school (and would have got a mark off it I hadn't capitalized the 'D'), and never bothered to relearn it. Sorry everyone. Lectonar 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, even before the spelling reform, Du and inflected forms were only to be capitalized in letters. I personally wouldn't consider a talk page a letter. ;)

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, why is this section littered with Austrian flags? Did anyone ask for an Austro-Bavarian translation? I think "High" German is wanted. Here is, therefore, a version in "Highest German" File:Switzerland flag large.png dɵ:rf∫ nid u:fgɛ:. 213.3.73.96 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. ::grins:: Fair enough. I think he wanted Standard German, though. ;)

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The real translation of "NEVER SURRENDER" in standard prussian german (which is teached at school) is "Nie aufgeben" or "Geben sie Nie auf". It´s an order which was used during WW2 from Nazi-Germany. It´s associated with "Fight till death" which means "Kämpfe bis zum letzten Mann" Schacherl 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fast/quick

What is the Native American Indian word for quick/fast?

Please take note that there are hundreds of Native American languages. — mark ✎ 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In one of those languages, "wiki"! — mendel ☎ 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native Hawaiians are not usually considered Native Americans. Rmhermen 17:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Nunavut Inuktitut, it's ᓱᒃᑲᔪᒃ (sukkajuq in Roman) meaning "it is fast".
In Ojibwe, wajepii (ᐗᒉᐲ in syllabics), which is an animate intransitive verb, so it means he/she is fast but not it is fast. You'd use a different verb for an inanimate object, gizhiibide (ᑭᔒᐱᑌ - I think, I don't know Ojibwe syllabics very well, and my dictionary is double vowel) - it moves fast.
In Plains Cree, you can use ᑭᓯᑳ (kisikâ) or ᐸᐹᓯ (papâsi), which are kind of like adverbs, but I think you usually use a verb: ᑭᓯᐢᑳᐸᔨᐤ (kisiskâpayiw) he/she goes fast for animate objects and ᑭᓰᐸᔨᐤ (kisîpayiw) for inanimates, I think.

Those are the only ones I'm familiar enough with to offer examples. None of those languages have adjectives, so there isn't a word that really means "fast". --Diderot 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hough transform

How do you pronounce "Hough" as in the name of the author of "Hough transform". Maybe this could be added to [9]?

I, for one, want to know who Hough was! — mendel ☎ 17:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also, who knows who's Hough's hoes?

At the risk of incurring the Wrath of Proto, it's pronounced IPA: [hʌf], to rhyme with tough or buff. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fear my wrath. (and thank you for linking to what IPA is) :) Proto t c 10:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it's definitely IPA: [hʌf]? I always thought it would sound more like "though"...

If I correctly interpreted the transcription [h uh f] at [10], yes, it is /hʌf/. [11] also says it's "pronounced huff". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it depends on how Hough him- or herself pronounced his or her own name. The pianist Stephen Hough calls himself "Huff", but I have a friend with the same surname who calls himself "Hoff". By the way, while I'm on the topic, Mt Everest is almost always mispronounced. Sir George Everest, after whom it was named, pronounced his own name EVE (as in Adam and Eve)-REST. Cheers JackofOz 01:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native English speakers saying Engrish

I was listening to a lecture series on tape, in which the English throne came up quite often. The obviously American lecturer quite frequently says "Engrish" instead of "English", but clearly has no problems pronouncing the letter l in other positions, and in fact says the word correctly a couple of times (although it seems only with special emphasis on the word, as if focusing on it in particular). It has become quite disctracting, so I have spent some time wondering if this is perhaps the remnant of a minor speech impediment. Anyone have any insights into whether I'm on the right track, or what type of disorder would cause such a mispronounciation in someone who otherwise exhibits no problems? — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a dialect to me. g is velar, so the idea that l might be assimilated to a velar r after g isn't implausible, but they ought to do it after k and ng too. --Diderot 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, her accent is, aside from the one oddity, Standard Midwestern, which is part of why it stands out so much. I'll try to find some kl words, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she was just parodying an inexperienced Chinese/Japanese speaker? ;p splintax ^(talk) 09:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I find a word that means,"the act of growing up"?

Maturing? Elf | Talk 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or maturation? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Growth. Neutrality^talk 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need a translation, Please.

Enscribed on a bayonet taken in Germany in WWII-- "Mud Armen der Chat - Mai 1879" Thanks Phil

Hmm... AFAIK, Mud isn't a German word, and Chat wasn't one in 1879 (today it means on-line/internet chat). Are you sure you've deciphered the letters correctly? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

words with the letters ph in it

Looking for words with the letters ph together but they don't make the "f" sound--12.210.190.31 03:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can they be in different syllables? "chophouse" and "flophouse" would fit the bill, for starters. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haphazard comes to mind too, but in the future please do your own homework. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it looks like it only happens in compound words. splintax ^(talk) 09:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

education

how many university in Peterborough?

There are a number of places called Peterborough. In Peterborough, Ontario, you can find Trent University and Fleming College. The other towns with this name, including the original Peterborough don't have universities. --Gareth Hughes 10:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Female First Names

What is the origin and meaning of the name Taimi?

In the Finnish language, it means "Sapling" or "Young tree". See [12] gkhan 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

language -grammar

does a language have to be logical?

only in the very literal sense of "logical".

See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — mendel ☎ 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about natural languages: only to the extent that human cognitive capacities are logical. — mark ✎ 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, are they logical? if human cognition is not logical, I would wonder whose cognition is. angelic cognition? In any case, the argument goes only one way. If humans do not have the capacity for logic, it is impossible that languages are logical. Conversely, if humans do have the capacity, language could still be either logical or illogical. The question is about grammar (or lexicon?) I suppose; is it logical to express stuff the way it is done, or not. This question was asked by Patanjali, I think,

kim punar nityas shabdas ahosvit kaaryas

"is shabda (parole) eternal, or artificial (man-made)?"

By "eternal", I think, he means something like "necessary", from which would follow that grammar is in some way the logical conclusion of some first principle. Plato's Critias, probably slightly earlier, wonders about similar questions, but mostly concerning lexicon, not grammar. People never stopped wondering why languages were so different, thinking there must be some original underlying unity (confusion of tongues). The speculative grammarians tried to find rules that govern all languages; a recent incarnation of such speculation calls itself universal grammar. since (before) the Renaissance, however, the plurality of languages has come to be seen as something valuable rather than the result of the confusion of an originally pure state (de vulgari eloquentia), a language giving its speakers an identity, and a culture (most, if not all, natural languages are named after the people speaking them). Human language developed during the Pleistocene (but I wouldn't be surprised if people during the Pleiocene had a lot of fun babbling at each other, too), and obviously the idea was so great that not a single people in any nook or corner of the globe has ever given it up again. The great thing about it is that it uses exploits convention (l'arbitraire du signe) and is in that sense kaarya, but it is kept within strict bounds by the conditio humana (it has to be learnable by toddlers; there are only so many sounds humans can produce; there are only so many terms humans can remember, and only so many loose ends the brain can keep track of at the same time), so that human languages will only ever occupy a tiny section of generalized models of formal grammar. But other people will put things differently, to be sure. Baad 12:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baad, you're making some fine points here. I largely agree; what I meant to say is that, in my opinion, human language mirrors human cognition in that it has the capacity for logic, while at the same time it cannot be fully described in terms of logic (and logic in this context would be good old formal logic). So I'd say that the tiny section of generalized models of formal grammar you're allocating to human language describes some important subsystems of human language, but not all of it. — mark ✎ 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hm, I'm not sure I understand; maybe I agree. I think that formal logic constitutes a small subsection of human language, in the sense that it is possible to make unambiguous if/then/else/and/or/nor statements in natural language, but that's not all there is to language, nor is it even typical for language. people with perfect control of their native language but without training in mathematics find it difficult to follow very simple statements in formal logics. people have to concentrate much more to follow a simple modus ponens/modus tollens argument that to listen to a fantastic fairy story about dragons and magical cauldrons. In that sense, logic is achievable for human language, but it is not at its core; classification is, i.e. the lumping of things into rough groups. Baad 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your description of formal logic and its relation to, or place within, human language. On a sidenote, I'm not sure if I would say that classification (categorization) is the core of human language; it is certainly a central cognitive capacity to humans, but given the purpose of language, why would it be the core of language? — mark ✎ 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

at the core of the lexicon, I should say: since without lumping items into categories or 'ideas', all you'd ever have are proper names; you need some notion of all rocks having some essence in common before you can coin a word for 'rock'.; at the core of syntax, because you need classes of things before you can apply rules to them; you need to recognize a word as a 'noun' so you can treat it like all other nouns; otherwise, language would just be a bag of words. I agree that it is not peculiar to language, but a prerequisite. apes developed a conscious notion of 'semantic category'; human language started to build on that. I am very intrigued with the idea of Frits Staal that syntax evolved independently of semantics, as "rules without meaning"

A minute ago I asked my wife "What's the core of a car?" and without hesitation she answered "the engine". Alright, categorization is a mechanism that is very central to language. Still, I think of it as a more general cognitive capacity and I think I'd feel more for generativity (or combinatoriality) as the core of human language. Generativity strikes me as a mechanism that really is as central to language as the engine is to the car. It's nit-picking really, of course, which is why I'm still typing between <small>'s. As for Frits Staal, I had never heard of him, but his hypothesis sounds sensible to me. — mark ✎ 16:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are right; "categories" are a prerequisite, like the invention of the wheel if you're going to build a car. combinatoriality or recursiveness may be the actual core that makes a grammar a grammar. we should take this to Origin of language of course (which I've been meaning to expand for some months now...) 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is Harry Potter

See Harry Potter. Notinasnaid 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is rumoured that he's prime minister of the Netherlands :) . DirkvdM 17:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

translation of word

Please translate the words Pott þett jol. It is the title of a Christmas music cd. --70.113.205.105 02:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it appears to mean "pot that yule". From a websearch, it looks to me like pott þett is a slang expression. Maybe the sense is "to hell with Christmas" or something?

You could try posting the question at Talk:Icelandic language too. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LETTER WRITING

When writing an offial letter to a person whose name and gender is unknown (for example when applying for a job), what is the correct mode of address (Dear ...)?

Well, job counselors will tell you to do a little research and find out the name and gender of the person most likely to be reading your job application. Failing that, you could try "Dear Sir or Madam" or "To whom it may concern". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would always prefer Dear Sir or Madam to To whom it may concern, and the traditionally close would be Yours faithfully. --Gareth Hughes 17:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find "To whom it may concern" rather impersonal. I prefer to put "Madam" first: "Dear Madam or Sir". Benne 20:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yours faithfully? In what country? Certainly not in the US. It would be considered decidedly odd. Sincerely or Sincerely yours would be an appropriate close for an American business letter. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK Yours faithfully is the standard close in a letter to an unnamed person, Yours sincerely is the standard close in a leter to a named person, and Hugs & kisses is the standard close in a letter to a frequently named person. I was unaware that letter writing was practised in USA. --Gareth Hughes 22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gareth Hughes's first two comments - here in the UK, Yours faithfully is indeed considered a better match for Dear Sir/Madam than is Yours sincerely - but I don't think Hugs & kisses could be said to be anything close to "standard" for more informal letters. From those very close to you, Love is common, while for othe informal contexts I see Best regards, All the best and similar considerably more often than Hugs & kisses. Loganberry (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern and sincerely or yours truly are quite sufficent. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where the person who posed the original question is from, but in British usage, a letter applying for a job addressed To whom it may concern and ending with yours sincerely or yours truly would be unlikely to go to the top of anyone's recruitment pile - unless the ability to write a letter was absolutely not a requirement of the job! See Gareth Hughes' answer for British usage. (He's joking about the Hugs and Kisses).

Surely, even in the US, To whom it may concern is more appropriate for messages posted in the street than to a letter which is likely to be read by an individual sir or madam. Valiantis 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, in the U.S. or Canada, "Dear Sir or Madam" (reversed if you pleased) is your best bet; "To whom it may concern" would be ok for an open letter, say a reference letter that you're writing for an applicant to show anyone they want, but not to a particular person. If the letter is unsolicited, neither is nearly as impressive as finding a real name, but if it's in response to an ad and no name is given, you might try writing it in memo form, in which there is a "re: " line quoting the job title and no salutation. I have been very much unaware that anyone gives a darn about the difference between truly, faithfully and sincerely, so I guess I have homework to do if I ever want a job in the U.K. Sharkford 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yours faithfully will, I suspect, die out in the next few decades. My reason - every time I go to sign off a letter in MS Word a little tool tip pops up so I can autocomplete with Yours truly. Anyone who learnt to write letters in the computer age will probably take this to be correct. (By the way, my settings are all for UK English, but apparently Bill Gates has decided he writes British English better than I do). Valiantis 23:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. You're the first person I've ever heard of who didn't turn off that obnoxious tip option in MS Word at the first possible opportunity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"He doesn't forget a favour"

I heard this saying today and I gotta say I'm confused. Does this imply that he (by the way, the saying referred to Tom DeLay) doesn't forget when someone done a favour for him, or when hehs done a favour for someone else, or both (or neither). --Ballchef 10:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it means he doesn't forget when someone has done him a favor. That way he can repay the favor some other time. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeLay assuredly does not forget when he has done someone a favor, nor is he ever liable to allow them to forget it. But I agree with Angr about what was meant. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?

does the word garish mean filled with balloons, neon lights, and obnoxious waiters, or tasting of turnips?

No, though the baloons and neon lights might make it. It means excessively overdecorated. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lemony Snicket likes to play with your head like that. Usually the word does not have the exact meaning that he states, but rather carries the same connotations or could apply to that situation. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 00:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does majordomo mean?

I can't find it in Wiktionary, so I'll refer you to Dictionary.com. --Metropolitan90 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can designates a few similar positions that are mostly synonym to "head butler", Iif I'm reading Oxford's correctly. Circeus 18:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

frame the question

Please frame a question for this sentence.

Mr.A.B.Vaajpayee was the 13th primeminister of India.-----03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)~

Was Mr. A.B. Vaajpayee the 13th prime minister of India? —Wayward 04:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that would be the question framed for the sentence 'Yes' :P. What about Who was Mr. A.B. Vaajpayee?? (assuming that in the given sentence 13th, primeminister, or India are not stressed/given prominence). — mark ✎ 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in that case,

"who was the how-manieth what of where?"

Or

"Why did Mr.A.B.Vaajpayee, despite the rejection of his party in 2004, retain a position of esteem and respect amongst common people seldom offered to politicians in India, the Indian people remaining fondly attached to this humble man who shouldered their gigantic nation, all its dreams and nightmares in chaotic storms, with the inherent invulnerability of his smiling face? "

(could somebody fix the fawning Hindlish of the article in question, or mercifully blank it, thanks) incidentially, according to our count, he was the 10th PM, who "resumed office" in 1998. In fact, "13th" is wrong by any count, since if you count "resuming" PM's twice, you'd also have to count Indira Gandhi as 6th as well as 3rd, making ABV number 14. So, in the spirit of ex falso quodlibet,

"what do you conclude from the fact that the Vedas were composed by superhuman neolithic Proto-Aryans at the Sarasvati in 6000 BC?"

:o) 11:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar term needed

So I've been having this debate with a friend about what you would call word groupings that sound grandiose but upon further scrutiny are almost non-sensical such as: "Stand strong in the face of adversity", "sieze the moment", "War on Terror". A tangible action with a intangible foe. Something which uses key words to evoke a familiar emotional reaction with something intangible.

I've been told it is a form of an Oxymoron, catchphrase or compressed paradox. What is this really? My friend does not agree that it is an Oxymoron or a catchphrase. I'm not sure that it is either because there is conflict not contradiction.

If anyone knows I'd greatly appricate your help in resolving this.

Thanks, Tammy

I'm not sure why you consider either the first or the second (which I think is "seize the moment") as nonsensical; both seem to make sense as strong metaphors (though "cease the moment" doesn't). Yes, I'm avoiding the policical one. Metaphors never make literal sense, though. Notinasnaid 08:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Idiom artcile. I don't think these are idiomatic, but I think its something along those lines. Thryduulf 11:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

these are phrases that used evoke strong images, but became the victim of their own success, and by being overused, they paled into clichees. Had they not been overused, they would still be strong. (not "war on terror" of course, that's just an embarassing attempt at propaganda by an illiterate regime). 81.63.58.100 11:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thryduulf that "standing strong in the face of adversity" and "seizing the moment" are simple metaphors. "War on Terror" isn't a metaphor, because it's a literal war ("War on Poverty" and "War on AIDS", however, are metaphorical wars). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, the war may be literal, but is it being waged on an emotion? It seems quite metaphorical to me to claim being at war with "terror".

Well, that's true too. It would be less metaphorical to call it a War on Terrorists. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They could be considered catchphrases because of their overuse by the media and politicians but they are something more in a grammatical sense. I can't agree that they are metaphors since they are not comparing anything. They are definately figures-of-speech. They resemble more closely a compressed paradox. These phrases clearly are using conflict to get an emotional reaction.

I can say this, "in the face of" is highly overused. I think it is time for us to go back to simple english and calling things like they are instead of trying to paint a prettier more confusing picture. --anordinarygirl 01:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help rephrasing a sentence

In the article The Masters Apprentices, I'm having trouble trying to rephrase this sentence that an anon recently added, so it sounds more encyclopedic: "Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honour of the band, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publically admitted being a fan of."
You don't "publicly admit" to being a fan of a band, nor should that sentence end with a preposition. How would I rephrase the sentence so that the words "publicly admitted" aren't in the sentence, and it doesn't end in a preposition? Thanks. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 21st century; there's nothing wrong with ending sentences with prepositions. Publicly, however, is spelled without an -al-. (I think it's the only exception to the rule that says an adjective in -ic gets an adverb in -ically.) Nevertheless, you could recast the sentence as: "Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honour of the band, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has stated is one of his favourites." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honor of the band, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt is a fan." Neutrality^talk 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Angr said, there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a proposition. And what at first may look like a preposition may in fact be a phrasal particle. For example, "The last pot was one of the few this usually successful gambler raked in." Recasting this wouldn't work: "The last pot was one of the few in which this usually successful gambler raked." In this case, in is not a preposition; it's part of the phrasal verb raked in. So pay no attention to the rule; it's wrong. Pay no attention to those who pay attention to the rule, unless they pay you to; they're ignorant. Instead, speak the way it sounds right to you, and write the same way. —Wayward 03:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

now now -- there may be nothing wrong with ending sentences in prepositions in principle, but if they get separated too much from the finite verb, the result may still be awkward. I note that you in spite of assuring that sentence-ending pps are fine at the end of the sentence, suggest a variant that do without them. Your suggestion is fine, of course, because the "admit" part does not seem to be absolutely necessary. But assume the context would require the "admit" --

, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted being a fan of.

could be recast into

, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted to being a fan.

or

, being a fan of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted to.

or

, to being a fan of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted.

I admit that the middle option sounds best to me, in spite of again ending in a preposition :) 05:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've gone with :"Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honor of the band, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt is a fan." And yes, sometimes the rule about a sentence not ending with a preposition can be ignored, or disposed of. The sentence I quoted above didn't seem right to me at the time, so that's why I queried it. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this say?

There is a User:د.علاء محمود التميم on Wikipedia with no contributions...What does the username say? --HappyCamper 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure -- it seems to say something like "the lofty and commendable Tamim", but it may just be a name. 130.60.142.65 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. 'Alaa Mahmud al-Tamim. It's simply a name. By the way, in Arabic adjectives follow the nouns they refer to, and take the definite article if the noun is definite, so if it was indeed the "lofty and commendable Tamim" (which sounds pretty cool), it would be something like التميم العالي المحمود i.e. al-Tamim al-'ali al-mahmud. Palmiro | Talk 07:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym for Alien

Hey there! Could someone give me some synonyms for Alien (Extraterrestrial Lifeform)? It would be very kind --84.154.133.69 19:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about these?

Little Green Men
Mermaid and Merman
Intelligent life from outside of Planet Earth
Illegal Immigrant
Artificial Intelligence
Cryptozoology

Consider the characters in

Contact by Carl Sagan
Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein
War of the Worlds by H G Wells

Consider the artifacts in

2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C Clarke
Gateway by Frederik Pohl

Earth Human encounters with intelligent sentients from other civilizations have been a staple of Science Fiction since the very early days of the genre. They are not limited to extra terrestials. Some are encountered via time travel. AlMac|^(talk) 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant The War of the Worlds (novel). Garrett Albright 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

juxtaposition

what is an example of juxtaposition not use in literature?

Could you try rephrasing that question? Unless you'd be happy with an answer like "an apple and a piece of cheese side by side on a plate", it's not clear what you are asking. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of the word "Savior"

When was the word "savior" first spelled this way (that is as opposed to "saviour") and by whom was it first used in this spelling

The earliest citation of the spelling Savior in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1753 (1762), by Jonas Hanway in An historical account of the British trade over the Caspian sea; with a journal of travels from London into Persia and back, I III xxviii 121. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to search some old documents for this - the Douay-Rheims Bible has it spelt as "savior" once, in 1 Paralipomenon, but consistently "saviour" otherwise. At least, so says the Gutenberg transcription... if correct, that would be 1752 or so, just ahead of your citation. But it may have been a typographical error. Shimgray | talk | 10:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is one of the (few!) cases where the Americans get it "right", compared to the British :)

Latin salvator > Old French sauveour (> Modern French sauveur) > English saviour > American savior

even better of course is

Latin color > Old French colur (> Modern French couleur) > English colour > American color.

Yeah, but English isn't Latin ;-) There's a good few in both variants of English which standardised as "-or" - author, governor, emperor... Shimgray | talk | 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of a former student of my father (a professor of music theory), who although American thought it looked sophisticated to use British spellings. Trouble was, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and he wound up producing such "hypercorrections" as tenour. (I think most well-read, smart-ass American kids go through a stage of liking British spellings when they first discover them, sometime between the ages of 12 and 15 or so, but this kid was already an undergraduate and really ought to have outgrown it by then.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phonics teaching and symbols outside of America

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (pronunciation), it's come up that the phonics symbols most American children learn in school are unfamiliar outside of America. When I was in elementary school, we learned about "short" vowels (bat, bet, bit, bot, but) and "long" ones (bait, beet, bite, boat, boot). To help us learn how to pronounce and spell words, teachers used phonics symbols. Short vowels were symbolized by no diacritic (a,e,i,o,u) or with a curvy mark (ă,ĕ,ĭ,ŏ,ŭ). Long vowels were symbolized by macrons (ā,ē,ī,ō,ū). I don't remember what they used for other vowels, except for the schwa (ə).

These symbols are so familiar to Americans that all American dictionaries aimed at the general public use them, although they differ widely in how they represent other vowels. I was very surprised to learn that British people were not familiar with these symbols and that the International Phonetic Alphabet is used in ordinary British dictionaries.

My question is: Are British (and Australian, NZ, South African, etc.) children taught the IPA from an early age? Or do schools in those countries avoid phonics in favor of whole language? Or do people use the standard phonics symbols as children then abandon them for the IPA when they get older? Mwalcoff 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly offer my opinion that not very many Americans appear to be familiar with the ĭ vs. ī notation. the 'popular' dictionaries appear to give ee, oo rather than ī, ū. If you are familiar with the latter (i.e. you have learned to undo the great vowel shift in your head, that at first is rendered invisible to native English speakers who have mastered the irregular orthography it has produced), you have already mastered a first step towards IPA. In Europe, IPA is common in dictionaries, but it is not imposed on kids as a rule. I think people tend to learn IPA with their first foreign language, because they then have to cope with an alien phonology; for pedagogical reasons I think (I estimate, I don't know), IPA is only thrust upon teenagers as a rule, but not upon children of more tender ages, who have yet to become comfortable with their native orthography. 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC) <--(This unsigned comment by 62.202.72.44, presumably a user in the Netherlands)

I'm no expert on dictionaries, but I've never seen one that uses ee, oo, and so on. Other types of reference books might, but Merriam-Webster, New World, Random House, etc., use the macrons. Perhaps most American adults have forgotten the notation of macrons and breves, but I'm pretty sure they all learned them at some point, unless they grew up during the whole-language craze. Out of curiousity, how widespread is knowledge of IPA among the general population in other countries, especially in the English-speaking world? (Note: I'm not trying to take the debate from the MOS talk page here; no rhetorical points intended.) Mwalcoff 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, I'm another american who's comfortable with the notation used in Merriam-Webster etc. and baffled by IPA. I think it's entrenched, not unlike the government's half-hearted and then abandoned attempt to get us to think metric. It is odd how such simple things are so different-- Elf | Talk 23:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in America and wasn't exposed to IPA symbols until I was in high school and my sister gave me a linguistics textbook for Christmas (how well she knew me!). We certainly weren't introduced to it in school; I wasn't taught it in a classroom until I took linguistics classes in college (and even then it was more like to be the Americanist phonetic notation using /y/ for a palatal approximant and /š/ for a voiceless postalveolar fricative and so forth). We did use a dictionary-style phonetic notation in fourth grade, I think, but it was dropped again the next year. I think I was the only kid in the class who understood it, and I remember that neither the teacher nor I could understand why they had separate symbols for the vowels of cot and caught! Even in high school French we never used any phonetic notation, we just learned to pronounce it by listening to tapes and imitating the teacher. Now I live in Germany, and I've taught introductory phonology in Ireland. I think German kids may be exposed to IPA in English class in Gymnasium, but they certainly don't learn to write in transcription themselves. I'm pretty sure Irish kids aren't exposed to IPA at all in school, to judge by the students I had. But again, to judge by the students I had, I think IPA is actually quite easy to learn to read passively. It really only took one class period for students to be able to read whole sentences written in IPA transcription. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course cot and caught are pronounced differently--probably in some regions and not in others--"cot" like "spot" (of course I don't know how you pronounce spot, either...I guess that's where IPA etc. come in handy;-) ) ; "caught" more like like "bawl" but not usually quite that exaggerated--except it is that exaggerated in some regions. Elf | Talk 19:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're pronounced differently if you happen to speak one of the accents in which they're pronounced differently. But see cot-caught merger for discussion, and a map of areas in the U.S. where most people pronounce them the same. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool article and map! That explains it--I've lived a very many years in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm digressing--but the other day I was telling someone else about Canyon de Chelly. She was intrigued not so much by the pronunciation of "de Chelly" (d'SHAY) but by my pronunciation of "canyon". I tried, but for the life of me (and for all my amateur experience with linguistics), I couldn't tell the difference between how she said it and how I said it, but she could! Elf | Talk 20:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for the purposes of the MoS, of course, this encyclopedia not being specifically targeted at pre-highschool ages, there can be no doubt that IPA is the only way to go; pedagogical and regional issues within and beyond the Anglosphere should of course be discussed in the appropriate places in articles on phonology, but should not have any impact on MoS design decisions: even Americans, as soon as they want to discuss phonology on a serious (encyclopedic) level, have no choice but to cope with IPA. That said, the overlap between APA and IPA will take you a long way already; the more obscure symbols of IPA are only rarely used to discuss really obscure phonetical points that couldn't possibly be made otherwise. 10:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Americanist phonetic notation I mentioned is not the same as the American "dictionary" symbols. The "dictionary" system is willing to use digraphs for single sounds (for example, /sh/ for /ʃ/ and /th/ for /θ/), while the APN sticks to the IPA policy of one symbol for one sound (except affricates and diphthongs), using /š/ for /ʃ/) and /θ/ for /θ/). The APN acknowledges that the vowel of "price" (IPA /aɪ/) is a diphthong, transcribing it usually /ay/, while the "dictionary" notation considers it a long vowel and transcribes it /ī/. Basically, no professional American linguists have ever used the "dictionary" symbols; the two competing systems are the APN (or modifications of it like the symbols used in The Sound Pattern of English) and IPA. There used to be great prejudice against the IPA in the U.S.; I remember reading about an American Structuralist (I can't remember who now, Leonard Bloomfield, or Zellig Harris, or someone like that) actually getting angry at a student for using the IPA. I think even today at American universities, phoneticians will use IPA, but phonologists will usually use some modification of the Americanist system. For an American phonologist to use the IPA almost seems to be making a point, almost saying "Look at how international I am!" But I don't think any phonology professor today would scold a student for using it! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the earlier question about what kids outside the US are taught as regards phonics, I know that in the UK, the subject does not come up, at all, in a standard school syllabus up to the age of 16. No form of pronunciation symbolism is used. It could possibly be studied as part of certain A-level syllabuses (syllabi?), although it is rare, even more so than IPA. Teaching in the UK uses the whole language route. Even when learning a second language - French, German, Welsh, etc (although Welsh is basically phonetic), there is no use of pronunciation symoblism as a teaching aid. You just pick up how to pronounce words correctly. I think it probably makes learning a second language easier in the long run, rather than relying on symbolic representations to tell you how a word should be pronounced. Proto t c 11:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easier, yes. But the students end up not being able to make phonemic distinctions in the target language not present in their native language, and not even understanding that there is a phonemic distinction in the target language that isn't present in their native language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point ... it probably depends on the teacher more than anything, as with all forms of learning. Proto t c 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Proto. This raises an interesting point. If students aren't systematically taught the IPA in Britain, how many Britons are familiar with it? Mwalcoff 00:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside those who are studying linguistics, etc ... very few. Proto t c 08:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a phonic approach to teaching English (or more precisely teaching reading to children) which was fairly widely used in the UK in the 1960s see the article on the Initial Teaching Alphabet. Not in use at all now, as far as I know. (Primarily because those who'd learnt to read and write with a 45 letter alphabet had trouble converting to the latin alphabet). On a more general point I think it would be a definite oversimplification to state that the UK uses the whole language route - see the article on phonics for more information on its use in the UK. However, this is very much phonics in primary school teaching sense (c-a-t = cat) rather than any sort of modified writing system, set of diacritics etc. such as the initial questioner refers to. Valiantis 22:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yefars. What is the meaning?

This word showed up in a book a friend is reading. We thought it curious so did a search on it (Google, Yahoo! and Wikipedia). The former two returned many instances in which it appears to be merely a mispelling. However, several results were returned in which the term "yefars" may have some meaning in Arabic. Unfortunately my friend and I are not conversant in this language and wonder if someone who is [conversant in Arabic] would be so kind as to enlighten us on its meaning (formal and/or colloquial if you will). Thank y'all kindly.

What was the context it originally appeared in? Shimgray | talk | 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi

unfortunately, our Hindi article doesn't seem to give any morphology. I am interested in the verb system. I hear Hindi has an ergative system. Is this true? Is that throughout the verbal system or only for certain tenses/diatheses? It appears that some verbs now considered finite grew out of Indo-Aryan participles. Which finite forms of Old Indo-Aryan/ Sanskrit are continued? I also heard that Pali continues various Sanskrit aorists, as mood I think. But this is really scraped off my cortex; any insights are appreciated -- 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I found part of what I was looking for on Ergative-absolutive language

As an example of split ergativity, is found in the Urdu and Hindi languages, that have an ergative case on subjects in tenses showing perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while for other cases subjects apear in nominative case.

laRk-aa ketaab xareed-taa hey

→ boy-sg.masc=nom book.nom? buy-ImPerf.sg.masc be=pres

→ The boy buys a book

laRkey=ney ketaab xareed-ee

→ boy-sg.mas=erg book.nom? buy-perf.sg.fem

→ The boy bought a book

I'll still be grateful for any information on the history of this system. The present tense appears to be from a ta participle. I don't know what the past tense is supposed to be, and which is the subject there; from this example, after all, we cannot tell whether xareed-ee is passive, or whether ketaab is accusative as well as nominative, and laRkeyney simply dative. 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Information on "ap"

What nationality (region?) uses "ap" in names, and what does it mean (as seen on the main page today with the name Dafydd ap Gruffydd)? Any additional information would be appreciated as well.

it's the Welsh patronymic, corresponding to Gaelic mac. 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The names Howell and Powell are both from the Welsh ap Hywel. For Howell, "ap" was simply dropped. For Powell, the "a" of "ap" was dropped and the "p" got attched to the "Hywel" and absorbed the "h". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also ap Huw, which became the surname Pugh, or ap Rhys which became Preece. Having the 'ap' before the surname is very, very rare in Wales nowadays. Proto t c 11:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or ap Rhys also commonly became Price, ap Harri → Parri → Parry. Before a vowel ap becomes ab, thus ab Owain → ab Owen → Bowen, ab Ifan → Bevan. Actually, patronyms are becoming more common in the last few decades, particularly in the media. -- Arwel 16:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you're actually "Arwel ap Harri", are you? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Arwel ap Gwilym ap Huw", acksherly! :) -- Arwel 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is the origin of the word "cherry"

Check out cherry over at Wiktionary — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or the first sentence of Cherry here at Wiktionary. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Japanese Translations

1. How would you say "the devil's kitchen" in Chinese (original script and pinyin)? 2. "The multimillion-dollar hunt" in Japanese (original script and romaji)? 3. Could someone please translate the following paragraph into Japanese (original script)? "Welcome to The Multimillion-Dollar Hunt, the latest hit reality show. Actually, maybe reality show is not a good term. Maybe phenomenon is a better one! Right now, 90% of the television-owning world is watching, the other 10% being Wilmington, North Dakota, who aren't watching because their power is out. I've always wanted to say this, but YOU SUCK, WILMINGTON!"

Thanks, anon.

If nobody here can help, you could perhaps ask for the translations into Japanese here and for the translation into Chinese here. David

Please refer again to the response you were given the first time you asked this question over here, and please refrain from reposting questions in the future. Garrett Albright 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French double-barrelled names

After reading the article on French names, I took a look at the article on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The article consistently shortens his name to Teilhard, but the gist of the former article is that his name should be abbreviated to Chardin. Can anyone give a definitive argument either way? --Gareth Hughes 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What goes for French speakers does not necessarily apply in English. A few examples: When abbreviated, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is more often referred to in English as Giscard than as d'Estaing. Henri Toulouse-Lautrec de Monça is always T-L, not de Monça. Joseph Canteloube de Malaret is always Canteloube, not de Malaret. In Teilhard's case, there's the added difficulty that he was generally known by his surname only, Teilhard de Chardin, which caused confusion as many uneducated English speakers assumed this was his full name, ie. his given name was Teilhard and his surname was de Chardin. However, when living in New York, he referred to himself as "Mr Teilhard", not "Mr Chardin". Cheers JackofOz 01:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Josquin Des Prez is generally known as "Josquin", not "Des Prez". ;-) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another is Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac. Cyrano de Bergerac was his surname. Always shortened to Cyrano, never to de Bergerac. JackofOz 00:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giscard d'Estaing is never referred to as "d'Estaing" in French, always as Giscard. The reason seems to be that the "d'Estaing" part of his name was a late addition of his family in order to sound more "noble" (they are not noble). Furthermore, the article French names does not claim that the de XXX part is always used; it depends on personal choices, tradition, whether or not the people wanted to claim nobility, etc. David.Monniaux 09:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it seems that Teilhard de Chardin is not a "double-barreled name" as was common with the nobility and landed bourgeoisie, but a peasant's name. David.Monniaux 11:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David! Thank you for sorting this out for me, and clarifying the French names article. It seems almost certain that Teilhard is the correct abbreviation. However, I have seen Chardinism used, it's probably because this name works better with an -ism in some people's mouths. --Gareth Hughes 15:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce the "Tuxtla" in "Tuxtla Gutiérrez

I speak fluent Spanish but I don't know how to pronounce Nahuatl words like this --Revolución (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Tookstla". (Sorry, not in an IPA mood.) That one's just a standard "x", a "ks", like the x in galaxia. And, like the x in galaxia, it'll degenerate into an "s" in certain areas, certain speakers, certain degrees of sloppiness or speed in speaking. –Hajor 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Nahuatl, like old Spanish and modern Portuguese, x makes the sound sh: So, in its original language, it's toosht-la. --06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Nahuatl transcription, "X is pronounced like English SH", and "TL counts as a single consonant...a lateral affricate", implying a pronunciation IPA: [tuʃ.tɬa] (where the period/full stop indicates the syllable boundary. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the first Nahuatl grammars/transcription is the work of 17th century Jesuits, and therefore I find it difficult to imagine that x expressed anything other than [x] or [h]. That doesn't imply that x couldn't be [ʃ] today, but I'd really like to see the earliest description of Nahuatl phonology to judge this. 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In 17th century Spanish, x stood for [ʃ] (this is why the French call Don Quixote Don Quichotte). It only later changed to [x] (and later still [h]) in Spanish. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does ancillary mean

--Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from the top of this page: "Search first - search Wikipedia using the box to the left. A web search could help too." of course, the extreme willingness of people on this page to perform even trivial websearches for people makes that sort of moot. Still, it's a little bit sad to reduce Angr to a google proxy, isn't it? :p 10:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=define:ancillary+&spell=1 Neutrality^talk 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

definition of a consonant

What is the definition of a COnsonant

noun. One of a class of speech sounds (as \p\, \g\, \n\, \l\, \s\, \r\) characterized by constriction or closure at one or more points in the breath channel; also : a letter representing a consonant — usually used in English of any letter except a, e, i, o, and u.

adjective. 1. being in agreement or harmony : free from elements making for discord. 2. marked by musical consonances. 3. having similar sounds <consonant words>. 4. relating to or exhibiting consonance : RESONANT. Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

—Wayward 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see our article on Consonant. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Learning IPA on Internet

Is it possible to learn the IPA on the Internet? Thank you, --anon 05:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Try some of the Web sites listed in the IPA article's external links section. —Wayward 05:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

huh? the IPA article is excellent; if you cannot learn it from there, I don't know where you'll learn it.

Rap music

In rap music, why do artists show such concern for questions about 'what time is it'? NWA is an example of a group who ask this, apparently trivial question many times in their work. Does it have deeper meaning?

IANA hip-hop expert, but from what I understand what "Do you know what time it is?" actually means "Are you aware of the present situation?" as in what is cool and who is in charge and such. Garrett Albright 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember ever hearing it until Kool Moe Dee's Do you know what time it is? It would have been '86 or '87 before it reached the likes of me in the hinterlands of Jersey. I assume that song - which played endlessly and was part of an MTV ad for many years - was the source from which this bit of idiom sprung. But alas, I was a white kid in the burbs, so I can't attest to the prevalence of usage in more urban dialects before the mid-80's. --Diderot 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did Chicago come out with "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is"? Does anybody really care? User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It's later than you think" has also been used to mean "we are in a more serious situation than you know, with less time left to act to save ourselves than you realize". StuRat 22:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is another way of saying "life goes on"

Que será, será.
Them's the breaks.
Get over it.
Oh well.
C'est la vie.
Or, perhaps my personal favorite… And yet, the Earth continues to spin on its axis. Garrett Albright

That's how it goes.
That's how it works.
Forget about it.
In the words of King Solomon... This, too, shall pass. Sputnikcccp

I prefer to use "this, too, shall pass" for cases where I've eaten something that disagrees with me. StuRat 22:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My friend uses the grandiose (and at times infuriating) "it isn't the heat death of the universe". --bodnotbod 00:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian way: "It's nothing compared with the global revolution"--Knyazhna 07:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

word play/puzzle/riddle - word meaning

What is correct technical term for a word that is spelled the same way both forward and backward?----

Palindromemordnilap. Just kidding. It's palindrome. (This can also be an entire sentence spelled the same backword and forward, like "Madam, I'm Adam".) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or even a number. Superm401 | Talk 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"fickle finger of fate"

Does any one know the etomology of the phrase, "The fickle finger of fate"?

Good question! Does it precede its usage on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try etYmology.

- I believe "fickle finger of fate" precedes Rowan and Martin, but they probably coined "flying fickle finger of fate" -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumeds it waas derived from, or related to the Fitzgerald translation of the Rubiyat "The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on..." but that is just a guess. DES ^(talk) 05:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That which

I recently found one of my articles edited, with all occurrences of which replaced with that (ie, "the river which runs through..."). Personally, I thought I had a handle on these, but maybe not. Can someone clarify the usage of these two words? Thanks in advance. Denni ☯ 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule is if it is a situation where "which" could be sensibly be replaced with "that", then it is probably supposed to be "that". --Fastfission 02:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have been taught that which is used with nonrestrictive modifiers and that is used with restrictive modifiers (a rule that I do not adhere to). Maybe your editor is one of these people. Also, which refers to only things, who refers to only people, and that normally only refers to things, but it can refer to a class or type of person. —Wayward 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The prescriptivist (strict grammar) rule on this can easily be remembered if you know that the pronoun "which" is proceeded by a comma, and the pronoun "that" is not. Thus --

The car that I want is green. -- There are several cars of different colors, one of which is green.

The car, which I want, is green. -- There is only one car in the lot, and it's green.

Most people use "that" and "which" interchangably in the first type of sentence, but some styles do not allow for the word "which" in that instance. Mwalcoff 02:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to work as a copy editor, we used to derisively refer to those among us who didn't have anything better to do than change all the "which"es to "that"s as "going on which hunts". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment. There is a useful distinction betwemn "that" and which" that conveys information to the reader. It seems to me that ignoring this distinction smacks of, erm, laziness. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I figure so long as I'm aware of and understand the prescriptive rule, I'm entitled to break it. In fact, in my own writing, I usually don't. Nevertheless it strikes me as pedantic to insist on it, and deep down, I don't think the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses is particularly vital. German, for one, gets along quite nicely without it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this page used to have a FAQ link at which this very question was discussed? Shantavira 12:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

isn't the strict prescriptivist approach to replace all thats with whiches, rather? the 'comma' rule doesn't help much, it just becomes a matter of replacing ", which" with " that". Isn't this also related to the "dangling prepositions" issue? ("that the river flows through" vs. "through which the river flows")15:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. The strict prescriptivist approach is as Mwalcoff set it out above: if the relative clause is restrictive (if it narrows down the class of objects mentioned to define the one(s) meant), use "that" with no comma. If it's descriptive (if it just elaborates on the object(s) mentioned), use "which" with a comma:

"The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage" (as opposed to the one that works fine) vs.

"The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage" (there's just one lawnmower, and it's broken).

--Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think - though I could be wrong - that the insistence on "that" where "which" is also possible (i.e. in restrictive relative clauses) is American.Palmiro | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Fowler, who is British, expounds for four pages on the "proper" usage of that and which. What his view boils down to is: "The two kinds of relative clause, to one of which that & to the other of which which is appropriate, are the defining & the non-defining; & if writers would agree to regard that as the defining relative pronoun, & which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity & in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." Right, & if everyone followed Fowler in using the ampersand instead of spelling out the word and we could save much ink in printing & several gigabytes online, & yet most people continue to write the word in full. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of Latin adjectives from verbs (e.g. -ilis, -bilis, -abilis)

Can someone please explain why the Latin adjective derived from "facere" is "facilis" and the one from "frangere" is "fragilis"? What is the corresponding adjective for "futuere" or any other verb ending in "-uere", and why?

The root of frangere is frag-, the -n- is part of the present stem only. That's why there's no n in the perfect fregi or the past participle fractus, or in related words like fragmen(tum), fragor, fragilis, etc. No Latin adjective for "fuckable" is attested (surprisingly enough), and I don't know whether these suffixes were productive enough to allow you to coin futubilis or the like. You could use the gerund futuendus, meaning one "that must get fucked". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tycho Brahe

I recently read that Tycho Brahe's first name was probably pronounced "Teeko", with the y sounding like street in English, and that his non-Latinized first name, Tyge, was probably pronounced "Teegeh". Can somebody add one of them fancy IPA pronunciation bits about this to his page? --Fastfission 02:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's written 'Tycho Brahe', but it's pronounced Raymond Luxury-Yacht'

There seems to be a good deal of misinformation about this. The source of a lot of the confusion is that most suggested pronunciations confuse the /y/ (which doesn't occur in English) sound with /i/, and either eliminates or strengthens the sound of /h/ (wich is not pronounced after vowels in English). As has been pointed out, Tycho's given Danish name was Tyge, which, I believe, is pronounced /tygɛ/, or perhaps /tyge/ (I'm not 100% about that final vowel). His surname, Brahe, is pronounced /bʁɒhɛ/ (again, I'm a bit unsure about those vowels). The difficulty come with Tycho's academic name: Tycho is a classical form of Tyge. In fact, it comes from the Greek Τυχων, so it's actually a different name. Because of this, there cannot be said to be a one correct pronunciation of the name. One could use /tiko/ as the easiest pronunciation for English speakers to master. Alternatives would be /tixo/, /tyko/ and /tyxo/, getting progressively more difficult for English speakers. In a proper Danish word, ch is usually pronounced as /ɕ/, but I'm not sure whether anyone would use that pronunciation here. --Gareth Hughes 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, I don't know what kind of sound "y" is in IPA (I can't find it on the chart), but here's the explanation I read:

"Tycho always signed his name with either an ij or the equivalent, frequently used by somewhat nonsensical, ÿ. In the handwriting of Tycho's Denmark, ij stood for the sound pronounced like the ee in the English 'sheet.' If Tycho had wanted his name to be pronounced with the English 'high,' he would presumably having spelled it 'Taecho,' which he never did." (Victor E. Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg, p.10)

So hopefully it aligns somewhat with this, yes? --Fastfission 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that extra piece of info is useful, as it would suggest the pronunciation /ti:ko/. The article for /y/ can be found under close front rounded vowel. --Gareth Hughes 19:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce "Björk"?

I've never understood IPA phonetics, so the guide in the article is useless to me. Help appreciated. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs)

If you pronounce it to rhyme with "jerk" (but replacing the "j" sound with a "by" cluster like the first two consonants of "byoo-tiful"), you'll be close enough. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

antonym

what is the opposite / antomym of the word orphan ?

I don't suppose there is one, other than "child whose parents are still alive". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a typesetting context, the opposite of an orphan is a widow. Shantavira 12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to find a specific word of five letters which means.........

.... is very difficult without any more clues than that?

I think dilwk might be the word you're looking for; it means ........

— mark ✎ 14:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Feeling Words

Does anyone have a list of positive feeling words? Surprisingly, I have not been able to find such a list on Google, despite several different angles of inquiry.

David G. Fisher

What do you mean by "positive feeling words"? --Fastfission 16:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out our List of emotions, or a thesaurus. Shantavira 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to avoid telling people "I'm feeling rather gay today". StuRat 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language suggestions?

For quite some time now I have been interested in learning two languages beside my native one (English, obviously). My plan of action is to learn a dead, non-latin, language and a modern, non-romantic, language. This is where my trouble starts, as I am having a difficult time deciding on which languages to learn. I'm hoping you Wikipedians will be able to give me some suggestions.

When it comes to the dead language, I'm looking for a language (this is starting to sound like an ad in the Personals section) whose orthography is straightforward, and whose vowel system isn't excessively complex. I'd also like to be able to *use* it in some fashion, cocktail parties not withstanding. For example, it would be nice if there is a large amount of literature written in the language that is still surviving today. I seem to be gravitating towards Old English (Anglo-Saxon), or possibly Old Norse.

As for the modern language, the only main restriction is that I don't want it to be from the Romantic family, and I'd prefer that it be non European. That said, I'm drawn to Korean because of it's extremely interesting writing system. Japanese would probably be the easisest for me to learn (I could easily procure anime and music), but learning kanji, hiragana, and katakana seems exceedingly difficult. I do like the sound of Romanian (even though it is a European, Romantic language) and Russian also appeals to me. I don't mind having to learn a new writing system, in fact I probably will prefer it.

In conclusion, my question is basically: "Which languages should I learn?" Your suggestions will be highly appreciated. Feel free to suggest languages which I havent mentioned, and tell me what you think of those that I have mentioned. I realize this isn't a question of fact, and so it may be out of place here at the Wikipedia Reference desk, but I figured this is the best place to ask seeing as many of your contributors appear to have an immense amount of knowledge on languages. Thank you, --anon.

A dead language whose orthography is straightforward and whose vowel system isn't excessively complex? (Interesting criteria; you don't mind if the consonant system is complex, so long as the vowels are simple?) And with a fairly large literature? Well, Old English fits all of those, I guess; Old Norse doesn't have as much literature. Ancient Greek and Sanskrit also have simple vowel systems and large literary corpora; they're not written in the Roman alphabet, but their writing systems aren't hard to learn.

As for a living non-Romance (the usual term, rather than non-Romantic) language, may I (reflecting my personal bias) suggest one of the modern Celtic languages? They're European, to be sure, but their grammatical system is quite different from the more familiar Continental languages like German and the Romance and Slavic languages, so linguistically they're still pretty exotic. Welsh has probably the easiest spelling-to-pronunciation conventions of the bunch.

Or maybe a pair of related ancient/modern languages, like Sanskrit and Hindi? They've got the same writing system, so you'd only have to learn it once, but grammatically they're very different from each other, so you still know you're learning two different languages, and you're not likely to get them mixed up if you learn them at the same time (the way you might if you were learning, say Biblical Hebrew and Modern Israeli Hebrew at the same time). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this suggestion since related languages has a lot of value in aiding deeper understanding of the modern language. Hindi of course has the practical advantages of having the second most speakers depending on how you count it, and Sanskrit has a huge literary base. Also the advantage of reading the Kama Sutra in it's original language. :) Sanskrit also has heavily influenced a number of other languages as that article explains. The other side of the popularity issue is you could learn Classical Chinese and Standard Mandarin, which if you count all the Chinese language as one, gets you even more speakers, and of course a huge body of literature. - Taxman ^Talk 16:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---Or you could learn Arabic, which covers all of your criteria at once: It is a classical language that has largely been supplanted in modern speech by radically different colloquial dialects, so it's a dead language. And, it is the principal liturgical and academic language of hundreds of millions of people alive today, so it's a modern language. It has a large easily acquired literature on all possible subjects some of which still has a great deal of continuing relevance and is of immediate and profitable use. It's also non-Indo-European and has a reasonably functional script that is far from the Roman alphabet. --Diderot 19:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's a serious question, the use to which you want to put it will influence your choice.

I agree that Arabic have an awesome literature and history, but I speak fluently Arabic and believe me, it's a very hard language to learn. It's vowel, and writing system is really different. I also disagree with the fact that it's a dead language. Its literal or formal form isn't spoken, but all modern books and magasines, even on TV, especiallly news shows, use the formal Arabic language. CG 14:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Japanese: hiragana and katakana are actually quite easy to learn, but kanji is a colossal PITA. Aside from the fact that there are so freakin' many of them, there's no way to guess at the sound they make just by looking at them. Heck, sometimes kanji will have more than one sound; 上 means "up" and says "ue" as a noun, but it says "a" in the verb 上げる, "ageru," "to raise." It's a mess, and it often feels like it's intentionally needlessly difficult… Some kanji I know the meaning of, yet have no idea how to pronounce them (the kanji for "flavor," for example), and others I can pronounce but have no idea as to their meaning (such as 久, which reads as either "hisa" or "ku"). And don't even get me started on figuring out how to write all of them! That being said, it's often easy to break apart a sentence and know what parts are the subject, the object, the verb, etc, even if you don't know what they mean, and, while there are a multiple of particles, ya get the hang of them after a while.

As far as the spoken language goes, I'm not finding it any more difficult than learning Spanish was; probably easier, actually. Japanese uses a lot of loan words, sometimes even for things which have perfectly usable native Japanese words; earlier today I polished off a carton of アップル (appuru, apple) juice, despite the fact that the Japanese have their own りんご (ringo) which they could have used instead. You would think that this would make things easy, but actually it's kind of annoying because you have to "mispronounce" the English words as they would be written in katakana in order to be understood, and sometimes it's not easy to predict how they were adapted. Once I was trying to talk about McDonald's with a student, and he had no idea what I was talking about until I gave the Japanese name, マクドナルド (Makudonarudo). Another time I was telling a woman (in English) that I lived in a really small apartment, and she kept asking if I lived in a mansion, much to our mutual confusion. It was only later that I discovered that マンション (manshon) is a mis-adapted word meaning "apartment building!"

Anyway, so yeah, ZOMG teh amine and all that… but Japanese is kind of a tweaked language. Not as tweaked as English, of course, but I don't think it's at a high point in its history at present. I agree with your instinct toward Korean; it doesn't have quite the cultural boom behind it that Japanese does, but at least it has logical orthography -- the best orthography in any language I've researched, in my armchair-linguist opinion. Another option though, if you're in the mood for something different, might be sign language. Garrett Albright 17:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DOES ok STAND FOR?

No one knows for sure. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[after edit conflict] There are an abundant number of legends, but the most plausible that research has found traces it to a humorous misspelling of "all correct" (oll korrect) in 1839 - at the time, there was a fad in US East Coast newspapers for using silly abbreviations, and this was one that basically just took off. Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay has a range of explanations. The Oxford Dictionaries [13] say it is hard to develop a definite explanation but the earliest written use is in relation to the O.K. Club which attempted to re-elect Martin van Buren in 1840. It stood for Old Kinderhook, New York which was van Buren's birthplace. The apellation Old was all the rage for American politicians with his predecessor Andrew Jackson known as Old Hickory and his rival William Henry Harrison known as Old Tippecanoe. Capitalistroadster 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church

That isn't a language question.
Do your own homework.
See Pope.

--Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics and morphology of borrowed words in different languages

I am reading a book on Michif that makes some claims about code switching, lexical borrowing and creolisation that have some bearing on my doctoral thesis. Particularly, it notes that in Algonquian languages, code switching and word borrowing follows a pattern common to a number of non-European languages when they borrow words from European ones:

Borrowed words tend to fit specific categories: greetings, calendar terminology, temporal locative expressions, numbers, quantities and measures, conjunctions, interjections, adverbs and discourse particles.
Verbs are often borrowed only in a fixed morphological form - usually a canonical form like the infinitive - and then joined to an auxilliary verb or a pro-verb like to do.

The book claims that this is routinely the case in Korean and Japanese, as well as a number of more obscure languages like Navajo and Chamorro.

I've been thinking about this in an effort to see if a more unified theory of code switching and borrowing can drop out of it, by trying to see if English follows such a pattern. I think the first claim is partially empirically defensible: Greetings fit the pattern: you can say ciao in English, or aloha, and in Canada you can even biz somebody (from French bizou). Adopting the western calendar can logically entail adopting the western terminology for it. Indeed, English calendar words are something of a mix of native calques and borrowed words from long, long ago. Million and billion are not Germanic words, so the numbers fit. Units and measures also fit the pattern - consider the terminology of the metric system.

But, I can't think of any temporal expressions, conjunctions, interjections or discourse particles that English has borrowed from other languages? Can anybody else?

I think this type of claim has to be seen from a sociolinguistic standpoint. How does a borrowed term - or a category where borrowing is favoured - reflect the social changes taking place at the time? Borrowing metric system terminology makes sense in light of a pattern of social change favouring industry, trade and with it standardisation of units. Logically, that Algonquian languages, and other languages traditionally remote from European culture, freely borrow temporal expressions should reflect social changes in the conception of time. Is this stance defensible? Is there a literature on it? I'm not trying to make a Whorfian claim - on the contrary, I think that changes in social cognition cause changes in language. I vehemently oppose the notion that linguistic categories control cognition. Still, it seems to me that if the empirical claim that borrowings tend to fall into those categories is true, we ought to be able to deduce something about the social changes that motivated them. But what can we deduce from the adoption of foreign conjunctions?

As for the second point, I cannot think of any borrowed verb in English that fits the pattern I described. Consider the verb to fillet, borrowed from French in relatively recent times. If English fit this pattern, we would have to say to do fillet or to make fillet or something of the sort. Are there any examples? Even cases of borrowing the nominalisation of a foreign verb, and then adding to do or to make would count.

My provisional hypothesis is that the key player here is morphology. The weak morphology of the English verb makes auxilliaries less necessary - any noun can be easily turned into a verb with little difficulty and with the default implication of whatever action that noun would usually entail. French and Spanish verb morphologies are moderately complicated compared to English, so they should fit the pattern I described more than English does. Algonquian languages, in contrast, have very intricate and complicated verbal morphologies, and you can't easily slap several syllables of prefixes and suffixes onto borrowed or code-switched words. Thus, the use of auxilliaries and pro-verbs is the most effective way to absorb new verbs.

So, I would like to know how well this hypothesis holds up. For example, how does Russian, with its relatively complex verb morphology, borrow verbs? Does the notion that verb borrowings require auxilliaries in proportion to the sophistication of a language's verbal morphology hold up to empirical testing? I don't know Japanese or Korean - does the book I'm reading accurately report how they borrow verbs, and if so, do they have complex verb morphologies that fit my hypothesis?

And, if there is any literature on this subject that somebody's read, I'd really appreciate knowing. --Diderot 09:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard the claim about Japanese; basically, borrowed verbs in Japanese will be nouns + suru "to do, to make". The closest thing to a borrowed conjunction in English I can think of is because, but it wasn't really borrowed as a conjunction; it was formed in Middle English from a native preposition by and a borrowed noun cause. It is of course extremely rare that functional categories are borrowed at all in language contact, but it might be common in interlanguage. The stereotype of Germans saying und in the middle of an English sentence is not unfounded. Perhaps if some community of German speakers were to start speaking English for whatever reason, the children learning this English with a German substrate would settle on und as their word for "and", and then that language would have a conjunction that was a effectively a loanword. Of course, I've never actually heard of that happening in substrate situations; Irish left a pretty heavy substrate effect on Hiberno-English, but even in Hiberno-English the word for "and" is and, not agus. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book that I'm reading suggests that functional categories are fairly routinely borrowed, notwithstanding Hudson's claim that functional categories are an unproductive and ill-motivated notion. Now that I'm rereading Hudson, I see that he notes per, via, qua, circa, vis-à-vis, and save as examples of prepositions borrowed into English. This matches patterns I've seen in Métis French, Plautdietsch and Native American languages, but the borrowing is more prevalent in the less widely spoken languages. My mother, for example, uses because exclusively in Plautdietsch over wiel (which is cognate to the German weil). --Diderot 11:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, I note that in Tamil language, words borrowed from Sanskrit and Prakrit are predominantly abstract nouns, and often sprituality-related. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translation

How would the phrase 'Fly on the wings of an eagle' be translated into Latin. It was the catchprase of the TV show 'Aquila', which I know means eagle. (The phrase its self was written in Latin on the side of a 'Roman' spaceship)? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fly would normally be considered an imperative, but it may be more appropriate to use the infinitive: Volare a pennae aquilae. --Gareth Hughes 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the imperative would be best. I don't think Latin used the infintive as an imperative the way modern French and German do. I'd suggest Vola cum pennis aquilae. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the phrase sounded more like 'Subat Aterum Aquila Volat' (Probably, most of these are mispelt). Would this phrase, or something similar, have the right sort of meaning? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Licat volaré si superturgum Aquila volat? That's what http://www.tv.com/aquila/show/15272/summary.html says was written on the spaceship in that show, and they translate it "Any man can fly if he rides on the back of an eagle." I get the same from http://www.geocities.com/aquilafans/, but I get Licat volaré si super tergum Aquila volat translated as "A man can fly where he will if he rides on the back of an eagle" from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/U551875. All of that being said, however, I must say the Latin is pretty bad. Licat appears to be a misspelling of licet, which means "it is allowed" (rather than "it is possible" as one would expect from the context). Volaré should be simply "volare" since Latin doesn't use the acute accent. Superturgum is a typo for super tergum which doesn't mean "on (the) back" but "over or above (the) back" (i.e. without actually touching it). Aquila should be in the genitive case: aquilae. Some other websites use the phrase licet volare si in tergo aquilae volat (but not in connection with the TV show AFAICT), which is grammatically better, but still a bit iffy as it means "It is permissible to fly if he flies on the back of an eagle" where "he" doesn't actually refer to anyone. If I were asked to translate "One can fly if one flies on the back of an eagle" into Latin I'd probably say Homo volare potest si in aquila vehitur, literally "A person can fly if he rides an eagle" (more literally "if he is carried on an eagle"; it plays off the usual idiom for "to ride a horse" in Latin, which is in equo vehi "to be carried on a horse"). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds right. I know during the starting sequence they only played the second half (super tergum Aquila volat), and I couldn't remember how the first part sounded. Thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret "fly on the wings of an eagle" as imperative but as an absolute use of the English infinitive (which doesn't take the "to"), a frequent construction in mottoes. The sense of the phrase is not to use the eagle's power to fly (on the eagle's back in one response above), but to have the inherent power ourselves, "as if" we had an eagle's wings sprouting out of our own backs. And penna is the wrong word for wings in this case--we want ala. In short, I would render the motto "Volare cum aquilae alis." -Galfridus

IIRC the English phrase mentioned in the film was 'Any man can fly if he rides on the back of an eagle' so I wonder what the best Latin translation of that is, I don't think it matches exactly the Latin phrase on the programme's intro.--NigellusNT 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the correct spelling and meaning of the phrase:

Licet volare si super tergum aquilae volat.

'Licet' is an impersonal verb meaning 'it is allowed' or 'one can'. 'volare' is the present active infinitive from volo, volare meaning 'to fly'. 'si' introduces a conditional clause, and goes with 'volat' which is the 3rd person singular present active indicative from 'volo, volare' again, meaning 'to fly'. 'super' is a preposition meaning 'above' or, more likely here, 'on top of'. 'tergum' is a neuter noun meaning 'back' and 'aquilae' is the genitive of 'aquila', which means 'eagle'. So the whole phrase reads 'One can fly if one flies on the back of an eagle'.

-ARH

Survey Research Word Usage

Is a "nominative" survey-research question a yes/no question with only stock, black and white answers? Are these types of questions or response categories called nominative? And what are the other kinds of questions, with many possible answers, called? (Besides "multiple choice") Is this the right definition of "nominative questions"?

Use of the Locative case

The article on the locative case says that it's use corresponds roughly to the English prepositions "in", "on", "at", and "by". Now, maybe this is because I don't quite understand how cases work, but this seems confusing. How does a language with only the one locative case makes a distinction between, say "it's in the box" and "it's on the box"? Are there additional prepositions that clarify these things? and if these prepositions indicate locative information, why keep the locative case at all? --86.135.87.145 17:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Context helps; it's more logical for something to be in a box than on it, no? Similarly, we wouldn't expect something to be in a table. Garrett Albright 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a grammatical case does not preclude the use of prepositions. If the sense is unambiguous, a locative case might be used by itself to describe the location of something. However, in many cases, one would naturally use a preposition to 'fill out' the exact location, and then the two -- preposition and locative case -- might be used together. It is probable that the greater flexability afforded by prepositions led to the near abandonment of the case in Latin. --Gareth Hughes 18:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

typically, you can heap up prepositions and adverbials until you feel that your meaning is expressed with sufficient clarity. there isn't even a clear line between "preposition" and "case", grammars leak, and if you use a pre-(or post-)position a lot, your grandchildren will make it a case. 19:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example from Czech of how the locative works:

Krabice je velký -- The box is big (nominative). Kniha je v krabici -- The book is in the box (locative). Kniha je na krabici -- The book is on the box (locative).

So as you can see, the preposition "in" or "on" is still used. That raises the question, then -- what's the point of having a locative case? -- 70.27.57.22 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more free word order? the case shows which noun is dependent on which preposition. but you are right that the more the language relies on prepositions, the more likely it is that the cases will get worn down and eventually dropped.

Mode of Address for ENGINEERS

I note that 'engineers' are sometimes addressed as Ir ... and not Mr ... in official documents.

I would like to know what Ir stands for and under what circumstances this mode of address may be used.

Regards, --Ciesse 203 02:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I refer to my observation for the profession of 'engineers'in HKSAR, PRC. Sorry for not having made myself clear at the beginning. --203.218.229.158 02:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it stands for "ingenieur" (Dutch perhaps?), which means "Engineer". Google seems to think this is a term used to describe a University qualification. As in, John Smith (IR-Newcastle).--inks ^T 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ingenieur" is also the German word for "engineer," and "ingénieur" is the French word. What circumstances you would find "Ir" used instead of "Mr" depend on what country you live in; the "Ir" title is not used in the USA to the best of my knowledge. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In places that really like professional titles a lot, you'll see things like Mr. Dr. Ir. Jones. I'd say "use it the same way you'd use Dr." -- if the person uses it him or herself, follow suit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- use it the same way you'd use Dr.. I am amused. Imagine lots of really snooty engineers going "I are Jones" (In the same style as I.R Baboon of I_Am_Weasel fame) :) --inks ^T 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Master's degrees states that the abbreviation would be used in the Netherlands for holders of a degree equivalent to an MEng, although the implication in the article is that this is a slightly old-fashioned usage as the Dutch degree system has been revised in line with the Bologna process. In Germany the approximate equivalent is Diplom-Ingenieur, and this maybe used as a title, but is abbreviated Dipl.-Ing. One also finds just Ing. but this is of a lower level of academic distinction. In the UK, an engineer would be John Smith BEng or John Smith MEng. If he had undertaken research he might become John Smith PhD or John Smith DEng; he would then be entitled to call himself Doctor. No engineering degree other than a doctorate attracts a title in the UK (as is also the case for other degrees, though practising medical doctors use doctor as a courtesy title even where they are only MB BCh). The John Smith mentioned in Inkypaw's answers is trying it on, methinks. Or has a Dutch qualification. Valiantis 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After googling I think the IR-Newcastle referred to above is part of MHRM & IR which is Master of HR Management & Industrial Relations - I can only find it in that combination. So as an academic qualification in the English-speaking world, no connection to engineers. Valiantis 15:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be, years ago, that a bachelor's degree would enable you to call yourself "Sir" (with the surname not the forename); this fell out of favour in the last few centuries, though. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double negative = positive?

Suppose John has a car, and someone asks me "Doesn't John have a car?". What is the correct reply?:

Yes, John has a car.
No, John has a car.

If it is the first one, then what is the correct answer to: "Does John have a car?"

I personally feel that the second one makes more logical sense, but i see the first form being used all the time (in TV, movies, books, etc)

In both cases, the speaker is simply inquiring whether john has a car, hence these would be the most common choices for responses:

Yes, John has a car.
No, John does not have a car.

I'm not certain whether there's a specific rule for why both phrasings of the question mean the same thing, but idiomatically that's the way it works. Your original second choice roughly translates to "no, yes he has a car" in response to the particular question. However, the response to "John does not have a car," could conceivably be "No [that's not correct], John has a car." Elf | Talk 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well i think that the correct interpretation of "doesn't john have a car?" is "john doesn't have a car. is the previous statement true?" in such a case, "perfectionistically" speaking, the correct answer would be "no, the statement is not true, john does have a car"

or maybe "does john (not have a car)?" or "does john have the property of (not having a car?" in this case also, the second answer makes sense. -User:Hellznrg

If John does indeed have a car, the correct answer both to "Doesn't John have a car?" and to "Does John have a car?" is "Yes, John has a car" in (most dialects of) English. Other languages work differently. In French and German, for example, there are different words for "yes" depending on whether the question was phrased positively or negatively:

French: Jean a une voiture? -- Oui, Jean a une voiture (positive question)

but Jean n'a pas de voiture? -- Si, Jean a une voiture (negative question)

German: Hat Hans ein Auto? -- Ja, Hans hat ein Auto (positive question)

but Hat Hans kein Auto? -- Doch, Hans hat ein Auto (negative question)

And according to Indian English, in that dialect the correct answer to "You didn't come on the bus?" is "Yes, I didn't", so maybe the correct answer to "Doesn't John have a car" is "No, John does have a car" in that dialect. But that isn't true in most other dialects of English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what you say is true.. the first form is commonly and generally used, but i think that logically speaking the second answer is correct and the first one is just contradictory and therefore wrong. i wonder at what point in time did people start using the incorrect form... i hope people start using the correct form ... everytime someone uses the first form i want to scream!!! :) -User:Hellznrg

Right and wrong in languages is defined by the speakers. The "n't" in this case is just working to indicate that the speaker is asking for confirmation as much as information, at least in the dialects I'm thinking over. Pure logic frequently won't get you the correct answer in language.--Prosfilaes 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand "Doesn't John have a car?" as "Is it not true that John has a car?" and therefore the correct answers are "Yes, John has a car" or "No, John doesn't have a car." But in any case an idion is not subject to logical analysis of the elemets that make it up, and in at least standard U.S. english, a question of the form "Doesn't X Y" is identical in meaning to "Does X have Y" except that the first form implies that the asker thinks (but isn't sure) that the answer is positive. DES ^(talk) 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the usage "doesn't ...?" is asking almost a rhetorical question where the answer is assumed to be positive. In other words, you would not ask "Doesn't John have a car?" if both answers were equally likely. In that case, you'd ask "Does John have a car?". Asking "Doesn't John have a car?" would be expecting a positive answer in most cases. --WhiteDragon 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with this construction is that the "not" in "doesn't" is NOT a negative at all, but merely a way of inviting the person to agree with you. The core question is "Does John have a car?", to which is added something (the 'nt in doesn't) that says, "I believe (or assume) John has a car, but I want you to confirm that is the case and I will be surprised if you tell me doesn't". That's a very long-winded thing to say, so "Doesn't John have a car?" does the job much more succinctly. Also take into account that when such a question is asked, the non-verbals (voice inflection, facial expression) will also be involved, telling the listener much of what the questioner is really asking. The question cannot really be analysed in isolation from the non-verbal environment in which it is asked. A similar case is, I'm standing outside the house on a very cold day, in just trousers, a cotton shirt and bare feet. My friend comes up to me and says "Aren't you cold?". There could be various answers. If I do in fact feel cold, the answer would be "Yes, but I like it", or just "Yes". If I don't feel cold, the answer would be "No". The answer is not governed by the existence of the 'not' in the question - because, as I said before, it's not a negative question at all but a strongly expressed open question. Aren't you glad you asked the question now? (Tee hee) JackofOz 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are inviting someone to agree with you; I totally agree with the above. "Yes, John has a car" would be the answer to both your questions. A double negative, in the true sense is more along the lines of "I haven't got none" or "I didn't do nothing". If you used either of those phrases, you would have some and you would have done something. "I haven't got any." or "I have got none". "I didn't do anything" or " I did nothing." ---Jana - October 20, 2005

Again, to say that "I haven't got none" means "I have some" is a triumph of logic over linguistics. In every dialect of English where "I haven't got none" is used, it means the same as "I haven't got any."--Prosfilaes 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term for a King attaining the position by regicide

We are trying to think of the term (if it exists) for a person who is now the King of something, but attained that position by killing the former king. It is just one of thos questions that you have to find the answer for. thanks for any halp

Barb

Usurper is usually used. We have an article on Roman usurpers. --Gareth Hughes 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think killing the previous king is one way a usurper can come to the throne, but surely not the only way. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"His Royal Highness" if he successfully defends his coup d'état, "dead meat" otherwise. --Diderot 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Usurper." Neutrality^talk 18:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Regicide" is also one who kills a king, but I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the person replaced the king. "Usurping regicide"? Elf | Talk 02:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought regicide was killing Regis Philbin. StuRat 22:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate term would be: a "Macbeth". If that doesn't work by itself, please add on some choice blood-and-fate quote from the Scottish play.--Pharos 18:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do i find this page if i haven't used a bookmark?

if you hold the wikipedia lightly by the spine, you'll see that the pages of wikipedia will be slightly more separated at the point where you left off..

In future, if you want to bookmark your position, make a small fold in the top right corner of the page user:hellznrg

A less facetious answer is: from any Wikipedia page, click "Contact us" under "navigation" in the box directly underneath the Wikipedia logo on the lefthand side of the page. From there, scroll down to Questions and click on Reference desk. From there, click on Language, and here you are! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can also type "WP:RD" into the search box on the left-hand bar on every page. Garrett Albright 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

grammar of "Master’s degree"

Do you need to use an apostrophe when writing the following "Mr Smith holds a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering"

I have looked at the web sites of different universities. Some use the apostrophe while others do not.

Thanks --211.155.247.222 06:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The degree belongs to the master, so I would say yes. And I wouldn't capitalize "master" or "electrical engineering" either. Garrett Albright 07:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the noun master is being used attributively rather than possessively. Nonetheless, master's with an apostrophe is correct. —Wayward 07:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars intro

In Spanish versions of Star Wars, how is "a long, long time ago, in a land far, far, away" translated? Neutrality^talk 18:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Spanish Wikipedia Star Wars: hace mucho tiempo, en una galaxia muy, muy lejana (Ps. It's a Long Time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, although A long, long time ago is a common mistake :) ) smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegum

Hiya. I (non-native speaker) am grappling with Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. I did not sign up for Oprah's bookclub, so here's my question. There is a passage in Benji's chapter that reads

You know how come your name Benjamin now. They making a bluegum out of you. Mammy say in old time your granpa changed a nigger's name, and he turn preacher, and when they look at him, he bluegum too. Didn't use to be bluegum, neither. And when family woman looks him in the eye in the full of the moon, chile born bluegum. And one evning, when they was about a dozen them bluegum chillen running round the place, he never come home. And you know who et him. Them bluegum chillen did.

Now what exactly is a bluegum? My Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: 1. a tree (Blue gum) and 2. something out of "Negro folklore" that I don't quite grasp. I guess the latter is what I'm looking for. Thanks, --Janneman 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either, but for the record the second definition in Merriam-Webster is "a bluish gum held in American Negro folklore to be characteristic of a Negro whose bite is fatally poisonous". I think "gum" here might mean the gums of the mouth. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sentence structure

Can you give the examples of deep and surface structures?

See the article Transformational grammar. Halcatalyst 04:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the G in Mason symbol into PE and 17, if correct?

Sunday, October 9, 2005

Question 1 of 3:

Basis for the question:

1) PE is the 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

2) The ideograph of PE looks a little like an upside down G, found in the Hebrew alphabet.

3) The London Grand Lodge was founded in the year 1717.

I am trying to find an authoritive source that translates PE PE into G G and both/either into 17 17.

(G = 17; PE = 17; G = PE and also the upside down G for each)

I have searched several days, for a project nearly due. I thought I had seen it in multiple sources in the past, but I can not refind.

Can you provide authoritive proof of above requested relationships?

Question 2:

I know I had seen that in Roman Law a white stone (or Pebble) was a vote for INNOCENT and black stone was a vote for GUILT.

I suspect providing definitive concurring documentation would be easy for you, if you would be kind enough to provide sources to confirm this useage of White and Black stones or pebbles to define or indicate innocent or guilt, in Roman Law or elsewhere?

Question 3:

Regards a recent cliche whose origin I may or may not have found.

ORIGIN of the PHRASE: "Be careful what you (ask or) wish for, you may get it."

My research traced it to EDGAR ALLEN POE, yet it wound up going to W. W. JACOBS story "The Monkey's Paw." It's attributed as anonymous.

It is a very brief story about a talisman that grants 3 wishes. Yet, in reading it, I never saw a DIRECT QUOTE.

From the moral of the story, the QUOTE appears to be a SUMMARY of the cummulative effect of the 3 WISHES.

Is there another early DIRECT source of the QUOTE, like BIBLE, TALMUD, or Classic Literature?

And can you provide me with documentation of the origin and context of the quote?

I apologize for asking 3 questions instead of one, yet as long as I was in your website, why not?

Additionally, this trivia may be (hopefully) of interest to you?

Thank you,

George Mulligan 429 Housatonic Avenue Stratford, CT. 06615 (203) 378-1888 georgeemcom@<EMAIL REMOVED>

regarding your first question, I can only say that I find it unlikely that פ (or G) was used to represent 17, since the numerical value of פ is 80. 17 would rather be expressed as זי. The pebble thing is mentioned in Ovid's Metamorphoses (book 15),

The ancient custom was to vote using black and white pebbles: the black to condemn: the white to absolve from punishment.

I don't know if the Romans did, but the Celts certainly did. They believed that the gods would bias the random drawing of a stone (or stick) from a bag either for or against the defendent (if he/she was innocent or guilty respectively). Sometimes, a third stone or stick labelled 'Trinity' was used, which basically meant: 'The gods are too busy now, try again in a minute'. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid just told you the Romans did :) as for other cultures, compare also Urim and Thummim. But the Romans' pebbles were plain old voting, not divination. These questions would fit better on "Humanities" or "Miscellaneous" however. 15:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

When Roman juries voted on a case, they used wax tablets marked on one side with A (absolvo, i.e. 'innocent') and on the other with C (condemno, i.e. 'guilty'). They would erase one letter and drop the tablet in an urn; the final verdict was decided by straight majority vote. They could also erase both and replace the letters with N L, (non liquet, i.e. 'not proven'); generally these were counted as votes for acquittal. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICE CAPADE

Right now I am translating an American show '70s show' and this words 'ice capade' came out. I looked it up in a dictionary and on web sites. However, all efforts was in no use. Then I found the definition of 'capade' here.

Could you explain the meaning of 'ICE CAPADE'? The context is as below.

— We get a job as a local weather team, then go national as morning talk show hosts, and then star in our own Ice Capades.

— Jakie, I've told you, I don't capade [here, is this word used as a verb?]. I am quitting my job, though.

Thank you. And if you happen to need to know about anything about Korea, I am very willing to do it.

See Ice Capades. This was an ice-skating entertainment show, sort of like figure skating but purely as entertainment and not as a sport with judges and medals.

Yes, the word "capade" is jokingly being used as a verb in the second part. It isn't an English verb and doesn't have any meaning, except as part of this joke. Perhaps it's like saying: "Let's eat dinner." "No, I don't 'dinner'". It's just nonsensical joking talk, basically it just means that the second person is jokingly saying he doesn't want to follow the first person's suggestion.

-- Curps 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it should be added that "Ice Capade" is a pun on escapade in the first place.

Spelling of English words

It seems to me that English words seldom contain 3 same letters consecutively. But I happen to find an 'exception' recently in an e-card which reads, inter alia, "Happy Boss's Day" (falling on 16 Oct).

Grateful if someone can clear my mind whether my 'concept' as aforesaid is right or there is no hard and fast rule (if so, can I have some examples?). Also, I'm eager to know how to pronounce "Boss's".

Regards, --Ciesse 203 02:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has some interesting words. Words with s's are usually pronounced word is, in this case Boss is. MeltBanana 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is may be pronounced with an I-sound, and the vowel here is neutral. It is clearer to say that boss's is pronounced exactly like bosses. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, October 12, 2005

Apart from possessives like boss's, and exclamations such as mmmm, brrrr, aaaah, ooooh etc (which, arguably, are not words at all), I doubt there are any common English words that have a triple letter. However there are some uncommon words that do (these include archaic spellings that are still found in specialist dictionaries). Melt Banana's post shows some of them. More are at [14], a site full of fascinating word lore. JackofOz 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One word, seven times, complete sentence.

There is supposedly one word in the English language that, when used by itself seven times, can form a complete sentence. I don't mean the riddles like buffalo, police, etc. I think it has to do with using it in different tenses. Can someone help me out?

There was just a discussion about that not too long ago. Check out this subpage here, and come back if you have any more questions! :-) --HappyCamper 02:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I realize you can use "had" several times in a row and have the sentence make sense, but there has to be other words before and after that, no? The question I was asked to answer said that it was one word seven times and that was it . . .. totally stumped and annoyed. :)

Buffalo repeated can be a valid sentence (up to at least eight iterations) - are you sure this isn't the one you were looking for? Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker gives the example of, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." It means, "Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are baffled by other bison from Buffalo, New York, in turn baffle a third group of bison from Buffalo, New York." The word "buffalo" (in lower case) can be a noun for an animal or a verb meaning "to baffle." In capital letters, "Buffalo" is a city in New York. -- Mwalcoff 02:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy School Application

My pharmacy school application asks "What are your weaknesses?" Whats the best answer? I have no idea what to tell them. I don't want to make myself sound bad. Any ideas? And how would I say it.

Thanks for your time

-Dave

I'd be honest but emphasis that you are willing to try and change. Admitting them shows that you have an understanding of your strengths and weaknesses. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, simply being able to honestly admit your weaknesses is a strength.--inks ^T 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be honest but try to establish a positive note. For example, I wouldn't just say "I'm basically lazy" and leave it at that. You might analyze why people think you're lazy (or why you think you're lazy). Perhaps "I have so many interests that I care passionately about that sometimes it's hard for me to focus on getting a single thing finished." I never make anything up when asked this question; if you're really all-out world-shaking lazy, you probably wouldn't be applying to medical school or expecting to get in, so if you or someone else thinks you're lazy, there's probably a reason for it hidden in your little over-achieving background :-). "I have very high standards for myself and sometimes I have trouble starting projects because I'm afraid I won't do a good enough job." Or maybe "I've often found schoolwork to be so easy that it's sometimes hard for me to take my assignments seriously." But all of these things require some honest introspection. Or ask a couple of friends whom you trust to both be honest and show some intelligent analysis of your behavior. And, yeah, I like the idea of also indicating briefly what you've done in the past or plan on doing to remedy the situation. Elf | Talk 02:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A clichéd answer is to say "I'm a bit of a perfectionist" or "I don't suffer fools gladly" - in other words, to dress up a possible strength as a weakness. If I was interviewing, I'd want a more honest answer. Dave.Dunford 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, don't tell them you are addicted to oxycontin!

Language usage in North America

In all of North America, is English or Spanish most common as a first language?

First you have to define what you mean by "North America". Is Mexico in North America? Is Central America (Guatemala to Panama) included in North America? Are the Caribbean Islands included? Not everyone's definition of North America is the same. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is how to define "English" -- do the English-lexified creole languages of the Caribbean count as English, or not? (I'm not sure if there are Spanish creoles in the area, but if so, obviously the same question applies to them.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I'm using the actual geographic definition of North America, so Mexico is included, I beolieve the Caribbean is, and parts of Cetral America. And I suppose I'll be defining the languages as base languages, so the creoles based on English and Spanish count.

Thanks

English, by a factor of roughly 1.6 to 1, according to my ballpark estimate. 106m Mexicans, 37m Central Americans, 25m Spanish speakers in the Caribbean, another 20m Spanish first-preference speakers in the continental US equal 188m Spanish speakers. The US population is roughly 300, of whom roughly 275m count as English first-preference speakers; another 25m in Canada, plus 5m in the Caribbean comes to 305m English speakers. This makes the Spanish speaking population roughly 38% of the total English and Spanish speaking population, or about 35% of the total North American population counting francophones and Kreyol speakers.

This is a back-of-the-envelop calculation, but it should be roughly accurate. --Diderot 07:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant in this rough calculation but you missed the 1/4 million or so English/English creole speakers of Belize. Rmhermen 18:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the verb comprise

Can someone please tell me if this usage is right or wrong, and why:

"The meeting is planned to take place over 4 days , and will be attended by up to 20 people comprising our local staff and other overseas experts."

I've seen this construction before, about 'comprising', but I have the feeling that, at least in American english, it would read better as: "up to 20 people, comprised of our local staff and other experts".

Thank if you can offer concrete expertise...

Comprised is the past participle, which is indicating the passive voice. It makes more sense here than the present participle comprising. The word means 'put together', with the past participle we get the sense that the 'up to 20' are put together from the two following groups. Using the present participle implies that the 'up to 20' gather and then will form the local staff and overseas experts (by lot perhaps?). --Gareth Hughes 13:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Comprised of' is OK, but 'consisting of' is better. This gives the sense that all of the 20 people are local staff and other experts, but there could well be other local staff and other experts who did not attend. Whereas 'comprised of' can suggest that there are only 20 people altogether, and they will all attend. This is not the intended meaning, so in order to remove all trace of ambiguity, I suggest getting rid of "comprised of" and using a better construction, "consisting of". Another usage of comprise that is not seen that often nowadays is the active voice, eg. "These 5 people comprise my entire family", which is a far more euphonious sentence than "my family is comprised of (or even consists of) these 5 people". Cheers JackofOz 14:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"to comprise" is transitive. I am aware that 'comprises of' is widely used, but it is wrong. "to include" is synonymous: you wouldn't say "the meeting includes of 20 people", either. 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. As a shortcut, think of "comprise" as meaning "is composed of", so "comprised of" is essentially "is composed of of". Nothing wrong with "comprising" at all, any more than any other transitive verb (she reads the book / she enjoys many things, reading books among them; the group comprises our local staff and other experts / ...the group, comprising our local staff and other experts). For more definitions and examples, look at any of the dictionary entries from here. But I also agree that "consisting of" might be better simply because so many people misuse and misunderstand "comprising". Elf | Talk 02:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although in all fairness I'll toss in this usage note from Mirriam Webster:

Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 ("comprised of" meaning "composed of") is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

Elf | Talk 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that's not quite right: "sense 3" is the sense of "constitutes" instead of "includes", i.e. "what comprises a literary generation" for "what constitutes". this is 'attacked as wrong'. Then they quote Jimmy Carter with "about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women" -- you can see how this passive construction opens the door to even more incorrect use: (correct) "our armed forces comprise 8% women" --> (wrong 'sense 3') "women comprise 8% of our armed forces" --> (correct passivization of wrong use) "8% of our armed forces are comprised by women" --> (Carterism) "8% of our armed forces are comprised of women" --> (very wrong re-activization) "our armed forces comprise of 8% women". So you may say that late 18th century "use 3" is at the core of the mistake, but "comprised of" really seems to be a 20th century (American?) innovation. 09:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The shorthand that I remember from some grammar book is that "the whole comprises the parts" is the only form that purists will bless, and that "comprised" should just not be used. Thus the original quote is (rarely) quite right, and any "correction" would likely make it worse. If your goal is to publish a document whose content is not obscured by grammar arguments, avoid the word altogether. Too many folks care way too much. Sharkford 16:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you use it correctly (according to purists), there won't be any grammar arguments :) just avoid the infamous 'sense 3' 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that in the original question other should either be removed ("comprising local staff and overseas experts") or followed by a comma ("comprising local staff and other, overseas, experts"). DJ Clayworth 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Fallacies

Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me what type of logical fallcaies each of these 4 statements are?

The population of the world is exploding at an ever increasing rate.
Our water and air are no longer pure, and we have begun to run out of places to put our solid wastes.
We must stabalize our own poplulation if we are to maintain our present quality of life.
We should not have a population cap because of doomsday rumors.

Thanks, J

Uh...are you sure those are separate statements? It feels like they are all missing several premises somewhere. If not....I'd say that the first is factually incorrect - population expansion is no longer logarithmic, and so cannot be described as "ever increasing". Don't know if the last 3 can be classed as fallacies without more information. Have I missed something really obvious?--inks ^T 01:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them individually are formal fallacies (they may be inaccurate or bad proposals, but not fallacies of formal logic), and they don't combine to form an argument since the fourth statement appears to oppose the first three. However, they might constitute informal fallacies. There is a web site about both formal and informal fallacies at Adam Smith Institute which you may want to take a look at for suggestions. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of those statements are rhetorically questionable.

The first is a mixed metaphor: in ordinary language, explosions do not have a particular rate. You could say: The world's population is exploding; it is growing at an ever increasing rate. This claim is also factually questionable - global population growth is slowing - but as a question of logical coherency, that is beside the point.
The second is dubious on external grounds. Pure water is a notion from chemistry of questionable bearing. Unpolluted fresh water is certainly more accurate, but to use the word pure in this sense opens up the speaker to a charge of rhetorical conflation - real water from natural sources is not in any sense "pure". What I suspect is intended is the idea that safe water sources are growing scarcer. This statement is probably true globally, although it may not be locally true in all areas. As for running out places to put solid waste... this too strikes the astute reader as a gross oversimplification. The world has not run out of places where land is of low value, and different kinds of solid wastes pose different risks and entail different kinds of storage facilities. While not a logical fallacy, the simplification of complex issues in such a short form is off-putting.
The third statement contains a misspelling, but that is beside the point. It is a correctly formed predicate, but its truth value does not follow from the previous two statements. If I were to put forward a counter-argument, I would ask for historical evidence that this is a general rule. It clearly isn't - most countries have had simultaneous economic growth and population growth. There are telling exceptions - areas where population growth exceeded local resources, making social and economic structures less robust in the face of random disruptions or fluctuations in output - but the argument that those cases are more relevant to the discussion at hand than the many contrary examples are a necessary part of the argument.
I don't understand the fourth point. What "doomsday rumours", and what relevance do they have to population control?

--Diderot 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well written, Diderot. Further, #4 is an example of a common ambiguity of a "because" clause following a negated statement: "not A because B". This can be used, and commonly is used, to mean either "A is true, but not because of B or "Owing to B, A is not true". In this case, the sentance could be read as "Doomsday rumours are not the reason we should have a population cap" or "Because of the doomsday rumours, we shouldn't have a population cap". Sharkford 17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not an au pair but a ?

What do you call a travelling companion?

I think you call her a travelling companion. That's what Maggie Smith was to Helena Bonham-Carter in A Room with a View. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought there was a French term for it.

You require a passepartout, n'est pas? --Gareth Hughes 00:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oui

"A" or "The" which is it

In a recent debate with my roomate he and I could not come to any agreement as to which is correct in the following discussion; That Pixar is "the" company responsible for computer graphics. I argue the point that using "the", is not in refrence to only one company beeing responsible for computer graphics. His argument is "the" refers only to one specific company being responsible for all computer graphics. He is sure that "a" company is the correct gramattical usage of an article. I need to ask proffessional assitance on this because of the stale mate we have reached. Thanks --70.110.10.186 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your roommate is correct. "The" implies that they are "the one and only" company responsible for computer graphics (definite article). "A" implies that it is "one of many" (indefinite article). Many languages don't have such explicit ways of codifying such linguistic concepts, but English is one of them that does. (see Article (grammar) if you want more of an technical explanation). --Fastfission 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Fastfission except to note that there is a context in which "the" might be correct here, albeit not the usual situation. I'm referring to a situation where "the" is used to mean something like "the one you are already familiar with". Variety magazine used to, and maybe still does, illustrate this usage in referring to people; consider the following hypothetical, but plausible, example:

Married: Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, on Sept. 18. She's the singer; he's a dancer.

In such an example, Britney is referred to as "the singer" because she is well-known in her own right as a singer, whereas Kevin is just "a dancer" because he is just one of many dancers and not well-known except for his relationship with Britney.

By the same token, it would not be unusual to see an article stating, "Pixar, the computer graphics company, announced that its next film, Cars, would be released in the fall of 2006," since Pixar is well known as a computer graphics company. But as Fastfission indicates, I wouldn't write, "Pixar is the computer graphics company" alone because that sentence would imply that Pixar is the only computer graphics company. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an idiomatic usage of "the" to indicate "the best" or "most important" - in this usage in spoken English the word "the" would be stressed, so in written English the emphasis is often indicated by italics or bold text. In this usage, to say "Pixar is the company for computer graphics" is to imply that Pixar is the best, or perhaps the best-known, company for computer graphics - in this sense, it wouldn't be understood as a claim that Pixar is the only company for computer graphics. However, in general simple usage, if all you're trying to communicate is that "Pixar is a company that creates computer graphics", you'd use 'a', as per Fastfission's explanation. Dave.Dunford 03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does turbulent mean?

Simply, not flowing smoothly. Dysprosia 06:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our Turbulence article provides further information while according to Princeton Wordnet [15], there are two definitions. The first means "Characterised by unrest or disorder or insubordination" as in "We live in turbulent times". The second means "Agitated rigorously" applying to liquids as in "We kayaked through turbulent rapids". Capitalistroadster 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS Wiktionary gives similar definitions [16]. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 : disposed or given to insubordination and disorder : causing great unrest : inciting violence or disturbance <their physical courage and prowess ... were the talk of the less turbulent settlers -- American Guide Series: Minnesota> <the hot and turbulent feelings which boiled and surged in her -- Virginia Woolf>

2 : being in a state of violent commotion : characterized by great agitation or tumult : violently disturbed or agitated : STORMY, TEMPESTUOUS <a turbulent childhood filled with frustration and fears -- Diseases of the Nervous System> <the turbulent waters of party politics -- Victor Lewis> <the turbulent years of the revolutionary period>

3 obsolete : causing or tending to cause turbulence : having a disturbing or exciting effect <whose heads that turbulent liquor fills with fumes -- John Milton>

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged —Wayward 07:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. U.

My young son recently asked me what "P. U." stands for. The term is used to describe something that stinks - such as "P. U. That smells". I did a lot of web searches to try to find out if P. U. stands for something, but I haven't had any luck.

"P. U." seems to be a particularly exaggerated pronunciation of "phew" (fee-yew - sounding both syllables for emphasis). The Oxford English Dictionary gives the origins of "phew" as being "imit[atiton] of puffing". (it's defined as "expressing impatience, discomfort, relief, astonishment or disgust") Shimgray | talk | 13:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but suggest that poo might be a smellier etymology. --Gareth Hughes 13:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's from puteo, to stink. —Wayward 13:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have always heard that a really bad pun is two thirds of a pun, P.U. :-) --WhiteDragon 22:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

georgian language

Unless you have a specific question, see Georgian language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that all too many bypassers "mistake" the question form for the article consultation form Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Greek-Indo-european or semitic?

Revolutionary find? Seems Greek derived more from the M.E.? Anyone can explaion why is it "indo-euro"?

MS

No. Greek is an Indo-European language, and any decent research would not disagree with that. The research might suggest that there were influences from Semitic languages, but that's it. What's your source? --Gareth Hughes 20:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean the Greek alphabet? It is derived in part from Middle Eastern sources, specifically the Phoenician alphabet. The language itself is unquestionably Indo-European in origin. In fact, it was one of the languages originally used to show that Indo-European existed. --Diderot 08:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there is a "Middle Eastern" substrate in Greek. Not Semitic, possibly Anatolian (Luwian, also Indo-European), see Pelasgians. Some terms, especially mythological, are loanwords, e.g. Pegasus, Athene(?), labyrinth, hyacinth etc. That doesn't make Greek any less I-E, of course. 12:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Three Word In The English Language

There are three words in the English language that end in "gry". ONE is angry and the other is hungry. EveryONE knows what the third ONE means and what it stands for. Can you please tell me what that third word is?--207.200.116.5

See gry for a lengthy article about this old puzzle. --Sherool 20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several solutions are listed at the gry article, but I would suggest another: perhaps the original question was "three words with gry at the end", in which case the answer can be "gryphon", since it is not stated at which end the "gry" must appear. Shantavira 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help pronouncing some Laos/Thai political figure names

I'm not certain these are all from those two languages but, these are the names: Touby Lyfong, Meo tribes, Phoumi Nosovan, Xieng Quang, Tan Son Nhut, and president thieu. If someone could tell me the phoenetic spellings i would appreciate it, and i put in one that i know the pronunciation so don't try to bull crap me. thanks.

The section Thai language#Phonology is good, and, if you read that in conjunction with the article on the Royal Thai General System of Transcription (Thai alphabet might come in hand too), you should be able to get a decent pronunciation. For Lao, see Lao language and Lao romanization. These are not as well developed as the Thai articles, but should do the job. --Gareth Hughes 11:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why say "eat beef" not "eat cow"

It's just a thought...Why do we say we eat beef and not eat cow like how we say eat chicken?

--61.8.226.74 10:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In English, our food words tend to have Norman-French bases; our animal names tend to have Anglo-Saxon bases:

Animal    meat
-----------------
cow       beef
sheep     mutton
pig       pork
calf      veal
deer      venison

Cheaper meats, like chicken, turkey, or rabbit didn't pick up a Norman-French name becaues they weren't eaten by the aristocracy. Nunh-huh 10:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think turkey was even around in medieval England, was it? Interesting that we do say "lamb", though, and not some anglicization of agneau. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mediaeval sheep on a plate was mutton (Norman French). Only later did as preference for lamb take over. --Gareth Hughes 11:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as a problem in linguistics this happens to be my line of work. The answer is because you just don't. "Cow" is an animal, "beef" is an edible product, and the two words mean different things just as much "dog" and "cat" do. You don't say it because no one around you says it, and your native sense of linguistic awkwardness prevents you from wanting to unless you're trying to make a point. In constraint-based theories of grammar, this is explained by saying that the interdiction on using a non-food word as an object of the verb to eat is a relatively high ranked constraint, and you are naturally loath to break it unnecessarily.

The real tough question comes in the implication that there are two words "chicken₁" and "chicken₂". The first means a living animal and belongs in the same category as "cow", the second means a meat product and is in the same lexical category as "beef". Most people reject this conception as it runs counter to their natural linguistic reflexes, however, there is at least one semi-repectable brand of lexicalist linguistics that makes that claim.

I would not. I think that rather than envisioning having two lexical entries for "chicken", people store information for each noun about the kinds of verbs each noun can accept as headwords and they store for each verb information about the nouns they can take as arguments. I think this kind of information is 99% of the time a summary of distributional information collected over a lifetime as a language user, and that the more often a particular formulation is heard, the harder it becomes to break it unintentionally. That way, if I ask, what do you do with chickens, you say "We eat them", but if I ask what do you do with cows, the answer is "We milk them" or "We slaughter them for Big Macs".

This kind of information is more difficult for second language users to access, which is why they often ask for reasons and rules for things that have neither specific reasons nor rules. They do not have a lifetime of experience to know which nouns go with which verbs. And for this reason, it is essential for a dictionary to say explicitly that you can eat beef but not cows. Unfortunately, this information is rarely consciously accessible to native speakers, and is normally opaque even to introspective techniques, which makes it hard for lexicographers to think to put it in dictionaries. This sort of data can, however, be acquired easily by computers and is beginning to inform dictionary designers. (Although not Wiktionary as far as I can tell.)

--Diderot 12:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, until recently "beef" could mean either the meat or the animal from which it came, as the French word boeuf still does. When did this change, and why? —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall most variants of English haven't used "beef" for the animal in quite some time - the adjective is bovine, though, which may be what you're thinking of... Shimgray | talk | 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives quotes using "beef" to mean an animal from as recently as 1904, although in all the quotes since the eighteenth century it's used in the context of an animal being killed for food, and even before that it's usually the animal being discussed as a source of food. It doesn't look like anyone ever said, "Look at that beef grazing in the pasture". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that at one point the plural was beeves, but I'm not sure whan that was last in standard usage -- it surely isn't now. Buf if you go back far enough, people did indeed say "I have a herd of 200 beeves, so i am a rich man". DES ^(talk) 15:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think even then, though, it meant specifically beef cattle, not cattle in general. IIRC French bœuf also means "ox", so perhaps at some point in English it was a synonym for "ox". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Cattle: "Within the beef cattle industry in parts of the United States, the older term beef (plural beeves) is still used to refer to an animal of either gender."

Btw, chicken on the table is also sometimes referred to as "pullet", derived from the French "poulét".

The original question contains a false analogy. The meat called "chicken" is never from the animal called a "chicken", becase chickens, being baby poultry, are far too small to be killed for food (at least commercially). The meat "chicken" is from adult poultry, ie. hens and roosters. Cheers JackofOz 05:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps farmers make that distinction, but the general public doesn't. In layman's terms, "chicken", as the article indicates, is a cover term for domesticated Gallus gallus of any age or sex. The babies more specifically are called "chicks". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The cow is a female breeding animal. We do not just eat cows, we eat heiffers, bulls and steers too. Beef encompasses all of this and it sounds better than "eat cattle". And yes, you can only milk cows; good luck trying to milk the others. - Jana - sometimes it pays to have grown up on a farm - Oct 20, 2005

Upfront ideology

What is an upfront Ideology?

Upfront ideology is the opposite of implicit ideology. In upfront ideology, the ideological argument, ideas or opinions are presented openly and make direct reference to the subject (e.g. Fahrenheit 9/11). Implicit ideology is where the argument is implied, described using metaphor or parody - it requires some level of interpretation to read into the argument and draw the analogy. Several children's picture books employ implicit ideology to make a political point (e.g. Help Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! [17]) -- Canley 06:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Another example of a book with a hidden ideology might be Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, which is a satire. StuRat 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is a screaming match?

It's basically an argument that deteriorates into the two (or more) combatants screaming at each other, hoping to convince the other of their argument through volume rather than logic. Garrett Albright 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of a phrase

What is the origin of the phrase, "got up on the wrong side of bed?" 16:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase is "get out of bed on the wrong side". According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, "It was formerly held to be unlucky to set the left foot on the ground first when getting out of bed. The same superstition applies to putting on the left shoe first." Shantavira 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase certainly is "get up on the wrong side of (the) bed". If people also use "get out of bed on the wrong side", that doesn't make it not the phrase! - Nunh-huh 03:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let them eat cake

What is the origin of the saying 'Let them eat cake'?

The legend is that Marie Antoinette said it when she was told the peasants had no bread (see Marie Antoinette#Coronation and queenship). In fact, there's no evidence she was the one to say it. More likely, it was Maria Theresa of Spain. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word comparison

Does ravel and unravel mean the sqame thing?

Consulting Wiktionary, we see that both mean "To pull apart" (Wiktionary:ravel and Wiktionary:unravel). So the answer to your question is yes, they both mean the same. --Borbrav 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consulting a real dictionary (sorry Wiktionary) unravel means the same as some meanings of ravel. Ravel can mean to tangle or to untangle plus other things like a railing. MeltBanana 22:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You suck! :P gkhan 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, I freaked out a student by telling her that "to fill out a form" and "to fill in a form" mean the same thing. English is horrible. Garrett Albright 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite examples are the pairs "to"/"unto" and "till"/"until", which also mean the same thing. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best has to be Flammable/Inflammable, re: Dr Nick --Ballchef 15:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partial to Sanction, which is its own opposite. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does "capricho" mean in spanish?

i am a filipino and this word are frequently used in movies and dubbed foreign shows in here (like animès and korean soap operas). i want to know the meaning of the original spanish word. (i personally believe that this word is derived from spanish, but if not, please tell me). thanks.

-erika

--210.5.87.163 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only knowledge of the word is in a musical context, where it is used to mean the same thing as "capriccio" in Italian, usually translated as "caprice" in English. For example, the Capricho Catalan by Albeniz. JackofOz 09:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Capricho = caprice = whim. Capricious (caprichoso) is the related adjective. –Hajor 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one word that means 'touch of a feather'

I am after one word that means 'touch of a feather', in any language is fine, and also how do I pronouce it correctly.

ahm, literally, or is this some idiom like 'birds of a feather'? 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tickle is the only English word I can find. If you want something more exotic, pteronophobia means fear of being tickled with a feather, so you could coin something like pteronorate. Shantavira 11:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word slant

What means the word "slant"?

I doubt if you mean the common usage ("at an angle"), and am guessing you mean the alternate meaning ("interpretation"), as in "West Side Story put a new slant on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet."

If you can provide the context, we could explain further. StuRat 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be referring to a different name for the slash or backslash characters. Elf | Talk 18:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be an offensive ethnic epithet for an Asian person. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

finding derivation of the term "bullet point"

see Bullet (typography). That article doesn't say it, but in the days of handset type, the piece of type for a the round ones looked overall like a small bullet. Sharkford 02:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"How"

In American movies and TV, Native Americans are often depicted using the word "how" as a greeting. Where did this mistaken stereotype come from? Was there or is there a Native American language where "how" is the principle greeting? If not, what's the origin of this use of "how"? --ESP 16:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two explanations:

In Algonquian languages (or at least all the ones I know well enough to say), the interrogative particle "how?" by itself implies "how are you?". In many languages, including Algonquian ones, a formulation of this type is considered the standard greeting, e.g., Chinese "你好". Native Americans with an imperfect knowledge of English therefore sometimes used the "how" formulation. The two main Algonquian lingua francas - Plains Cree and Great Lakes Ojibwe/Anishinaabe/Chippewa/Odawa - both have vocabulary fitting this explanation: "tânisi" ("ᑖᓂᓯ") in Cree and "aaniin" ("ᐋᓃᓐ") in Ojibwe.
In Lakota (and all the Siouan languages as far as I know), the word for "hello" is "hau", pronounced "how". Lakota was the lingua franca of a very large part of the plains and the Sioux were among the last Native Americans in the continental US to be assimilated into American political structures, so they were the people most active in the living memories of the producers of early cowboy films.

Which one is the real reason? Both? Neither? Beats me. --Diderot 17:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The next question is, what's the etymology of Lakota hau? Maybe Lakota borrowed it from the Algonquian-English interlanguage. Or maybe it's borrowed from Chinese ni hao, with the first syllable dropped. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a fully native Siouan term - it's the same word in Lakota, Dakota and Nakota. In Omaha, I think it's "ahau". If it's that widespread, I assume it predates the era when there were many whites on the plains. But I don't know Lakota, I'm an amateur Algonquianist at best. --Diderot 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for Chinese, heh... I suppose it could have come from one of Zheng He's crewmen. I'm kinda surprised that Gavin Menzies didn't mention it as evidence. ---Diderot 17:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

definition

what is revenue?

Please consult a dictionary. On-line dictionaries are available fromWiktionary and Merriam-Webster. Ground Zero | t 19:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, our Revenue article has a definition. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Whence doth the word "animosity" come? -jim

See here, just below the first definitions. The American Heritage Dictionary is one of the more reliable etymological sources out there (I use that, then the OED) and is free to boot. — mendel ☎ 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But how did the Latin "animositas", or "courage", become a word for enmity and hostility?

People used it that way. Words regularly develop over time to contradict their etymologies (so much that there is a particular name, "etymological fallacy", for insisting that a word's meaning is strictly governed by its etymology). OED2 shows the initial sense of "animosity" meaning mere bravery dying out by the late 17th century and the modern sense appearing in the middle of that century. — mendel ☎ 16:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language

What dose Language mean?

Aidan age,7

Our Language article should be a good start. --Borbrav 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the Simple English version of Language easier to read. On the other hand, if you're asking what this page is for, it's for people to ask questions about why things are spelled the way they are, or how to say something in a foreign language, or things like that.-gadfium 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innovated Technology company

I wonder how to write an abbreviation for this company's name: Innovated Technology for Communication Joint-stock company. Shoud I write ITC JSC or ITC.,JSC? I don't know what the exact way is. Pls, help!!!!!

The way you have it written with hyphenated '-stock' in "Joint-stock" as one word and 'company' with lower case letters, I would think it could be abbreviated as such: ITCJ Co.

Most companies have a preferred style for their abbreviation or short-form name; for example IBM is not I.B.M. or Int'l Bus. Mach. or etc. Of course what you write is a matter of your own personal style, but for a standardized and consistent form, I'd look to see what the company uses on their web site or correspondence. In this case, web references to this outfit are pretty scarce. I'd go for ITC JS Co. or maybe ITFC JS Co.Sharkford 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Language

WOuld you please tell the difference between American English and British English?

Our American English explains many of the differences. However, there are many versions of British English including English English, Highland English, Mid Ulster English, Scottish English and Welsh English. The English version is probably the one you're after. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See our article American and British English differences.-gadfium 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is in a name?

I was wondering if there was a good source for figuring out at least parts of a name. Something that breaks it down into parts and pieces to derive the meaning or root of the name...? User:Russ Henderson 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are various guides to deciphering personal and place names in various language, but they usually just cover one of these. So, you'll have to be more specific: ar you wanting to understand Korean place names? --Gareth Hughes 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was interested more in western culture names, ones that have a root in either Latin, German, or western European cultures. For example, Tithonius, what do the parts of this name mean to arrive at the meaning of the name as a whole?

May I recommend a book: the Oxford Dictionary of First Names. Don't let the pink and blue cover put you off, this is a scholarly reference work on a par with any of their dictionaries, listing given names from all the European languages with roots traced back to root words in Gaelic, Germanic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. Appendices cover Indian (i.e., South Asian) and Arabic names too. Sharkford 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

". or ."

when a word ends in a quotation, for example, in the Democratic Party article I wrote: they work to rebuild the Party "from the bottom up".

this seemed correct to me , but someone changed it to `."` with the period inside the quotation. See here: [18] --Revolución (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regional difference. '".' is British, '."' is American (IIRC). In this case, since you're talking about an American subject, you would want to use '."' H e rmione1980 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, commas and periods precede closing quotation marks. —Wayward 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? --Revolución (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MLA Style Manual, 2nd ed., 3.9.7: By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks . . .

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 6.8: Periods and commas. Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single. This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906). As nicely expressed in William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White's Elements of Style, "Typographical usage dictates that the comma be inside the [quotation] marks, though logically it often seems not to belong there." —Wayward 01:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question needs to be ended with a period and NOT a quotation mark. The quotation in question is a phrase from a sentence, not an entire sentence. It was not incorrect. --Revolución (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the example in your link above, and in American English, the period would come before the closing quotation mark. The excerpts I've provided clearly mention both commas and periods. —Wayward 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, according to WP:MOS#Quotation marks, Wikipedia style is to use double quotes (as in American usage) but put punctuation outside quotation marks if it logically belongs there (as in British usage). The rule "American usage in an article on an American topic" applies to spelling, not punctuation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, many articles dealing with American politics currently use American-style punctuation. Changing all instances of American punctuation to British-style punctuation may cause unnecessary discord. After all, the MoS also states, "Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." —Wayward 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not advocating going through all of Wikipedia and making sure punctuation conforms to MOS. I for one have better things to do with my time. I think drooling and staring at a blank wall for three hours would be a better use of my time than that. Nevertheless, Revolución's original edit conformed to the MOS, and he's perfectly justified in reverting the non-MOS-compliant edit, and should indicate what the MOS has to say about it when doing so. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noun plurals

Does every noun necessarily have a plural? For instance, do elements contained on the periodic table have plurals? It seems to me that you would say to atoms of helium rather than two heliums.

There are two types of nouns in English: count nouns and non-count nouns. Count nouns are things that can be counted, e.g., table, chair, fork. Count nouns have a plural form. Non-count nouns are things that cannot be counted, e.g., air, education, helium. Non-count nouns do not have a plural form. —Wayward 06:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, is there a name for nouns like 'Sheep'? Sheep can be counted, but a farmer would say 'I have 8 sheep and 3 pigs', rather than 'I have 8 sheeps and 3 pigs'. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same thing as a collective noun. I would just think of such words as simply irregular plurals.

As for the original question, mass (or non-count) nouns can be pluralised, but their meaning is always in some respect different from their conventional form. Think of it as a process not too dissimilar to nouns that can have more than one gender in French - it's a subtle way of signaling that you are taking about the subject in a metaphorical or alternative way. For example, you can say "The waters of the Mississippi and the Missouri meet in St Louis." Or, "Some children attend secular schools, while others attend sectarian ones, but the educations that they receive are largely the same." Or even, "Helium has only two stable isotopes, but all heliums have the same chemical properties."

Some of these usages are well accepted in English, others are poetic or at least striking ("marked" is what linguists would call it). But none are incomprehensible, and with some imagination one can easily devise contexts where any plural of a mass noun will be readily understood. Ergo, I should think that there are none that are per se incorrect, but some are non-standard and should be used only with caution. --Diderot 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, did you know that in German, the plural of "Dogma" is "Dogmen"? :)

I use dogma as the politically correct term for a mother dog. StuRat 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any noun can be made into a plural. You might have to contrive a special context, but it can be done. For helium, an example might be: "There are many different heliums. There's a Bulgarian rock band called "Helium', there's a painting by the surrealst painter Norbert Throatgargler called "Helium", and there's the element. Which of these "heliums" are you referring to?". Or something like that. JackofOz 02:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the plural of "helium" helia, anyway? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source? Element names in English are not borrowed from Latin. Many of them have Latin-looking endings or borrow bits from Latin words, but that does not qualify them to be pluralised as if they were Latin words (anyway, helium is from the Greek helios, so Latin is way off the mark here). Same argument for botanical etc names. Would you say "chrysanthemums" or "chrysanthema"? I'd certainly vote for the former. These words were coined in modern times, so it absurd in an English-language context to apply Latin endings to plurals of words that never existed in Latin to begin with. Maybe if you're writing a treatise in Latin about different heliums, you would be correct to say "helia", but otherwise you'd risk being seen as an intellectual snob (heaven forbid!). I'm all for using English plurals for English words. Helium is an English word. JackofOz 07:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though "helium" is an English word, I would still find it awkward to say "heliums". If "helia" is unacceptable (which for me is), could the plural of "helium" also be "helium"? And what about other elements like "lead", "copper", "chromium", etc.? I would find it extremely unnatural to append an "s" at the end. Don Diego 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have remembered that tone of voice cannot be expressed well in writing. My suggestion that the plural of "helium" is helia was meant to be tongue in cheek. That would also be my intention if I ever said "What lovely chrysanthema!" or "Look at all the walri lying on that rock!" or when I refer to a single rouse. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. How droll. I remember once seeing disturbances occurring simultaneously on opposite sides of a street, and commenting to my friend about the prevalence of "pandemonia", and he responded with "Yes, these are serious social conundra". The risk with using such non-plurals as a joke is that they can get picked up and taken as "gospel truth" for decades (or generations). For example, I was taught at school (in the 50s) that the correct plurals of Octopus and Platypus are Octopi and Platypi. My teachers weren't aware that the -pus ending is not a Latin root but a Greek one, and if anything the plural would be -podes. But it would be pedantic in the extreme to insist on people saying Octopodes, and it would actually be wrong to insist on Platypodes because Platypus combines a Latin root (platy) with a Greek root (pus), and thus should not be pluralised according to either Latin or Greek. The only reasonable plurals in a plain-English world are platypuses and octopuses (despite the admitted lack of euphony). I'm off on one of my tangents again, I can see, so I'll stop here. (PS. Tone of voice cannot be expressed in writing at all, but ironic intent can.) Cheers JackofOz 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, platy- is Greek too. In Ancient Greek, platypous is an adjective meaning flat-footed. As a good nonprescriptive linguist, I never insist on anyone doing anything with their native language, but I still reserve the right to talk about octopodes and platypodes if I so choose. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you. JackofOz 07:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "heads up"

I want to know who came up with this abomination so I can personally strangle him/her. Does anybody claim to be the inventor? And what is the connection between the words and their meaning ("advance warning")? It has no obvious connection with what it means, so how come it was adopted so universally so quickly? JackofOz 05:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: Watch out; pay attention. This interjection, now used in numerous situations where the speaker is calling for alertness, is always stated in the plural, whether it is addressed to one person or several. It originated in sports and is most often shouted out to baseball spectators to keep them from getting beaned by a foul ball. In other sports it may be uttered by a coach exhorting his or her charges to be alert for a particular move by the opponents (s). It also is heard on the tennis court, when a player is alerting his or her doubles partner that the opponent may be preparing for a smash or hitting down the alley or some similar maneuver. Ammer, Christine. Southpaws & Sunday Punches and other Sporting Expressions. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

Webster's gives its date of origin as circa 1941. —Wayward 06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That seems to relate to the interjection "heads up!". I'm more interested in the noun, as in "I'm just calling to give you a heads up about the meeting this afternoon. Don't let the chairman rattle you". This usage has been around, to my certain knowledge, only for about 3 or 4 years in Australia. I clearly recall the very first time I heard it, as I had to ask the speaker what he was talking about. Since then, it's taken off. JackofOz 06:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably been in American usage as a noun for 15 or 20 years. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the interjection form means "warning!", perhaps it began to be used as a noun meaning "warning" as well. --Ornil 19:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. What I want to know is who coined this nounal usage. Somebody must have been first. JackofOz 01:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing it used in that way in the U.S. for at least 30 years, and I think the common tendancy of sports jargon to penetrate daily life (and perhaps particularly business life) must be responsible. The very common tendancy to make nouns out of verbs or verb phrases also had a role, i'm sure. Probaly there were multiple indipendant adoptions of this phrase, and I very much doubt if they could be tracked to a particular person. DES ^(talk) 07:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that it is at least that old, maybe older. I suspect a "Madison Avenue" (New York advertising/PR industry) origin, or maybe Hollywood. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

feel still free to strangle people who use it, especially in written communication. it's terrible. 09:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with Head Up Display? I always thought it had military connotations. Trollderella 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original exclamation might, but I'd be very surprised if the noun does. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of Abbreviated terms

Does one say "CDs" or "CD's" when many compact discs are the subject? Ex. I bought some (CDs/CD's).

CDs. David Sneek

Accepted practice on this has changed in recent decades. At one time "CD's" would have been the usual form, on the grounds that inflectional suffixes can't be attached to things that are not words. Today most people no longer believe this (or else they believe that things like "CD" are words), and prefer to write "CDs". The apostrophe style is still useful where confusion might otherwise result ("I's are narrow letters"; "Which do you have, Model 4's, 4e's, or 4s's?"), but it makes the spelling of the plural the same as the possessive singular, which can also be confusing. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, October 16, 2005

How often do you see shop signs that say, eg. "Videos, CD's, LPs and tapes" (or every other combination of possibilities). These are the same types that will advertise "pizza's, foccaccias, sandwiche's, rolls, schnitzel's, steaks, salads', and drinks". Many people have a bet each way with apostrophes in plurals because (a) they don't know what the rules are and they can't find an authoritative reference, (b) the references they do find disagree, or (b) they aren't even aware of their own inconsistency, and actually checking their spelling and punctuation would never occur to them (which is a much more likely explanation). To be unaware that one is unaware is the worst sin of all. At least David Sneek is bothering to ask the question. Three cheers. JackofOz 08:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO This is a form of the Greengrocer's apostrophe and was always incorrect, but it was a frequent error. it still is, but to a reduced degree. DES ^(talk) 08:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be reduced in your neck of the woods, but it's alive and well where I live. What does IMO mean? JackofOz 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO = In my opinion. Internet slang. —Wayward ^Talk 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to answer it... David Sneek 09:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In medicine, "fevers of unknown origin" are referred to as "FUO's". Another example, from educ, is "Learn your ABC's". Would you say that the verbal IQ of doctors and schoolteachers is plummeting? Don Diego 12:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "FUOs", "ABCs", "UFOs", "IQs" etc would be just as valid. There is probably no "right" or "wrong" solution to this question. The only really wrong thing is inconsistency within the same text. That is what really drives pedants like me crazy. JackofOz 13:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so interesting !i learned some new things from your discussion! nicolas

"I said Good Day!"

One of my favourite shows is the Daily Show, and they frequently say this phrase in an angry (but humorous) voice. Like,

"Good day to you sir" 
"But Stephen, we..." 
"I SAID GOOD DAY!".

I keep hearing that phrase in different places, and I was just curious about it's origin (maybe there's some brave soul out there who could write a stub on it?) gkhan 23:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fez, on That 70's Show, likes to say that. I believe it's British in origin. That particular trait, seeming to be polite while being rude underneath, is a very British thing. Americans would just be outright rude with "Get out of my face" or something to that effect. Beyond that, I don't know the etymology. StuRat 23:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Fez does say that. About the etymology, it just feels like a qoute from something, and I'm curious what. gkhan 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was from the original Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory movie, from the scene near the end where Wonka is telling Charlie and his grandpa to leave the factory. Garrett Albright 04:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely where I've heard it said in that specific manner and intonation:

Wonka: You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!

Grandpa Joe: You're a crook. You're a cheat and a swindler. How could you do a thing like this, raise up a little boy's hopes and then dash all his dreams to pieces? You're an inhuman monster.

Willy Wonka: I SAID GOOD DAY!!

--Fastfission 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, Scrooge says "Good afternoon, gentlemen!" to get rid of the men who have come to his office to collect for charity. He only says it once in the book, but I seem to remember him saying it (or maybe "Good day") two or three times with increasing vigor in one of the movie versions. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar exchange near the start of The Hobbit in which Gandalf comments "What a lot of things you do use 'Good day' for. Now you mean you want me to leave and it won't be a good day until i do." (quoted from memory, so possibly not exactly correct. Bilbo as dipicted at the start of The Hobbit is of course very English, and distinctively upper middle class at that. DES ^(talk) 07:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero in Ancient China

In a number of articles I have read, many seem to state that the ancient Chinese used "0" for zero. However, there is also the word "ling" in Chinese which means zero. Were both of these used interchangably in Chinese writing then? --HappyCamper 03:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. The Chinese character for zero (零 líng) is a relatively complicated character to write with 13 strokes. So, many Chinese people use "0" in its place because it's simpler to write. But I find it unlikely that they would have done this before the 19th century and would need evidence to be convinced. Zero as a concept is of Indian origin and no doubt filtered into China at some point, but the glyph "0" is highly unlike all other Chinese numerals. Chinese writing ordinarily forbids such curved lines. --Diderot 09:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the case, it would not explain the necessity of having stylized symbols for 1,2,3,4....--HappyCamper 11:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stylized symbols? You mean 花碼 (huama)? Those are to prevent counterfeiting. --Diderot 17:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note that the origin of decimal notation in India dates to ca. 300 AD. It is uncertain whether the idea spread from China to India, or from India to China. Also, note that the origin of the '0' symbol is a simple dot, indicating an empty position in decimal notation. I assume either the Chinese or the Indians could have come up with a dot, so that doesn't help us much. The transition from a dot to the 0 glyph happened only in Europe, around 1200 or so. The "2600 BC" claim on 0 (number) is utter bogus and Indian nationalist wishful thinking, as far as I can see, btw. 12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Greek pangram

Does anyone know a good Greek pangram, i.e., a sentence in (classical or modern) Greek that contains every letter of the Greek alphabet? —Keenan Pepper 16:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In German...

What is nondimensionalization in German? --HappyCamper 16:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'd guess Nichtdimensionalisation, bu that could be very wrong! --Gareth Hughes 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I can't find it in any of my technical dictionaries either. Can anyone suggest another place to go? I'd love to try and translate the article into German... --HappyCamper 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Entdimensionalisierung[19], but since I know zip about math and physics, I could be wrong. Shall I ask at the de: Reference desk? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wait for permission, I went ahead and asked here, in case you want to look there from time to time for an answer. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you already asked there a few days ago what "bzw." means, and they told you it means "respectively". Well, sort of. Depending on context, "A bzw. B" can mean "A and B, respectively", "A and/or B", or "A or B, as the case may be". Bad translators like to translate it "A resp. B", mistakenly thinking that "respectively" can be used as a conjunction in English and can be abbreviated "resp.". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. And yes, de:Kirschtomate is Cherry tomato, so I've added the interwiki link. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case my German textbooks all failed me, including my Taschenbuch der Physik, which I usually use to figure out this technical stuff. But I found this in de:Navier-Stokes-Gleichungen: "Eine Entdimensionalisierung liefert diverse dimensionslose Kennzahlen." So it looks like the right word to me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it to dict.cc. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what "dict.cc" is? --HappyCamper 22:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dict.cc/ An online German and English dictionary that anyone can contribute to. (Sound like a familiar concept?) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sür! :-) --HappyCamper 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they have copyright problems a few months ago? I thought they'd shut down the contributing part. Don Diego 12:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I only just found out about them last week. But I contributed a word yesterday, so it's still possible. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"strings attached"

What does "strings attached" mean? ~~helix84 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it is synonymous with "catches" or "hidden conditions." So if I were to offer you a free car "with no strings attached," it usually means I am saying that there isn't any complicating or mitigating conditions which would make it a considerably less sweet deal (i.e., it is "free" if you donate $10,000 to my company, as a very silly example). My guess is that it comes from either an allusion to traps of some sort, though honestly for me it also conjures up images of puppetry even though that wouldn't quite work with the metaphor unless I'm misreading it (my guess is that such an association comes from the song about "no strings to hold me down" from Disney's Pinnochio movie). It could also be an allusion to some sort of fishing lure — the offer is not just "bait" to reel you in to some untimely end. --Fastfission 19:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is the first time I used Reference desk, I wonder if this (or these answers generally) ever gets to an article. ~~helix84 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. I haven't seen much of the material generated on the reference desk migrate into articles yet. But you are most welcome to do so if you like :-) Check the "archive" link up at the top for previous questions asked here on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Strings attached" is a back formation off of the more common "no strings attached". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is also used with reference to a brief sexual/romantic encounter, "no strings" meaning no commitment and no expectations. Shantavira 19:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Aramaic translation

I need a translation into ~~Arabic~~ Aramaic in transliterated (is that the right term? That is to say, written in the English alphabet) characters, if possible, of "let the killing curse be destroyed". Thanks, H e rmione1980 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need a translated transliteration in Arabic. Why? Don Diego 12:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, well, I'm writing a piece of Harry Potter fanfiction and I'm looking for a plausible "spell" to counteract Avada Kedavra. Actually I just looked at that page and realised I needed Aramaic, not Arabic. I'm an idiot, can anyone help me? H e rmione1980 22:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic: تخرّب اللعنة القاتلة — taẖarrab al-laʿnä al-qātilä --Gareth Hughes 13:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Aramaic now is it? Any preference for dialect, there are a few to choose from? --Gareth Hughes 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no clue. Whatever the dialect that was used to come up with the original one, I guess (see List of spells in Harry Potter#The Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra)). Thanks again, H e rmione1980 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "Alakazam" in response to "Abracadabra"? ;) Chosen One 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about Hakuna Matata? :^) Raka ( ריקא ) is Aramaic for dipshit. It's in the Bible - check Matthew 5:22. Otherwise, I can't help you much with Aramaic curses. --Diderot 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I think some Babylonian Talmudic would be in order, if that's OK. There are some interesting nuances to the root דבר, which can mean to destroy in some contexts. I imagine JKR put Avada Kadavra as an anti-Abracadabra, so it might be most appropriate to use that. Let me know what kind of feel you want for this phrase, and I'll come up with something — not ex nihilo, but I'll find something for you. --Gareth Hughes 13:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but what do you mean by "what kind of feel"? H e rmione1980 18:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theartre

Theatre indeed. --Borbrav 23:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

who wrote the play ghosts? who is in the play and who is the director? what type of play is this?

August Strindberg. JackofOz 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. I was thinking of The Ghost Sonata. Sorry for misinformation. JackofOz 05:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Ghosts is a unique name, but the other major Scandanvian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote a play named Ghosts.--Prosfilaes 05:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "who is in the play and who is the director?" Every time it's performed, there are different players and different directors. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew word: "Kavod"

Excuse me - I need a literal translation of the Hebrew word "kavod." I've heard "glory," "presence," and "esteem." Are all of these correct? How is the word most commonly used? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew: כבוד, kāḇôḏ — This word is generally translated into English as glory. The root has the basic meaning to be heavy, and thus implies gravitas (honour, respect, glory). There are are various other complicated nuances of this word, but they depend on context. --Gareth Hughes 12:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is still relevant, Oxford translates it as 'honour', 'respect' and 'dignity'. I'd say respect is the most common usage. -- Ynhockey 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

word

what is scuttle buck? I found it in google but am not happy with it K C Lim

Are you sure you don't mean scuttlebutt?

1 a : a cask on shipboard to contain fresh water for a day's use b : a drinking fountain on a ship or at a naval or marine installation

2 : RUMOR, GOSSIP <started a round of scuttlebutt to the effect that the regiment would arrive soon -- H.L.Merillat>

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged —Wayward ^Talk 04:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite litterally the water cooler of an old ship. Gossip took place around it. Trollderella 16:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The place of language in communication

Please I need an article of a book that has materials on the place of languae in communication

Have you examined our articles on language and communication? You'll also (probably) want to clarify verbal language, as communication can roughly be defined as an exchange of information via language, making the concepts virtually inseparable: as an example, a human scream of pain is recognizable as such regardless of spoken language; moreover, many animal equivalents are equally recognizable to humans. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Business etiquette for India

I am currently writing a research paper on the Business Etiquette used for writing to businesses in India from the United States. Information that I need are: low or high context, are women accepted in business, forms of address (Dear? Honorable? Etc.) Order of discussion within the letter, direct vs. indirect approach, use of language (politeness, use of hyperbole, and tone. To make it simple, I need to how to write a letter without offending anyone from India.

I don't know much about it, but if you're writing a research paper, shouldn't you, well, research it? :) Anyway here's a link that discusses business etiquette research methods in general and lists a couple books on Indian business etiquette. For the mechanics of the letter, I'd assume a well formed formal letter layout in English would suffice well. - Taxman ^Talk 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may be find our Economy of India and Culture of India articles useful for background. Our Women in India doesn't cover anything on business, but I would be surprised if cultural issues didn't carry over into business. Probably a bit less in large cities and between some and a lot more in rural areas, but that's just conjecture. I'll shut up now and let someone that knows comment. - Taxman ^Talk 19:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Cellar Door

In the film "Donnie Darko" there's a scene where Drew Barrymore's character says that a famous linguist once claimed that the most beautiful pairing of words in any language was "Cellar Door". Is there any truth in that, and if so, who was the linguist?

Do you doubt that the wonderful Wikipedia has written an article all about it, just for you: cellar door? --Gareth Hughes 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

conditions

what is the common term for conditions such as narcolepsy?

Sleep disorder? Dyssomnia? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do I pronounce 'Kando'.

I read an article that had the word kando in it. The article said the word derived in Japan and means "to create a feeling of happiness". I would like a proper definiton and the proper way to pronounce the word. (Kando)

Thank you,

Chris

Have a look at Japanese phonology for the complete picture. Most of the sounds in kando are straightforward. The vowels are the trickiest to get right. The a is about halfway between the vowel in hand and that in hundred. The o vowel is fairly tense: like the one in dog. Try that, and you'll amaze yourself by your quality Japanese pronunciation. I'm also available for parties... --Gareth Hughes 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are referring to 感動 (かんどう kandou), meaning being deeply moved emotionally. I do alas not know IPA, though I shall nevertheless attempt to produce a satisfactory reply to your request of the word's pronunciation: kandoor, with the first syllable's a pronounced nasally. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 15:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Like dog in which accent of English? Like door in which accent of English? Not a rhotic one, certainly. This is why the IPA is so useful! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language

What is the difference b/w talk and speak?

when to use talk & when speak?

In English, the word talk is used to describe the act of vocal communication, while speak is used to describe the vocal communication itself. Therefore, "I would like to speak to you" suggests desire to communicate, whereas "I would like to talk to you" suggests that one-way communication is desired. If someone is described as a talker, then they can't shut up. However, if they are described as a speaker, then they are either good at speaking, or expected to be. Have a read of Cours de linguistique générale. --Gareth Hughes 14:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well... the difference betwenn "communication" and "act of communication" is not really the issue here. Both "to talk" and "to speak" describe acts of communication. "to talk" rather refers to a coherent whole. it is derived from tell, just like hark is from hear [20]. speak otoh means "to make an utterance" more generally [21]. If anything, this word describes the "act". The difference between "talker" and "speaker" is idiomatic and unenlightening. A speaker may deliver either a talk or a speech. It is possible to have a talk with somebody, but it is not possible to have a speech with somebody. So, at the core, I think talking refers to coherent utterances (both weighty and idle), and speaking more generally refers to any articulate utterance at all, but most of the usage of the verbs is prescribed by idioms. Or, more to the point, talk being a "frequentative", "to speak" may refer to a single syllable, "to talk" refers to a lengthy string of syllables. Therefore, in imperatives, "talk" is reserved to wh-questions, I think: "what are his plans? talk!", but "is it true that he killed her? speak!" 81.63.121.28 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "talk" is more likely to imnply a dialog or conversation "We had a talk" suggests that more than one person spoke, while "speech" implies a single person deliverign an address or lecture. "speak" or "speech" can also refer to the act of saying words, whether anyone else hears and responds or not. So again, "speak" tends to focus on a single speaker, and "talk" may not. I say "may not" because "talk" can be used almost everywhere that "speak" is proper -- it is a word of broader implication. I would never say "we had a speech" to mean a conversation, although i might say "we spoke" with that meaning. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between talk and speak not in the action that they describe, but in the way you use them, i.e. in the objects that follow them. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives a very good explanation under speak, just look it up there.

what does it mean ram?

Ram has many completely different meaning. As an acronym in informatics it means random access memory.Circeus 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonym of diuretic

A substance which causes the body to pass more water is called a diuretic. What is a substance which causes it to retain water called? PedanticallySpeaking 16:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "anti-diuretic". Keep in mind that diuresis isn't the production of extra urine, it's just the production of urine. — mendel ☎ 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MeSH, which is considered an authoritative souce, decribes "diuresis" as: "An increase in the excretion of URINE". And cites the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th ed. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2011/MB_cgi

correct grammar regarding the word pope

I know that when referring to a pope by name, Pope would be capitalized. What I am unsure about is if you are saying--the pope--for example, I had an audience with the Pope/pope? Thank you for your help.Clong 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd still use capitals in talking about having had an audience with "the Pope", because it could only be a specific pope (even if he were not named). And certainly if you're naming one particular pope, it would be "I had an audience with Pope Frederick XX" (u.c.). But if you've had audiences with more than one pope, you'd say "I've had audiences with <number> popes" (l.c.). Pope or popes would go in lower case where no particular pope was referred to, or popes in general were referred to, or a number of different unnamed popes were referred to. Eg. "The pope (l.c.) is the head of the Catholic Church." All popes have that role, no one pope has this role exclusively. In this sense, despite referring to "the pope", we're actually talking about popes in general. Also, "Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were three very controversial popes" (l.c.). Even though they're named, when it gets to the word "pope", the general sense is being employed. JackofOz 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Associated Press style, you only capitalize titles before someone's name: "The president met the pope today at the Vatican." -- Mwalcoff 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. Just goes to show that in many cases there is no single "right" way. Reference texts have their uses, but lots of corporations, newspapers etc have their own unique style guides. Assuming such a guide does not cause the writer to violate any generally-accepted rules, consistency of style is one of the hallmarks of good writing. My answer above reflected the style that I prefer. Cheers JackofOz 02:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no "correct" style of English, just whatever one's company, school, publication, etc. chooses to use. This drives foreign people crazy. :) -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't go quite that far. Your company's Style Guide may tell you it's OK to say "Me and him went somewhere", but that would still be incorrect English. As I said above, style guides are OK, assuming such a guide does not cause the writer to violate any generally-accepted [grammatical, spelling and punctuation] rules. In this context, "style" is not about literary style (eg. the way Grahame Greene writes as compared with Charles Dickens or Patrick White), but about correct grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. Agreed, there is some flexibility with these (eg. Americans write "color", Australians and Brits write "colour"; the word "billion" means different things on either side of the Atlantic; lots of other examples), but there are some things that are hard and fast rules (eg. Subject-verb agreement - it is never correct to say "There is ten houses in this street"). JackofOz 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Where is the word "Encarta" derived from and who coined it?

I do believe it is an artificial word, with a "Romance" ring to it. carta is Spanish/Italian for Latin charta [22], English chart. The en-prefix could conceivably be added productively in Spanish, although what the resulting meaning would be, I don't know. Something "encharted" maybe? In any case, they end up with a Spanish sounding word that begins with Enc-, like encycolpedia. But then hey, we are mixing Greek with Hawaiian, so who are we to snicker, here... :) I don't think the word was used before 1993. 130.60.142.65 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Grammar

I come from Germany and I have been learning English at school for seven years. I would like to speak English as ~~normal~~ well as native speakers. That's why I have some questions:

1. German punctuation is very strict. In most cases you ~~cannot decide~~ are not free to choose whether to write a comma ~~or not~~. Is it the same in English?

2. I was ~~thought~~ taught that shortened (contracted) ~~formes~~ forms like "I've" are informal. Where shouldn't I use them?

3. Normally, "I was" is the correct form. But in conditional sentences you ~~should better~~ are supposed to use "I were". Are there any other irregular forms like this one?

4. Is it a ~~bad~~ serious mistake ~~when~~ if I say "I have happily been going to school for twelve years." instead of "I have been happily going to school for twelve years."

5. Would anybody notice ~~that~~ if I used the wrong tenses in conditional clauses? (If the weather is (was) nice I would go out)

6. Germans don't speak politely. "I want - Ich will" is a normal expression. Am I being impolite when I say "I want" instead of "I would like" in English?

Please correct every mistake I've made in this text.

1. Yes and no. The rules of English are a tad vague. Usually, you are best off placing a comma in places where you have to pause in English.

Not always. Commas are also used in English to indicate the start of a parenthetical clause. If the comma is omitted, the words that follow qualify the preceding words, and if that was not what was intended, the reader can be badly misled. "The child whom I love entered the room" could be reasonably interpreted as "I have more than one child but I love only one of them, and it was this child who entered". On the other hand, "The child, whom I love, entered the room" means "The child entered the room, and I love that child". No statement about any other children is made, or can reasonably be inferred. Some other languages insist on the commas in both cases, and the meaning has to be ascertained from the context. JackofOz 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Contractions are increasingly acceptable in written language. If you are writing informally enough to use the first person, it's probably okay to use contractions.

3. "I were" is a subjunctive mood, something like "ich wäre" in German, but it is used more restrictedly in English, almost always in a sub-clause.

4. No, but it implies something different. The first implies that something in the next clause or sentence will be in opposition to your school attendance. For example: "I have happily been going to school for 12 years, and now you tell me I never needed to attend at all?"

5. Sometimes, but often not. The subjunctive is less and less used in colloquial English.

6. Yes, but less so than in some languages. It's better to use "I would like".

--Diderot 11:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict:)

1: Yes, even some native speakers have difficulty with the comma…

2: Some shortened forms are more informal than others. For example, your sentence Where shouldn't I use them? sounds fine to a native speaker, but Where should not I find them? sounds very odd. For your sanity, I suggest you ignore their formality, and just use them whenever you wish.

3: By irregular forms, do you mean just in the conditional tense? I can't think of any.

4: "I have happily been going…" emphasizes the "happily," whereas "I have been happily going…" emphasizes the "have been" (and therefore the "twelve years"). As far as I know, both sentences are correct, but with slightly difference nuance.

5: Yes, people would find "If the weather is nice…" odd, as that implies that you are talking about the future ("If the weather is nice tomorrow, I will go out") instead of the present. And since "I would go out" implies the present, it feels like you're cramming two tenses in one sentence. The correct usage would be "If the weather were nice, I would go out." However, some people use the simple past tense for the conditional, so "If the weather was nice, I would go out" would be understood, but it makes you sound like a hick.

6: "I would like" is more polite, yes. "I want" may be considered impolite in certain circumstances. If you're not sure which to use, just say "I would like" and you'll be safe. Garrett Albright 11:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Everyone gets the rules wrong (there was an entire book on it called Eats, Shoots and Leaves). Just make sure your sentences are comprehensibly divided up; putting a comma wherever you'd have to pause when speaking usually does this.

2. The formality of contractions is a big grey area. In my experience it's okay to use -n't in all but the most formal writing. It's a step more informal to use the -'ve, -'s, and -'d contractions as they expand so easily without awkwardness. In most arenas you won't have to worry about it.

6. You're usually better off using the more polite form (and definitely do in places you would use ich möchte), but there are situations where I would like would change meaning quite a bit; for instance, saying I would like to go to university makes it sound as if you anticipate that you plans may fail. Mostly though you can't fail using the more polite form. — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your questions concern the subjunctive mood, so you might want to read more on its use in English, particularly as an indicator of "conditions contrary to fact" and hypothetical conditions. (In your example, "If the weather is (was) nice I would go out", would ordinarily be "If the weather were nice I would go out," with the "were" indicating that it is indeed not nice weather, or that the nice weather is merely a possibility. The subjunctive in English confuses a lot of people learning the language, and many native speakers as well<g>. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've got some answers which I couldn't find before. Especially the tip with the subjunctive was very useful. Luckily the English one isn't as difficult as the German one, which has three different tenses.

Languages in which speaking formally does not have one labelled a pedant?

Greetings.

I would like to know whether or not there are languages in which speaking formally does not have one labelled a pedant. In French, formal language is deemed somewhat pretentious, and, for example, substituting Puis-je t'emprunter ceci ? for Est-ce que je peux t'emprunter ça ? is generally perceived as snobbish (alas ).

I have read that in the Arabic language, speaking classic, formal Arabic poses no problem, and that only the language as it is used in the Qur'an can be considered antiquated, rather than uppity.

I thank in advance those able to answer my question.

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but that's because formality is a feature of a language's users rather than a language. For example, Hawaiian Pidgin doesn't have a formal register because the social function of a formal register is taken up by standard English. Likewise, English had very little that could be seen as a formal register during the Angevin period.

Second, some societies do not have a social function which requires a formal register. There are relatively small and unhierarchial societies in the world, although they are today restricted to some fairly small corners of the planet. I'm not an expert on New Guinean society, but I doubt most of its tribal languages have or need a formal register. I recently came across a reference to a paper discussing how St Lucian French creole did not have a formal register and has developed one recently by borrowing it from English.

Other societies have stratified social structures that cannot be adequately expressed by a single formal register. My understanding is that Javanese is especially troubling in this respect. Not only is the formal register not pedantic, normal use of the language entails a complex system of usages depending on a sophisticated calculus of status, making the informal register inappropriate for use with practically anyone that you are not having sex with.

Lastly, it's complicated even in English. Just in today's Washington Post, I note the following:

She often refers to herself in the third person. She enunciates "math" as mathematics; "again" as agayn.

They are speaking of an African American career civil servant from Louisiana who is old enough to have grown up under Jim Crow, and like many older but educated black Americans, she overcorrects her English and uses a formal tone in most of her non-intimate interactions. But I doubt that when she was younger anyone would have seen that as pedantic.

--Diderot 13:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs in linguistics and languages

Greetings (once again — on the first day of my supposed Wikibreak; I guess Wikipedia is overly addictive).

I currently live in France and am in Première S, S standing for science, the main subject of study of the class. This summer, I discovered — oh, how "cheesy" the following must sound — a love for languages, undertook a personal study of the Japanese language, and took Latin as an option at school. I am bilingual, speaking fluent English and French, and, without wanting to sound pretentious, must admit to a certain aptitude in language, that more so than in scientific subjects, it seems.

I would be interested in knowing which jobs exist in the field of linguistics and languages, what the said jobs consist in, and (since one cannot live without it) how much money can be made in the exercice of these occupations.

I hope some will be able to answer my question and thank them in advance.

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 14:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Ah jeez, you hadda ask just before my Chinese class. Take a gander at Jobs on Linguist List.

Your realistic options are:

Translation - This really has little to do with linguistics per se, but it is a good career for someone interested in language. It will not, however, get you rich quick.
Lexicography and terminology - My preferred line of work, but one which has few openings, no strict or particular educational requirements, and uncertain pay.
Teaching second languages - Lots of people have to learn languages, and the pay isn't bad. But you won't make millions at it either.
Working for the CIA or one of its private contractors - You're French - you may not be French but you're French enough to disqualify you - so you're S.O.L. on that one.
Teaching linguistics in academia - This pays fairly well in Europe, and pays crap in America. But, it's not a bad deal if you can do it. But it means spending years in university, then spending years as a butt-monkey for some prof, and then a hard search for a tenure-track position. This is my current career path.
Computer programming - Ironically, there is a significant but at present fairly small market for linguists and language experts who can also code. This is what I actually do, or did until I was laid off and started my PhD.

However, as a dropout from a Master's in high energy physics, I will let you in on one thing I discovered as a young man making an academic career change: There are a lot more women in linguistics and language classes, and your language skills will serve you much better there when it comes to getting lai... er, I mean, meeting people socially. --Diderot 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To what Diderot said, I just want to add that while teaching linguistics in academia may pay fairly well in Europe, your chances of actually getting a job teaching linguistics in academia in Europe are virtually nil. And in Germany, at any rate (I don't know about other European countries), there is no such thing as tenure track. You're either hired on a limited contract (usually 2 or 3 years), or you're hired as a full profesor with tenure, but you can't work your way toward tenure. And for every available professorship in linguistics there are about 40 qualified candidates, unlike in America where for every available professorship there are only about 10 qualified candidates. (Not because there are fewer linguists in America but because there are more openings.) And to Diderot's last comment I'll add that if your taste doesn't happen to run toward women, you're still in luck because in most areas of linguistics (except computational linguistics) a disproportionately high number of the men are gay. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot: What do you mean by saying that translation has little to do with linguistics? Garrett Albright 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

probably, you don't need to know what you are doing (in terms of fancy jargon) as long as you get it right :) 130.60.142.65 19:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you don't have to take any kind of formal study of language as a whole to do a good job of it. Actually, I would argue that actual linguistics classes are more likely to harm you as a translator than help you, but most of the time they are of no use whatsoever to translators. I occasionally question whether they are worth much to linguistics. You do need an in-depth knowledge of the languages you work in, and some of that probably should be formally acquired, but nothing of the sort is offered in most linguistics departments unless, like the one I trained in, they happen to be grafted into a translation studies program.

As for the lack of tenure-track positions in Europe - I know. I'm not terribly optimistic, but I very strongly do not want to go back to the States, and there aren't many openings in Canada. But I'll be able to apply for EU citizenship in a few years and speak several of the continent's larger languages, and I can learn more if I have to. So, I think I have a shot. --Diderot 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you and I are in the same boat. I have no intention whatsoever of going back to the States, and I could apply for EU citizenship tomorrow if I wanted to, but I'd have to renounce my U.S. citizenship if I did. (I may still do so, but it takes some psyching up to first.) So, having almost given up on an academic career, I'm persuing work in translation (where indeed my training in linguistics is of no help) and/or copyediting/proofreading of texts written in or translated into English (ditto). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda surprised to think there are still countries in Europe that require you to renounce US citizenship to become naturalised. The US certainly requires no such thing. There is a treaty that prevents you from having more than one citizenship within Europe, but the US isn't a party to such accords.

As for the employment situation in Europe... well, we suffer for our art. :^) I'm working in computational linguistics - and perhaps not so coincidentally am heterosexual :^) - so it's a bit less artistic, but I have some hope of finding some venture capital if Trichet will free up the money supply a wee bit and getting a career that way. I'm getting too old, and the labour market is too loose, for me to want to work as a code whore again. --Diderot 10:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, naturalized citizens over the age 23 have to pick either Germany or the country of their parents' citizenship. Since I'm 37, I have to pick either Germany or the U.S., but can't have both. As for work, I got a call today, maybe I'll be teaching English to one teenager and Latin to another. Woo-hoo. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How barbaric! Canada's full of German dual citizens with a Beibehaltungsgenehmigung. A whole truckload have just moved into my Mom's rural hometown in Manitoba from somewhere in Baden-Wurtemburg. Tell German Immigration that the heaps of crap you have to put up with going through customs at JFK when you aren't American is degrading and you still have meaningful ties in America, therefore you should therefore be given one of these generous exceptions provided for in the new nationality law. --Diderot 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your answers. "There are a lot more women in linguistics and language classes, and your language skills will serve you much better there when it comes to getting lai... er, I mean, meeting people socially"? I think I have made my mind up.

More seriously though, please may you tell me what lexicography and terminology consist in? Can one make a living studying ancient languages, or helping translate unknown existing ones? Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Lexicography is writing dictionary entries. It's not so much a matter of training as having a knack for it. Terminology means doing the same kinds of things, but usually in a specialised domain as a way to support translators. Terminology as a profession is closely linked to translation and you almost never see it discussed in other contexts. There have been a number of big changes in lexicography and terminology in recent years, and as a business it's really begun to pick up with growing demand for bilingual and learners' dictionaries.

And as for dead languages... it's not impossible, but it's really, really hard. There is no demand for classical languages outside of academia and education, and deciphering unknown dead languages is the domain of a semi-closed community of classicists, archeologists and related academics. However, if you can decipher Rongorongo you will never need to fear being unemployed. --Diderot 18:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Bleachers

Interestingly, this article resides at the singular "bleacher", with the plural as a redirect. While that is consistent with our naming guidelines, it strikes me as flatly wrong. "Bleachers" in the sense of "stands in a stadium" is, AFAIK, always plural; while a "bleacher" (singular) is a machine for bleaching. Isn't this a case where the article, which is about the stands, should indeed reside at the plural? Lupo 07:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To call one part of bleachers a "bleacher" doesn't seem that odd to me, especially for the kind that you can drag around as necessary in about 10' wedges. They're bleachers when you push them all together, but when you're moving one, you're just moving a bleacher. I don't know if that's a back-formation or not. (The citations in OED2 make me think it is.) — mendel ☎ 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even saw your remark about the OED, I was thinking "back-formation". After all, one doesn't call one seat in the upper balcony of a theater "a god". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"have been" instead of "have been being"

I have noticed that the present perfect progressive of the verb "be" is shortened very often.

Another construction which seems to be too long for English speakers is the passive of the present perfect progressive: "It has been being built since yesterday." - "It was built since yesterday." Is this shortened construction always a possible solution or are there some situations in which the complete form is more suitable? In German we are not afraid of this form: "Ich werde gesehen worden sein werden." Only the last word could be left out - in informal texts.

I would suggest that "It has been being built since yesterday.", while possibly technically correct, would be universally considered a very clumsy use of the English language. "It was built since yesterday" is not an equivalent expression, as it means the construction started - and finished - today. A better alternative might be "It has been under construction since yesterday". Yes, this avoids the use of the verb "build" entirely, but frankly I can't think of a way of saying the same thing using both the verb "build" and the passive tense, that works in practice. JackofOz 09:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "It was built since" will be wrong in any case, because the preterite expresses perfective aspect, and "since" expresses imperfective aspect, they don't go together. If you want to express that the construction started yesterday and finished today, I think you'd need to say "construction was carried out over the past 24h" or something; "It has been built since yesterday" will rather mean that construction was complete yesterday. As "they have been building it since yesterday" is correct, "It has been being built since yesterday" should be accepted as grammatically correct but unusual, and as you say, it will almost invariably be avoided by a circumlocution like "has been under construction". dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in spoken informal English, "it has been" will be shortened to something sort of like "it'sbin" which fixes the ugly cadence: IT'S bin BEIN' built since... — mendel ☎ 18:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ich werde gesehen worden sein werden" is hardly a German equivalent of the perfect progressive. (German does not have any progressive forms). How would you translate this into English? I can get "Ich werde gesehen worden sein" (i.e. I will have been seen - passive future perfect) but the final "werden" is foxing me. Valiantis 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will have been being seen? Makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the last "werden" was retained from an older form of German, where it actually meant something. ? Don Diego 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's grammatical, but not acceptable as an actual utterance. Its theoretical meaning is "I will be entering the state of having been seen". It's a sort of future-in-the-future construction not actually in use (i.e. talking about events that will be in the future at some point in the future). The statement that 'the last word can be left out in informal contexts' is wrong. "ich werde gesehen worden sein" is perfectly correct and acceptable for "I will have been seen". "I will have been being seen" would have to be rendered as "Ich werde gesehen werdend gewesen sein", grammatical but unacceptable. 130.60.142.65 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the 'refrain' in "Belleville Rendez-Vous"

So, there's that excellent movie called Les Triplettes de Belleville, and the theme song is called Belleville Rendez-Vous. The refrain goes as follows:

Swinging Belleville rendez-vous
Marathon dancing doop dee doop
Vaudou Cancan balais taboo          ????
Au Belleville swinging rendez-vous

What does the french words in the 3rd line translate to english? I know what Cancan and taboo mean, but I can't figure it out with the rest. ☢ Ҡieff | Talk 07:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the song is in gibberish, so don't expect to understand everything. I thought that it was "voudou", meaning voodoo. "Balais" can mean "broom" (what you sweep a floor with). Ground Zero | t 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken language quirk

Is there a name or concept attributed to the quirk some people have of appending the same words to each thought when they speak casually, like 'I was saying' or 'pretty much'? Often they will prefix or suffix sentences with this, seemingly as a subconscious conditioned response. I am just curious, since I find myself doing it on occasion and I have noticed that some people around me do it very often.

Don't know the answer, but another common one is "yeah, no". And of course, the ubiquitous "like", "you know", and "um". Even I (shock, horror!) have been known to utter such atrocities. JackofOz 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, its because, you know, it, like, helps you think of, um, words to fill those, er, gaps when you so can't remember the, whatsitcalled, word. As you can see, its also very infuriating to read or hear. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The specific way a given person speaks is called an idiolect, if that's what you'relookign for. Circeus 17:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting answers but not quite what i'm looking for. It may be part of an idiolect but it's not clear. For example, I notice a lot of Ohio valley residents prepend "i's sayin'" to their sentences, even when not pressed for 'filler words' like "uh" or "y'know". Another one I hear a lot is "i mean". Its almost like part of regional slang, but in the form of a whole word or two to add to sentences. --Jmeden2000 18:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's just a newfangled style (or old-fashioned one). In the Philippines, many young adults (usually models or non-intelligent actors) have the irritating habit of saying "actually" at the beginning of every sentence they utter. It's very irritating, esp. when there is no apparent need for "actually". I mean, actually, wouldn't you get annoyed too? Imo, the reason we say these "er's" or "ah's" is to stall for time when thinking up a nice good retort to the insensitive person asking you a tactless question. Much like how your hard disk grumbles when you access a large file. Btw, the Germans have a funny way of filling gaps - instead of saying "ah", they say "äh", which sounds like short "e". Makes them sound like printers. (No offence meant.) ;) Don Diego 22:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard that refered to as a 'vocal tic.' Make of that what you will... 64.179.125.66

Classic vs Classical

Here's another unanswerable from one of my students: Why do we listen to classical music but watch classic movies? Neither "classic music" nor "classical movies" feel right to me. Garrett Albright 16:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, "classical" comes from the period of history the musics were composed, while "classic" stands for the cultural impact of the film. ☢ Ҡieff | Talk 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is mostly just a matter of lexical selection. But, my instinct is that has to do with nominalisation. If you say that "The Godfather" is a classic, you're implying that it's a classic film. But you can also say that "Straight Outta Compton" is a classic - that may make it a classic piece of music, but it is in no way classical music. Putting the shoe on the other foot, Salieri wrote classical music, but I can't think of any piece of his that was a classic. --Diderot 18:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Garrett Albright 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "classical music" does not just refer to music composed in the so-called classical era. It refers more to a certain type of music. Music written today by people like Philip Glass, Peter Sculthorpe, John Adams (composer) and loads of others can be considered "classical music", if only to distinguish it from rock, pop, jazz, country, heavy metal, disco, dance, doof-doof, and all the others. Marketers need to come up with a term that categorises this music, and "classical" seems to fit the bill better than anything else. People involved in this type of music tend not to call it "classical music", rather just "music" or sometimes "serious music". But "serious music" are heavily loaded, because nobody is suggesting that all the various forms of popular music are not "serious" (even if they tend to have more "fun" while they're performing). It's very difficult to derive a clear-cut definition of these things. I suppose a person who goes to a symphony concert or an opera would expect to be hearing "classical music" even if it was composed yesterday. And yet one would hear "The Blue Danube" only at a symphony concert, even though many people would regard this as more in the "popular" category. Oh, so many issues. Why do you ask such hard questions? JackofOz 04:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term I've most often heard for music in the classical tradition is concert music, which avoids the apparent oxymoron of "modern classical music". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

origins of accent

Well for all our incredibly detailed linguistics articles, our accent (linguistics) article is extraordinarily short, and has nothing on how accent differences come about. The commonly bandied about fact is something to the effect of every 30 miles or so in geographic distance will have some recognizable change in accent. Some factors of course can make that less or more such as isolation. I'll let more knowledgeable people fill in the gaps. - Taxman ^Talk 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic into English Translation Assistance

Hello everyone,

I am in the process of translating a children's story into Arabic, as well as the author's brief biography. I have a few questions I hope someone can help me with :)

This seems very simple, but how would one translate "too" in Arabic (not "very"), as in: The weather is too cold.
How would one translate Boy Scouts of America (the organization) into Arabic? My suggestion:

منتدى رواد الكشافة بامريكا

In keeping with the Boy Scout theme, how would one translate Eagle Scout?
How would one translate Master's of Divinity? I came up with something, my apolgies if I have offended anyone with this translation:

الماجستير في دراسات الكهنوت المسيحي أو النصراني

Finally, how would one translate Interfaith Contemplative Minister?

Thanks, again, for all of your help!!

--Carmen 23:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more worried about children knowing what an Interfaith Contemplative Minister is ... (12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC))

First, the word "الكشافة". You mean to say Boy Scout, however it is feminine, so you are saying Girl Scouts.

Second, to translate, "The weather is too cold", I get "الطقس بارد أكثر ممّا ينبغي". This was by consulting an online translator, however, so the accuracy is questionable. www.arabsgate.com is normally very good.

I hope I was somewhat useful, my knowledge of Arabic is Intermediate at best. Avengerx 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

WORD MEANING

I'm very interested in learning about the meaning of the word Ka ball' means. I absolutely had a very difficult time interpreting the conversation(s) of Chris Matthews tonight on his weeknight television program, "Hardball". Where he referenced this word several times? Please answer soon. thank you.

See cabal - Nunh-huh 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WORD MEANING

I'm very interested in learning about the meaning of the word Ka ball' means. I absolutely had a very difficult time interpreting the conversation(s) of Chris Matthews tonight on his weeknight television program, "Hardball". Where he referenced this word several times? Please answer soon. thank you.

Maybe cabal. Maybe Kaballah. Don't know without the context. JackofOz 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He broke his arm

A lot of times, when someone has a broken arm, people will say that "he broke his arm", no matter how the arm was broken. Is it over-stretching this expression for someone to say "John broke his arm", when someone else (the Mob, for instance) broke John's arm?--Prosfilaes 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that there is no over-stretching. "John broke his arm" applies to every circumstance in which it was broken, including the Mob.--Commander Keane 16:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in the case where a third party was clearly responsible it would be most correct to say "John had his arm broken". DJ Clayworth 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reference Desk" Equivalent in ar:Wikipedia

Hello all,

Is there a "Reference Desk" equivalent in ar:Wikipedia?

--Carmen 04:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I'm writing an article on Cantor's diagonal argument in Tamil Wikipedia. To transliterate Cantor, I need the pronunciation. Can someone provide that? It would be even better if an audio file of the name is uploaded and linked to from George Cantor article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GAY-ork LEWD-vik FILL-eep KAN-tor - I'm not in a position to make a recording, but this covers the way it's pronounced in German, more or less. --Diderot 05:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diderot. Just to get it clear: is the KAN above pronounced as con or can? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In German, it sounds almost like the "u" in "but" - somewhere between "con" and "can", but a bit more like "can". --Diderot 06:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"gay ork"? 0_o -- now would be a good time to embrace IPA, Diderot... 83.79.189.191 11:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there were some gay orcs. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually stumbled on a few fansitesXD Circeus 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dʒizʌs ajtʃ k^hɹæjst! ju:w tʃɹæj t^hʌ ɹʌjt so: no^aɹml p^hi:pl wɪl ʌndɹstandʒ^jʌ æn ɑl ðɛj du:w ɪz k^ʌmplæjn! :P --Diderot 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LEWD, GAY orcs, no lesss :p 12:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

John Thomas

How did John Thomas come to be a euphamism for a penis?

That's what the hero of Lady Chatterley's Lover called his.

"Say goodnight! to John Thomas," he said, looking down at his penis. "He's safe in the arms of creeping Jenny!" [23]

David Sneek 08:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas was a nickname for a liveried servant in the 19th century and they are known for standing up straight and waiting on ladies. Just to put the fear in anybody trying to name a baby the names: abraham, charley, jack, jackie robinson, jacob, jim johnson, john, john henry, jonnie, julius ceaser oscar, percy, peter, roger, tom and william are supposedly all slang for the one-eye trouser snake. BTW my my login name does not imply any sexual disfunctuion :-) MeltBanana 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal strong-arming

It is well-known that it is possible to gain support for an opinion in decision-making bodies by the (ab)use of certain words in an argument on a motion to either force it through or stop it dead, e.g. forcing legislators to support laws they would otherwise block by invoking terrorism. Is there an established term for such words in this context, or the tactic of forcing such a change in opinion? (12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC))

Godwin's law? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I mean the practice of invoking terrorism in such a way that the opposition is forced to either support your unpopular proposal or oppose it and be seen as being lax and uncaring on the issue. (13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC))

propaganda, aka spin doctoring? After all, Goering said that "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger.", I suppose he knew best. 13:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's about right. What I'm looking for is essentially a term for the words used in the act. In this case, the word "terrorism". (13:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC))

maybe it qualifies as an ad captandum, but that term is slightly broader. 83.79.189.191 14:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used "rhetorical conflation" with my students back when I had students, because it is an effort to conflate thing X with some, presumably negative, thing Y. Like arguing against gun control or vegetarianism by pointing out that Hitler favoured both (which also qualifies under Godwin's Law). Of course, Hitler also supported big, multi-lane highways with limited connections to local roads, and yet few would call the Interstate highway system a sign of incipient fascism.

However, when I want to accuse someone of rhetorical conflation, I've taken to calling it semantic dilution since the most effective counter-argument is that whatever evil is signified by the bad word - e.g. terrorism - will seem less evil the more it is evoked for bad or even merely mundane ends.

When carefully performed, particularly in the form of a surprise counter-attack, it can be quite effective. In essence, you can accuse your opponent of implicitly supporting terrorism because he has the chutzpah to invoke terrorism in support of, say, subsidies for the beer industry. It should always be couched in a vocabulary of defending the sacred: "You would play on the suffering of Al Qaeda's victims to pass an appropriations bill!?! You disgust me, Mr Senator!" You should say it in the same tone as you would in condemning someone for using the Mona Lisa as a source of toilet paper.

It's a dangerous defensive strategy, but so is rhetorical conflation. However, it can work wonders when well done. --Diderot 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitler thing you are describing is reductio ad Hitlerum. I don't think the ancients have come up for a term for the rhetorical figure of "People who reject Jesus love terrorists", because apparently nobody was quite so stupid back then, but I would lump it under ad captandum :) An argument of "we are threatened by terrorists, therefore we must intern all Muslims and smear them with their own poo" is not really a logical fallacy so much as a non sequitur, the full train of thought being "we are threatened by terrorists . I am really scared shitless. This makes me very angry, and I have to do something to appear in charge. I want to pick on some defenceless group outside my electorate. Therefore we must intern all Muslims" -- when spelled out like this, the argument becomes perfectly logical. 83.79.189.191 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American and British English

I know that there are some differences between British and American English. In America the word "telephone booth" is mainly used, whereas British speakers say "telephone box", for example. I would like to know whether such different words with same the meaning wouldn't be understood by people from the other country or whehter the other word would just be untypical or maybe both forms are suitable everywhere. I would like to get a general answer as "telephone booth/box" is an example.

I think it depends a lot on the lexical item in question; there is no general answer. From context, Americans can probably guess what a "telephone box" or a "rubbish bin" is without too much difficulty, but might just stare helplessly into the toolbox if asked to "Hand me the spanner", and might not know whether to go to the front or the back of the car when asked to "Open the boot". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We Brits hear a lot of US English through cinema and television. I have absolutely no problem understanding a US dialect that would be generally understood by another US citizen. Context helps a lot, and the different words are usually quite easy to figure out. I had think quickly (or think fast for those dieting Americans!) a few months ago when I told an American friend that she had to move her car to let the dustbin lorry through — The what? — The garbage truck — just enough Hollywood got me there in a fraction of a second. I think it took a little longer because its a double translation! --Gareth Hughes 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was once in Britain with a group of other Americans, and for some reason I can't remember now we were at the house of some people I hadn't been introduced to. I had something to throw away and, after reflecting a moment, asked the lady of the house where the rubbish bin was. She looked thoughtful for a moment and then said in an American accent, "It's under the sink in the kitchen". I came back and said, "If I had known you were an American, I would have just asked for the trash can!" and she answered "I had to think for a moment what you were talking about!" And she lived there! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And there are some - such as "to table" - where both uses are in similar contexts but mean exactly the opposite, just to confuse people... Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are several lists and links to such terms at the article American and British English differences. -- Canley 01:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent lots of time with British people, and I think it's safe to say that Brits generally do better with American English than vice versa. That's because they get a lot of American TV shows and movies, while British TV shows are generally remade by American producers for the U.S. market. There are some American words my British friends didn't know, such as wrench for what they call a spanner.

A funny story: A friend of mine is a teacher in Ohio. She or a friend of hers once had a student from India. The student was once late for class and needed an eraser. She ran into a convenience store and yelled real loud, "I need some rubbers!" (In American English, rubber is slang for condom.) -- Mwalcoff 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happened to a German friend of mine when she was in America for the first time. Trouble was, she was only 14 years old and the drugstore refused to sell her "rubbers" without her parents' permission! They were particularly upset when she explained "But I need them for school!" --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

October 23

Terminology of toilet for the disables

How many names of toilets does it have for the disables in English?

Whatelse can we refer to the toilet for the disable?

Calvin

"Handicap accessible" or "Wheelchair accessible", perhaps? David Sneek 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally they are refered to (somewhat confusingly) as 'Disabled Toilets'. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the term is "the disabled" not "the disables". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

intuitively gifted

What does it mean when someone say that you are intuitively gifted? And people say that difficult problems e.g maths and science problems, are best solved intuitively.What does this mean and how true is it?

Thank you for your time.:)

Last question first. It's very true. Knowing all the rules of mathematics does not mean that you will be able to solve a tricky problem before somebody else with less knowledge. Insight is the key. Some people are better than others in seeing the "real" problem. Problem-solving is a more-or-less right-brain activity, even for problems that seem to be the province of the left brain, such as mathematical ones. And some people are much more strongly right-brained than others. Why did Einstein come up with the Theory of Relativity? It was intuition from the right brain that told him the answer, then he used maths and the left brain to prove it. August Kekule used the symbolism of a ring of snakes eating each other's tails, a picture that came to him in a dream, to prove the chemical structure of benzene. This was an entirely intuitive process - he had an insight before he had the technical answer. JackofOz 13:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which language should i learn german or french ?

hi,

i'm confused about which language should i go for -German or French. i'm a graduate and want to continue studies in the field of " Theoritical Physics ". those of you dont know what is that consider it simply physics. i'm providing this information because it may be helpful for you to answer my question. thank you <Name removed>

French. Far more untranslated and undertranslated work goes on in French in theoretical physics than in German. Plus, CERN and the new supercollider are both in France. --Diderot 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Theoritical Physics", hm, I haven't heard of it, but I assume this somewhere between Critical and Theoretical Physics; in that case I'd definitely recommend English. (sorry, I'm being an ass. Diderot, please note that most of CERN is in Switzerland, and LHC is part of CERN, using the same tunnel as LEP) 18:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, English is indispensable, however, the choice was between French and German. And, okay, France and Suisse Romande - either way, French country. --Diderot 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely German. All the major composers and mathematicians like, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Gauss, Riemann, Gödel, etc. either spoke German or lived in Germany. And did I mention that English is a direct descendant of German? Very easy to learn, I tell you, and very important. Goethe is also good reading. Don Diego ^(Talk) 22:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but what do composers and writers have to do with this? He is not going to learn it for fun, but for professional reasons. Mathematicians may be relevant (or not), but someone who knows the modern state of theoretical physics should comment on it. --Ornil 22:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you described what topic you wish to focus on. What aspect of theoretical physics are you looking at? --HappyCamper 23:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say, learn both. And Don Diego, English is not a direct descendant of German. That's like saying I'm a direct descendant of my own second cousin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German is terrible on the Eng-Ger translation. All the puns get lost, jokes become absurd, etc. And yes, English is derived from German: Old German -> Old English -> Middle English -> Modern English. Germans did lots of theoretical physics, too. Quantum, at least. Don Diego ^(Talk) 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English is derived from Proto-Germanic -> Old English -> Middle English -> Modern English. Germanic is not the same as German. And as far as translating puns and jokes, well, that can't be done effectively with French either. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English has vastly more words in its vocabulary originating in French than in German, the grammer is Germanic (but unlike modern German). Angr is right. You derivation tree is overly simplistic as see West Germanic language. Jooler 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing etymology here, gentlemen, we are recommending a language for our reader! As for the vocabulary, German has many unaltered French words in its vocabulary, and the pronunciation is very straightforward, unlike French. Don Diego ^(Talk) 13:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are aware, I trust, that nothing of what you said here makes any sense at all? 80.219.179.6 20:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may help you to know that written French is far easier to learn (IMHO) for an native English-speaker (the normannic influx, easier grammar); but try to do both, as suggested above. Lectonar 07:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience French scientists are perhaps more likely to publish in their own language only compared to Germans, but there is lots of useful stuff out there in German and I've met more German speakers in American labs. Both languages would serve you well, but as HappyCamper says which one's more useful depends on your subfield and where you will be working. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

From Scratch

Does anybody know where the term "from scratch" comes from? (As in making cookies "from scratch") Just wondering. Thanks in advance!Dimblethum 01:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Dimblethum[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary [24] mentions it may be a sporting reference from around 1922, meaning "starting point of a competitor who receives no odds in a handicap match." The Word Detective [25] further expands: "The phrase comes from the lingo of 19th century sporting events, specifically the "scratch" drawn in the ground which served (and often still does) as the starting line of a foot race. A runner "starting from scratch" received no handicap or benefit - whatever the contestant accomplished was due solely to his or her own efforts." -- Canley 01:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do you write Aries in chinese?

how do you write Aries in chinese?--209.86.135.15 02:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Aries^{[disambiguation needed]} has a link to an article called 白羊座 at the Chinese-language Wikipedia, so I guess the answer is 白羊座. Haven't the remotest idea how that's pronounced, though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyin: bái yáng zuò - trans: white sheep seat (sorta). IPA w/Chao tone letters (if I must): "paɪ³⁵ jɑŋ³⁵ tsuo⁵¹". And for the IPA challenged: "buy?, yang?, tswoh!" --Diderot 14:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and why is Aries translated as "white sheep seat"? Is that native astrology, or a translation of the Egyptian sign? Would "seat" correspond to "(astrological) house", and "white sheep" is somehow a translation of aries="ram"?

Aries is Latin for ram (e.g. sheep), and is traditionally depicted as white. (Or, it may be that there's more than one breed of sheep and this is simply the Chinese word for distinguishing a common variety. I don't know.) Chinese native astronomy has different constellations. Since all the western constellations seem to be translated as <something> <something> zuò, yes, I would assume in this context it means "astrological house" or something of the sort. But, it's a pretty common Chinese morpheme used in all kinds of other words. --Diderot 17:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A sheep (as in the fleecing kind) is typically translated to 绵羊 (very literally cotton sheep). This distinguishes it from say, goat (山羊) or antelope (羚羊), which are all from the Bovidae family. Perhaps the Chinese astrologists did not deem "绵羊" as stylish enough when they decided to call Aries "白羊座". Another translation just as widely used is "牡羊座" (Pinyin: Mǔyáng Zuò), which is perhaps a better translation because "牡" means male (applied to animals only!). --Plastictv 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's right, since Latin aries means just 'ram', not Ovis aries or a ram of any particular subspecies. I note that "(lunar) mansion" is 宿, and they just needed some other classifier for the twelfths of the zodiac. I also note that their fourths all have colours (Azure Dragon, Black Tortoise, White tiger, Vermillion Bird), so maybe they felt that a proper astrological sign needs some colour adjective. 130.60.142.65 06:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Urquhart

How, in IPA, is the Scottish geographical name Glen Urquhart pronounced?

Do you mean the IPA? If so, "Glen Urquhart" would be pronounced /glɛn ʊəkaːt/ (or "Glen Ur-kart"). -- Canley 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to add in an R sound of some description after the vowels in ʊəkaːt. Scottish dialects of English are normally rhotic and I believe Scots Gaelic is too. Valiantis 19:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! And yes, I meant IPA. I corrected my error above. Thanks again! —anon.

historical tree of languages

Where can I find an idea of the historical growth and relations of the languages in the form of a tree or of several trees?

Such an approach is often very controversial. Have a read of the language family article, and then click through to the family you're interested in. Very few of these articles will have tree diagrams, but they will have more accurate text describing the genetic growth of the family in question. A quite complete classification system can be found on http://www.ethnologue.com/, but that too is often controversial. --Gareth Hughes 15:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Such a tree would look very messy. English, for example, has borrowed from virtually every language on the planet, alive and dead. The end diagram would unfortunately look like scribble. smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!^{(User), (Talk)} 22:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of a name -PRANVEET

Can we extract some meaning for " PRANVEET " or MANVEET " in Sanskrit ? Please help - Mail to :

No. We won't mail you. Please read the rules.

Also, I don't know. -- Ec5618 18:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vītá means something like "pleasant" [26]. man is a root for "think" [27]. prāna means 'breath' [28]. Your pranveet may be the Hindi pronunciation of something like prānavīta. Just a guess. It's not really Sanskrit, in any case. 80.219.179.6 20:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

languages spoken in wakulla county florida

Please observe the rules at the top of this page.

Search first - it's quicker. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Be specific - explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question - the title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Questions not following this format may be deleted.
Be courteous - questions are answered by humans, not computers. This is not a search engine. Don't write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Thanks, Ec5618 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Microsoft Excel document "Detailed Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over" available here, as of the 2000 census there were in Wakulla County 41,145 speakers of English only, 1,305 speakers of Spanish, 45 speakers of French, 30 speakers of German, and 25 speakers of Tagalog. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog part name

is there a word in English for the (usually) black tip of a dog's nose that is very humid? The French word is "truffe" (lit. "truffle"), but I do not know whetherthere is a word in English. Circeus 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's its nose; the whole thing is its snout. 06:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific term is "rhinarium" (just wrote this stub), but it's not used conversationally. This feature is actually present in most mammals.--Pharos 08:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

The phrase "daft as a brush"

Hello

Does anybody know where the phrase "daft as a brush" comes from?

Thanks.

According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable it was adapted from the northern [English] phrase "soft as a brush" by the comedian Ken Platt. Shantavira 16:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reductionist thinking

Can you please explain what is meant by "reductionist thinking"? Thank you, Alan

See Reductionism. David Sneek 15:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten heels

Hallo, I'm translating a book and I came across a few things that I couldn't quite get One of them is the phrase Any girl must have Kitten heels... What type of heels is it? Grateful for your assistance Christine

Rennies and Settlers

Hallo, I'm translating a book and I came across a few things that I couldn't quite get One of them is the phrase You should have Rennies or Settlers. What's that? Help me, please

"Rennies" and "Settlers" are British brands of antacid tablets - something for indigestion or heartburn. I'm not wholly sure what kitten heels are, but we do seem to have an article on them. Shimgray | talk | 18:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google Images Search http://images.google.com/images?q=kitten%20heel you can see what they look like. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or read Theresa May!smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there'd be a picture. In that case, see [29].

Relatives

What does a "second cousin once removed" mean?

See cousin chart. Either the great-grandparents of your second cousin once removed are your great-great-grandparents, or the great-great-grandparents of your second cousin once removed are your great-grandparents. Take the following example: Arnold and Arlene have two children, Boris and Brenda. Boris gets married and has a daughter, Clare. Brenda gets married and has a son, Craig. Clare and Craig are first cousins. Clare gets married and has a son, Dexter. Craig gets married and has a daughter, Dinah. Dexter and Dinah are second cousins. Dexter gets married and has a daughter, Edith. Edith and Dinah are each other's second cousin once removed. See the family tree below (to keep things simple, I've left out the names of the people who have married into the family).

     Arnold = Arlene
            |
       |¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
     Boris     Brenda
       |         |
     Clare     Craig
       |         |
     Dexter    Dinah
       |
     Edith

Does that make sense? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sometimes also see the forms "Nth cousin X times removed upward", and "Nth cousin X times removed downward". These obviously show the relevant direction and are useful when relating people who lived many generations (and centuries) apart. Thus, Queen Elizabeth is Mary Queen of Scots' Nth cousin X times removed downward, but Mary Queen of Scots is Queen Elizabeth's Nth cousin X times removed upward. JackofOz 22:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question. The male child of my step sister just visited. Is he my nephew? Is there such a thing as a step nephew? Notinasnaid 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogically, he's not a relative at all (and neither is your step-sister). Informally, there's no reason you can't call him your step-nephew or even nephew. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knights who say Ni

I want to ask where the spelling in Ni comes from. After all, the phonetic spelling is "Nee" and there seems to be no reason for there to be any other spelling.

Please advise. Thank you.

no, it's a short vowel, [ni], not [ni:]. why are they called that, btw? I seem to remember that knight is pronounced [knight] somewhere in the movie; is that right, or am I mixing things up? 81.63.114.127 20:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

according to the article, ni is somehow related to the Swedish pronoun treated here. I don't see any basis for this claim however, the knights' ni doesn't even seem a form of address in particular. 81.63.114.127 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The French Taunter tells Arthur and his k-niggets to go away, so it's not a proper old-fashioned pronunciation of ";knights", more a representation of how a Frenchman might read it! -- Arwel (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, that's what I meant. The Middle English pronunciation would be closer to [knixts] I suppose. 06:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Formal-ish letter

To apply for the role of Prefect in my school, we have to write a Job application style letter to the headteacher. How formal should it be written, and how can it be written without sounding vain about my skills. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a formal post (rather than just being appointed a monitor) I suggest err on the side of formality, as though you were applying for a job to someone you didn't know. I don't think it will sound vain if you can be objective, i.e. justify your claims and describe your achievements. It might also help balance your application if you demonstrate awareness of your weaknesses and say what you are doing about them. Good luck. Shantavira 13:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts: most job applications these days are done by filling in forms. I think many people would find writing a letter in this context quite intimidating. You should not be afraid of telling the recipient things he or she already knows; this is perfectly normal, as many people find they are applying for different jobs but working for the same people. It's traditional to include a list of schools attended and qualifications received: this will give an initial framework. List any other work experience, even if not relevant. Job applications in fact tend to deal in qualifications and experience rather than skills. Include exactly one sentence describing your main interests and hobbies. Include exactly one sentence saying why you feel qualified for this job. In general you would not do this, but since prefect is a fixed term post, you might like to explain how you feel the experience will help you in your future career or education choices. Ethical background: lying on a job application is taken very seriously. Avoid exaggeration if you can. But you are under no obligation (except for certain jobs with particular legal requirements) to include unflattering or negative information about yourself. Use short paragraphs, in the way that I haven't. Notinasnaid 18:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If this question is still here next week, I'll try to say how it went. smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!^{(User), (Talk)} 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

How do you pronounce Sylow

Peter Ludwig Mejdell Sylow was a Norwegian mathematian who gave his name to the Sylow theorems. I recall reading a book on group theory that pointed out that his name was not pronounced like the American pronunciation of silo, even if that was the most common American pronunciation among mathematians. I don't have access to the library where that book came from, and can't remember which one it is. I was wondering if someone could give an IPA spelling of the pronunciation of Sylow for the appropriate Wikipedia pages? --Prosfilaes 05:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Norwegian, but his name should be /sylɯʋ/. I'll try to add this to the article, but it would help if someone who knew some Norwegian reviewed it. --Gareth Hughes 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Transliteration question

I'd be interested in a transliteration of the surname of the fencer who used a rigged épée and who has a first name of Boris. Possible candidates on the web and wikipedia include Onischenko / Onishchenko / Onishenko. I've noticed Transliteration of Russian into English, Transliteration of Russian into English/Harmonization and Names in Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS countries, but none of them were of help to me as I have never studied Russian. Thanks, Andjam 15:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name is Борис Онищенко. How exactly you transliterate that will depend on the convention you use. Boris Onishchenko seems your best bet. "Transliteration of Russian into English" is a crappy title btw, and somebody should move that article. Baad 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Baad that Onishchenko is the best transliteration of the name. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But if you make an article, be sure to make a redirect from Onischenko as well. --Ornil 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Transliteration of Russian into English an especially bad title? If you transliterate Russian for the purpose of writing in a French or German context (for example) you have to transliterate differently. In German, Onishchenko would be rendered Onischtschenko as German spells the 'sh' sound (ʃ) and the 'ch' sound (tʃ) differently. Compare Nikita Khrushchev, cs:Nikita Sergejevič Chruščov, de:Nikita Sergejewitsch Chruschtschow , fr:Nikita Khrouchtchev and nl:Nikita Chroesjtsjov, for example. I guess you could call the article Transliteration of Russian written in the Cyrillic alphabet into the Latin alphabet when writing in an English-language context, which would be more precise, but hardly rolls off the tongue. - Valiantis 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a harem

Dear Wikipedia

I am trying to find out the word for the members of a harem. If I refer to the OED definition of the word:

"The part of a Muslim dwelling-house appropriated to the women, constructed so as to secure the utmost seclusion and privacy; called also seraglio, and in Persia and India zenana."

What do you call the individual women dwelling in such a place?

I understand that harem can also be taken as the collective name for the women therein, but what is one woman referred to as?

I hope you can help

S

--129.67.4.39 16:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been fond of odalisque. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wife" or "concubine". —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Odalisque is a good bet, but it smacks a little bit of Orientalism (and is Turkish, anyway). I am not competent to answer this, but my impression is that since every woman (except for prostitutes and destitutes) would live in some harem (harem being equivalent to 'the part of the house where the women live'), it goes without saying that 'woman' (imr'a, mar'ah [30] or whatever) refers to women who live in a harem. Baad 16:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - An odalisque is really an orientalist term. The Ottoman concubine was known as a jariyya (Tr. cariye). Though, in practice, only the junior women of the court held that title. The Ottoman system of rank among the women was very complicated, and fiercely contested. --Gareth Hughes 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies and rights to privacy

I have started to write an autobiography and under law for rights to privacy and from publicity, I have changed the names and descriptions of other's in the book; however, family members or close friends would be able to determine who the person is. How can I write the story if some can be identified and they won't give a release?--troubled author

You can change other details as well; where someone lived and their occupation, for example. I'm not an expert at all, but I don't really think a release should be necesssary to write an autobiography.--Pharos 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what country you're in. Privacy laws are fairly weak in the U.S. I was reading Phil Donahue's autobiography, and he wrote about the schoolyard bully who used to beat him up. -- Mwalcoff 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

harvest eve

my great grandpa came to the usa from Scotland in the late 1890's he acording to my mom spoke Galic, and ancent Celtic she met him before he died. he clamed that the church mutilated the language Hallowen was originaly called harvest time. his people dressed warm and went out in shifts to gather the harvest and put them in underground storage before the killing frost. gordes were carved and candles put in for lantrens simply because they were cheep and easy to make and you cold tie them to trees or carry two or three in one hand for more light. some time for pratical jokes some people would paint there faces and walk around and scare people to keep them a wake and to break the monotney. he says this became the custumes as it became more poular. how ever the church when it came with there knights and swords and forced there religion at point of death could not stamp out the harvest no food no customers no money for the clergy. so they came up with stupid stories and superstions about the festival of harvest and even renamed it to saints day.

i have found no other confermation of this for few sites give the celtic original spellings or Galic original spellings they only give translated versions.

so my question is how close is the Galic or Celtic word harvest to hallow?

You might want to read our article from Scots Gaelic language and Samhain. --Gareth Hughes 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and also Christianization and Scottish Agricultural Revolution for less anecdotal accounts of these (unrelated) events. 62.202.70.244 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, our article on Halloween for a little more on that holiday's history. Garrett Albright 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of "Tongala",

Hello,

I like to know if "Tongala" has a meaning in Aboriginal Language. That could be translated into english. Does the name (of the small victorian town) have a history? thanx so much for your help.

ronja fürbaß from Berlin, germany

Usually we tell people to look at the article for questions like this, but in this case Tongala, Victoria doesn't have any answer to this question. Maybe someone else here knows! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} (also from Berlin, Germany) 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this information page from the Campaspe Shire, it is derived from the Aboriginal name for the local section of the Murray River see [31] from Canberra, Australia. Capitalistroadster 07:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Yorta Yorta name for the Murray River, according to [32]. --Diderot 19:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Script on Coin

Hello,

I hope I have posted this question in the right place. A library patron at the Fresno County Library brought in what he thinks is a foreign coin. He would like to know the language on the coin. He did some research and looked through the sections for Arabic-speaking countries in the 2005 Standard Catalog of World Coins, but to no avail. In my opinion, the coin looks much older than to have been minted in recent years, but there appears to be no date on it. Also, several scholars in the field of Arab studies have looked at it and think the language may be Urdu, but they aren't sure. Both sides of the coin have been scanned and can be found here, along with a more lengthy description. Any information is very much appreciated.

--205.247.237.96 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wee bit difficult to read, but the first side says something like rāj kūbsīwä, and the second says rāj ‘ās. This makes me think that it's Urdu, which I can't read. --Gareth Hughes 21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which sounds about right. You can try searching those in this Hindi/Urdu dictionary. Raj is of course royalty, reign or kingdom, and if it was raja, that's a king or ruler. kūbsīwä doesn't come up as anything for me, even kub as the start doesn't come up with much. Gareth, do you have any other ideas of what that might be? ās comes back as "as", so that may be something like "as (the) kingdom", etc. Based on the lack of numbers it is probably a medal of some sort. - Taxman ^Talk 13:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!

--Carmen 22:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabets are from Urdu but they don't seem to make any sense. Secondly, it is not that readable. PassionInfinity 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Ole as in Ole Miss, Grand Ole Opry

What is the meaning of ole as in Ole Miss University or Grand Ole Opry? 207.200.116.5 01:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Ed Culver[reply]

It just means "old". Presumably spelled so because of the propensity of the denizens of the South to drop the final consonant. - Nunh-huh 02:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ole is also interchangeable with the contraction ol', except, of course, when it is used in a proper noun such as Ole Miss. The American Heritage Dictionary says that it can also be used as an intensitive. For example, "You can come back any ole time," or "Good ol' Sam; I knew I could count on him." --TantalumTelluride 00:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different kinds of "love"

What is the difference between being "in love" with somone and "loving" someone?

Lots. You are free to love everybody on the planet (hey, why not?), but you would be in love with very, very few of them. You might love your parents and your children, but you would not be in love with them. Being in love is reserved for the objects of romantic/sexual attraction. But being in love is usually a transitory phenomenon, and after that you just love them. Being in love cannot be described, it can only be experienced. JackofOz 07:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"To love" has to do with strong emotions, feelings, and thoughts. To be "in love" with someone involves romantic love which is a more mature and self-defining concept. Jazz1979 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which language has the largest vocabulary in the world?

Which language has the most words in the world?

Does English have more words in its vocabulary than french?

Basically the answer is 'it depends': coming up with a number for the amount of words in a language is more a question of defining what words you include than it is of counting. Do you include complex scientific terms? Do you include variants built with suffixes and prefixes (i.e. do you include 'good', 'ungood', 'doubleplusungood', 'goodness', 'ungoodness', 'doubleplusungoodness' all as separate words?) Also, new words get made up all the time, and words from other languages are introduced into common vocabulary. As such, it's impossible to state unambiguously that a language has x words. --Ngb^?!? 09:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you include all the different grammatical forms of one word a language which inflects its words a lot will consist of a larger vocabulary. English: go, went, gone, going - German: gehen, gehe, gehst, geht, ging, gingst, gingen, gingt, gegangen, gehend, geh ,geht, gehest, gehet, ginge, gingest, ginge, ginget - Latin: ire, eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt, ii, iisti, iit, iimus, iistis, ierunt, ..., French: vaix, vait, allons, allez, vont, irais, irait, ... Compund words are another aspect. An English expression consisting of two words (flower pot) is only one word in other languages (German: Blumentopf). But it is not sure that "Blumentopf" is really one word. Many compounds like this one aren't written in dictionaries either.

Doesn't Chinese have a much larger vocabulary?--Jondel 03:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of their rather large alphabet, which has a character for each common word, which leads to thousands of characters. StuRat 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This question surfaces so frequently we could include it in the FAQ! --Plastictv 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek New Testament

Where can I find the Greek New Testament online but romanized? -- transliterated with the English/Roman alphabet instead of the Greek alphabet. Thanks. 216.159.75.158 10:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's very much interest in such a thing. The Greek alphabet (see that article) should take anyone with an understanding of the Latin alphabet less than a week to be able to read it effectively. Gospelcom have three non-critical versions of the Koine Greek NT on their website (just pull down the versions list). Being able to say the Greek words without understanding the language is probably a bad thing: there's a high probability that any statements made about the text will be just plain wrong. If you're serious about the Greek NT, learn Greek. At least learn the alphabet. --Gareth Hughes 11:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is an interest. I would like to grep it from a unix terminal, without having to switch to a Greek keyboard layout all the time. I have extracted it from the TLG at some point, let's see if I can still find it. 80.219.179.6 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then write a filter to convert the Greek alphabet to ~~English~~ [the Latin one]. Bourne shell and sed will do it just fine in a UTF-8 locale.--Prosfilaes 02:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but it's a pita with all the polytonics. 08:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto

Would somebody be able to translate my usual signiture, "S Murray In Chester (Talk) (User)" into Esperanto, please? I know it sounds random, but its kind of important. smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!^{(User), (Talk)} 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "esperanto prepositions" returns this as the first hit, which reveals that "in" is (somewhat predictably) "en" in Esperanto. Googling "esperanto dictionary" returns Traduku as its first hit, where, with a little help from our Esperanto article, I find that the infinitive form of "to talk" is "paroli." It doesn't return a hit for "user," so I tried seeing what they use on the Esperanto Wikipedia. They use, interestingly, "Vikipediisto." Also, it is standard in Esperanto to write surnames in all capital letters. So, putting it all together, "S MURRAY en Chester (Paroli) (Vikipediisto)."POV: Learn a real language instead of pie-in-the-sky robot tongues; it might actually be useful someday. Garrett Albright 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Propaedeutic value of Esperanto, you'll see that Esperanto will be useful if we learn it before we try learning a "real" language. Stuff like Cornish is so much more useful and less pie-in-the-sky than a language that's actually spoken by a couple million people worldwide.--Prosfilaes 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta watch out, Garrett, the Esperantists are very vocal and often fanatical - like Scientologists. As for the propaedeutic value of Esperanto, it would be more convincing if studies seeking to establish it didn't give the boilerplate spiel on what a wonderful thing Esperanto is first. This approach would be more convincing to me if:

it was proposed and supported by the research of an actual skeptic. The transparent prejudices of the researchers tends to undermine my trust in their conclusions.
a study was performed that compared students second language acquisition skills after learning Esperanto to their abilities after studying some other toy language. I suspect what is really happening has very little to do with Esperanto. When you acclimatise monolinguals to one kind of alternative phonology, lexicon and syntax, and then you give them some sense of satisfaction and success when they have mastered it, you may indeed dramatically lower the conceptual barriers to acquiring a real second language and you can instill in them greater confidence in their ability to learn a second language. Second language acquisition is a daunting challenge for people who have never done it before. It involves the mastery of an enormous number of very alien notions and requires a great deal of work. Anything that gives students the confidence to persist and the sense that they can do it will improve outcomes. In this respect, Esperanto may actually make further language education easier, but so would other kinds of language games. But this result tells you nothing about the viability of the Esperantist project.

--Diderot 09:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And anti-Esperantists are continuing the work of the Nazis and Stalin in attacking Esperanto. Now that we're done with the attacks, an actual skeptic is welcome to do the tests, but that's not something that Esperantists can help with. Just dismissing plausible studies and refusing to do your own is only conducive to reinforcing preconceptions.

You can't magically create confidence; you need to teach a real language, be it Esperanto or some other language, not just play some type of language games. And there's no such thing as the Esperantist project; Esperantists have various different goals.--Prosfilaes 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Esperantists promote the language for reasons other than a belief in its value as an international interlanguage? I have to confess, this is news to me. What other projects do they have then?

As for your reductio ad Hitlerum (see further up in the page), I would suggest that's a pretty poor argument in your favour. And I dismiss plausible studies all the time because they are either unconvincing in methodology or because more compelling explanations explain their results, and I have neither the interest nor the resources to perform my own studies. This is how pretty much everybody goes about evaluating research. A very large part of social science research, and a quite substantial part of hard science research, is crap. Skepticism and an unwillingness to believe things just because they've been "proven by studies" is one of the few intellectual defense mechanisms that still work these days.

Prosfilaes, I realise this has very little hope of making any difference to how you think of someone who thinks Esperanto is a tad silly, but I'm one of the very, very few linguists who think that language planning and planned interlanguages have any value at all. I'm someone whose ideological preconceptions ought to put him on your side. But I'm not. I do not think that Esperanto can genuinely function as an interlanguage in its current form. I do not think the pre-scientific methodology used to define it is adequate to the aspirations of its promoters, and I do not think that the institutional framework Esperantists have constructed to sustain Esperanto has the features to turn it into a viable communicative platform for any large community of users. My suspicion of Esperanto, my unwillingness to take it seriously, follows from a very serious consideration of it and is based on a professional knowledge of the kinds of features natural languages possess but Esperanto does not.

And no, you cannot magically create confidence, but you can trick people into creating it for themselves. But I dislike lying to students and telling them that it's for their own good. And that's what I would be doing if I treated learning Esperanto as the same thing as learning French, or Spanish, or English. --Diderot 09:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto#Goals_of_the_Esperanto_movement shows some of the reasons that Esperanto users would learn the language even if not believing that it could become a world interlanguage. The fact that you don't know the basic information included in the Wikipedia article makes me doubt your actual knowledge of Esperanto.

[sarcasm]But the reference to Scientology is still a great argument, because there's no cute Latin name for that.[/sarcasm] It's funny that physicists can take the time to actually check to see if people can bend spoons with their minds, but in 70 years social scientists can't check plausible ideas. It's easy to be skeptical, but there's a line between skeptical and willfully blind.

What features do natural languages possess and Esperanto does not? Nothing that stops it from being used in every branch of human communication.

I fail to see why it would be lying to lead your students to climb a short mountain before tackling Mount McKinley. Every field of human expertise has students tackle easy problems before harder ones. The students know that that Esperanto is easier than French, but the fact that you can communicate in a foreign language at all makes the next one that much less frightening.--Prosfilaes 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What features do real tongues have that Esperanto doesn't? The ability to evolve and improve, of course. That's something that makes many Esperantists so intolerable; they insist that their language was pure and perfect as devised 115 years ago and "excommunicate" anyone who tries to offer suggestions and improvements. Can you imagine if English were the same as 115 years ago, not to mention the rest of the arts and sciences? Let the language evolve, grow, improve. It'll only work towards its own health in the long run. (By the way, I just noticed the Esperanto article has a "useful phrases" section. Lollercoaster.) Garrett Albright 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like no one insists that English has perfect as it was 115 years ago. I don't know of one significant change in English grammar in the last 115 years; in particular, there's no movement at all towards gender neutral pronouns. Hell, English hasn't even had the badly need spelling reform. In neither case are those who suggest it really acceptable in polite society. Esperanto has evolved, both in vocabulary and grammar in the last 115 years. There's no reason to think that a rapidly changing language would be a good thing; the Esperantidos have generally failed, and even simple spelling and script reforms in native languages have tended to annoy large groups of speakers, who would probably just leave Esperanto.--Prosfilaes 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is Esperanto missing?

Lexical functions. In English, you can have a heavy rain. In French, une forte pluie - literally, a strong rain. Which is correct in Esperanto, and how do you know?
A rich lexicon. The lack of lexical functions, of idiomatic structures, of socially instituted metaphorical usages makes the lexicon of Esperanto piss-poor, no matter how many words are ostensibly in its dictionaries. Real languages are like icebergs - 90% of the content is not visible in surface structure. These additional meanings are socially structured, and Esperanto lacks the social structure to do so.
Clear mechanisms for determining when tense or aspect must be marked, or where it can be assumed to be known from context. Chinese, for example, has no tense markers on verbs whatsoever - tense is taken from context or marked by an explicit temporal adverb or clause placing events in time. As a result, Chinese people often fail to use tense markers correctly - or at all - in Indo-European languages. If a Chinese native speaker uses Esperanto without tense markers, are they speaking correctly? By what mechanism can you make that determination?
A means of determining whether an utterance is communicatively productive. In most languages, a non-native speaker's competence is measured by soliciting the reactions of native users to them. Esperanto has few speakers who claim to be native, and it is unclear that they would agree on what constitutes Esperanto. As a result, it is unclear whether Esperantists are easily able to understand each other without relying indirectly on a knowledge of the speakers' native languages. Esperantists complain persistently that other Esperantists speak "incorrectly" or "speak Esperanto like it's English". This is indicative of the failure of the Esperantist community to create a socially normative standard.

Languages are not created by dictionaries, or even by texts, they are socially and institutionally created. Esperanto could, under certain social conditions, become an effective language. But in doing so it would loose all of the properties that Esperantists use to promote it: it's vaunted regularity and simplicity, almost certainly its present phonology, and its political neutrality. Building a social and institutional framework capable of supporting Esperanto would represent the end of it as an interlingua, but it can never be treated as a language of the same class as English without such a framework.

And I assume you have personally performed experiments to verify Alain Aspect's work on local hidden variable theory? If you think evolution is sound, I shall presume it is because you have yourself dug up fossils and done the DNA experiments? Don't be a fool - practically everything you believe about the hard sciences you believe despite never once actually trying to verify it yourself. You find the claims plausible and you acknowledge the authority of the claimants. It's silly to imagine it works otherwise - in the hard sciences or elsewhere. --Diderot 07:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind stopping the personal attacks? Stop calling me a fool or comparing us to Scientologists. I haven't personally performed experiments, but it's not about what I've personally performed. In the hard sciences, homeopathy and spoon bending got tested by scientists. Why is that soft scientists get to dismiss repeated successful experiments without ever doing a counterexperiment?--Prosfilaes 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto could, under certain social conditions, become an effective language. prompts the question, effective for what? It certainly is used for an extensive variety of uses with a decent degree of success.--Prosfilaes 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prosfilaes, I apologise for implying that you were a fool. That was uncalled for. You did, however, touch one of my soft spots: contempt for the social sciences from students, practitioners and naive admirers of the hard sciences, who have yet to realise that plenty of scientific claims are routinely dismissed without any experimentation and often on purely a priori grounds; and that no scientific theory of knowledge is genuinely possible without trust, authority, and methodological considerations in evaluating claims. I find the type of rejection of the humanities and social sciences which generally follows from this sort of thinking only slightly less repugnant than, say, anti-Semitism, for its lack of basis in reality and potential to do real harm to actual people.

I cite, for example, critical response to Intelligent design, to Stephen Wolfram, or in any argument over frequentism versus Baysianism. The claims I'm citing all have profound flaws and I advocate none of them. However, in each case a line of thought and a body of claims in the hard sciences has been rejected on the grounds that it departs from a fundamentally faulty conception of phenomena. I find Esperantist claims faulty in exactly the same manner. And, since I note that most linguists respond to Esperanto in a fashion not unlike the way computational physicists respond to Wolfram - with contempt rather than the level of violence that accompanies intelligent design or arguments between Bayesians and frequentists - I might suggest that their problems with the entire venture merit some real consideration rather than the traditional Esperantist response of that because linguists are social scientists therefore they clearly know nothing.

--Diderot 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You dismiss studies that start by praising Esperanto. I don't think you should be surprised that Esperantists dismiss critisms of Esperanto that start by comparing Esperantists to Scientologists. --Prosfilaes 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one significant change in English grammar in the last 115 years; in particular, there's no movement at all towards gender neutral pronouns. Then you haven't been paying attention; see singular they. I personally use it all the time. There has also been the slow disappearance of "whom" (which I personal favor) and of "were" in the conditional subjunctive mood, as in "if I were rich" (which I do not).Garrett Albright 18:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I forgot about singular they as a gender neutral pronoun. But how can you consider singular they, a feature that's been in English since Chaucer and was used by mid-19th century authors, a change in the last 115 years? whom doesn't mention the history of the loss of whom, but the Project Gutenberg etext of Huckleberry Finn shows whom once, in the modern PG header, and many examples of "who" used where "whom" would be used. W. Somerset Maugham said that "The subjunctive mood is in its death throes" in 1949, and I suspect that evidence of its dying could date more than 115 years before now, and the change is not complete. Grammatical changes in a language take centuries. --Prosfilaes 04:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Saecula Saeculorum

What exactly does sæcula sæculorum mean in the following context from George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant:

All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in sæcula sæculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty.

Thanks in advance. --TantalumTelluride 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, the Latin means "for a century of centuries", but is usually translated as "for ever and ever", or something like that. Dominus vobiscum. JackofOz 00:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best-known use of the phrase is at the end of the Gloria Patri, where it's usually translated as "world without end". (Note also that a saeculum isn't exactly equivalent to a century; as I recall, it was marked when there was no one alive who could remember the beginning of the previous one. Usually this worked out to about once every hundred years, but it could vary a bit either way.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is great information. I'm writing an essay, and this passage will serve as a perfect example of one of my arguments. --TantalumTelluride 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

female register

In linguistics, what does "female register" mean?

In the context of acoustic phonetics, the 'pitch' or 'register' of the female voice is sometimes called the female register (referring to the fact that male and female voices differ in basic pitch). — mark ✎ 07:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A register is a distinct linguistic mode affected by circumstances not directly part of the discourse. Most languages have various degrees of formality. If I were to speak at a legal trial, I would use a formal register; whereas, if I were speaking with a friend, I would use an informal register. It would be quite straightforward to compile a list of the features of these registers in English: some would be grammatical, other would be more stylistic. Japanese has a female register: women use a distinct register to that of men. Therefore, a woman might use a completely different utterance to a man, but both have the exact same meaning. I have read about certain studies into a female register in English. Of course, this would be far more subtle than that in Japanese, but would certainly be interesting. --Gareth Hughes 13:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a first name and spelling in Latin

I am trying to find out how to spell my first name in Latin,also does it have a meaning or definition?I think it may have come from early Roman ,but not sure.I am of English decant,almost 100%,so was very curious about it.It is in my family linage but dates along way back.If anyone could help me,I would appreciate it very much.Priscilla Payne--first and last name ;does it have any phrases or mottos that go with it? Many Thanks to whomever wants to answer my question.

Believe it or not, your first name is "PRISCILLA" in Ancient Latin (before they had lower case letters<g>). It's the diminutive form of "PRISCA", which is the feminine form of "PRISCUS", which was a Latin family name meaning "ancient". You'll find both "Priscilla" and "Prisca" in the Bible (in Acts), and she's on the (Roman Catholic) Calendar of Saints (18 January) and has a church in Rome named for her (Titulus Priscoe) dating from at least the 5th century. But having the name Priscilla in the family probably just means someone along the line liked the name<G>! - Nunh-huh 05:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of "Sefir Mavet"?

What does "Sefir Mavet" mean? I believe that it's Hebrew. Thanks. --Brasswatchman 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Hebrew sefer mavet would mean "book of death". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase appears frequently in the liturgy for Yom Kippur, generally contrasted with "book of life", sometimes rendered as "scroll of life". DES ^(talk) 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGIN

What is the origin/idea of/behind the phrase "ham-and-egg theory"? I have ccome across it in this context:

Was talking today to some consultants, discussing the difference between being committed and being dedicated to a company:

"It's the ham and egg theory. The chicken is committed, but the pig is dedicated."

The last sentence is not clear, either.

--62.165.36.82 06:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with the last sentence, though not the origin. When you eat a breakfast of ham and eggs, the pig (providing the ham) is dead, but the chicken who laid the egg is still alive. If you think of the chicken and pig as giving you breakfast, the chicken exerted a bit of effort, but the pig gave its life. The chicken was "committed', but the pig was "dedicated". -It's really more of a witticism than a theory that explains anything. - Nunh-huh 06:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variant, a joke I heard a long time ago. A pig and a chicken are walking along and pass a restaurant with a sign in the window. The chicken says, "I feel so proud every time I see that sign." The pig says, "That's easy for you to say. You just have to make a contribution, I have to make a sacrifice." -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if a collection of three books?

If a collection of three books (or movies) is a trilogy, what would one call a collection of eight books in a series. My example is "The Chronicles of Narnia" which is a collection of eight books.

I believe there are only seven books in the The Chronicles of Narnia series. I don't think there is a word for this, but you could refer to it as a septology. If there were eight books you could say it was an octology, I guess. -Parallel or Together? 08:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no. "-logies" are counted in Greek. monology (90k google hits; cf monograph, monologue), dilogy (13k google hits), trilogy (20M google hits), tetralogy (434k google hits), pentalogy (20k google hits), hexalogy (603 google hits), heptalogy (323 google hits), octology (1390 google hits), *ennealogy (59 google hits), decalogy (417 ; cf decalogue), *hendecalogy (3 google hits), *dodecalogy (39 google hits) etc. 10:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that "-logy" is a Greek suffix, so your system makes sense. However, beware of google searches. Limiting them to English (the language of the English wikipedia and taking out a lot of Czech Republic related links) leaves far fewer results for some monology, which only turns up 705 results... although Latin unilogy is far worse. Duology returns about 47k hits, tri- can also br used as a Latin prefix (taken from the Greeks), and quadrilogy turns up about 691k hits. Quintilogy meanwhile rates a mere 743, and sexalogy only 176. Septology returns 978 hits (about 600 more than heptalogy), while octo- is again also a Latin prefix. Nonalogy garners 73 hits (not significantly different than the 59 for ennealogy), and decilogy only 13 hits (significantly less than decalogy). Of course, heptology (as a misspelling of hepatology) gets over 2,700... so google doesn't also help with arguments (yours or the one I just made). And of course, words such as duologue[33] exist (although why would you ever use them), showing that in Modern English there is some blending of prefixes, roots, and suffixes of various languages. So I guess what I am saying is that the questioner should use "heptalogy" (I agree with you that Greek-Greek combination is better), but that he or she is just as likely to come across "septology." -Parallel or Together? 12:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Octo- is both Greek and Latin, so octology is going to be right either way. I don't think any of the terms besides "trilogy" is well established enough to be considered anything but a neologism, probably created on the fly by the user each time it's encountered. If I were the one doing the neologizing, I'd certainly use the Greek forms; I'd call the Narnia books a heptalogy, and Star Wars a hexology (apparently originally intended as an ennealogy). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetralogy is a well-established term, at least where I come from, as is pentalogy, though to a lesser degree. Hexalogy and heptalogy can also be seen occasionally and are likely to be understand by decently educated people (i.e., Austrian Matura).

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the google search to establish that Greek suffixes should be used. That is self-evident. I used it to give a notion of which of the theoretically correct terms are actually in use, and which aren't. Baad 13:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Milligan wrote the following books: "Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall", "Rommel? Gunner Who?", and "Monty: His Part in My Victory". They were published as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd parts respectively of his trilogy. Then he wrote "Mussolini: His Part in My Downfall", which was published as "the 4th part" of the trilogy. For every rule there's an exception - and Spike discovered most of them. JackofOz 01:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tops that. The publication of books four and five didn't stop Douglas Adams from calling the series the Hitchhiker's trilogy. I seem to recall that the later books usually boast taglines like: The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's trilogy. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how to write a c.v.

I suggest you google for a curriculum vitae of someone in the same field and with similar experience as you. I've found that the desired format and contents vary between disciplines a lot. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate slang

Is there a dictionary of corporate "slang" (you know, like "assistant manager", "human resources" etc.)? It seems that it isn't there in Wikipedia. Thanks. Samohyl Jan 15:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples are so common I wouldn't call them slang. Perhaps terms like a "come to Jesus meeting" and calling every product "solutions" would be more in line with the type of jargon you mean. StuRat 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live in Czech Republic and don't consider these too obvious. Maybe it's because of language difference, and because you are probably much more (longer) exposed to it, you don't recognize it as a slang. Don't forget Wikipedia should be accessible to all cultures. Assistant manager is, I believe, secretary in normal speech? I stumbled upon "human resources" only recently, because I intend to enter corporate world. Yesterday, my father (69, retired professor) asked what "PR" (public relations) means (Czech imports a lot of such terms from English, so it is relevant). As a side note, the article about corporate culture is also somewhat non-revealing. I read in Guardian that Germans didn't liked that American chief of Walmart wanted employees to sing corporate hymn every morning (it reminded them Nazism), and in local newspaper that McDonalds have their own time system. These things are strange and non-obvious part of culture (and I mostly don't like them, because they remind me totalitarian practices and newspeak, but that's a POV), so they should be mentioned there. Samohyl Jan 08:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my workplace these utterly unnecessary neologisms are so profuse that one really needs a guide to navigate one's way through them. We've started a "Wank Words List", in which we've recorded such pearls as "green fields", "blue skies", "low hanging fruit", "breadcrumb line", "client" (meaning anything but) and "optimising the member experience". Stacks of other worse ones, but they're so impenetrable, I just can't remember them. There really needs to be a central list of all these ridiculous terms, if only so that people who love our language can poke fun at them (and their terribly serious and precious users). JackofOz 08:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say terms like "assistant manager" and "human resources" aren't slang (which generally refers to ephemeral informal language) but rather jargon (which refers to terms used within a certain field with certain meanings specific to that field). As for "green fields", "blue skies", "low hanging fruit", "breadcrumb line", and "optimising the member experience", I'd call them clichés. I don't know what you mean by "client (meaning anything but)". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. There is a difference between "corporate (or business) jargon" (formal) and "corporate slang" (informal). Anyway, Wikipedia is missing both. Samohyl Jan 11:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An assistant manager is not a secretary. A secretary types reports, letters and documents, orders supplies, in some places does employee time-keeping, and in general does administrative tasks for a management person. An assistant manager is management, and will generally have a secretary of his/her own. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas an "executive assistant" is usually more of a glorified secretary. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in cases where they are working for an actual executive, they are typically very qualified and talented, and can often make near $100k or more. In those cases they often have a lot of responsibilities and even influence. You may have heard the saying that if executives were required to actually sign all the documents that carry their signature that all business would grind to a halt. I do agree the term is used rather more loosely than that many times. - Taxman ^Talk 13:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a question exactly.

Just a heads-up, your missing two Romance languages on your list, Waloon and Jerriais, and I would make a category for languages with no known relatives such as Basque and Ainu. And you could include that Ainu and Basque seem to be distantly related, I can write the articles if you want, just contact me at (e-mail removed)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. But which list are you talking about, anyway? Category:Language isolates already exists for languages like Ainu and Basque with no known relatives. A suggestion that Ainu and Basque seem to be distantly related may be in violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy and therefore not suitable for inclusion. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if you can cite some authority making the suggestion, it will of course not violate NOR. Since virtually everything has been suggested for Basque relations, the task is more or less reduced to finding the reference. Ainu and Basque are, of course, 'distantly related', according to your taste either because they derive from the Proto-World language, or because they are both human languages following some Universal Grammar. Baad 13:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources is not sufficient to ensure that an article is not original research. A doctoral dissertation has plenty of cited sources, but it's still original research (at least, it had jolly well better be!). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, no, you have to state what the sources actually say, without adding your gist. The opposite really, in a Phd, it's cheating to sell your sources' results as your own, on Wikipedia, it's cheating to sell your own results as your sources'. 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A dissertation is (or is sipposed to be) largely original research. But saying here "In his dissertation, <Reference> Dr Whom claimed that Basque was related..." is not original research in the sense thart wikipedia uses. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on Jèrriais and Walloon, and both of them are mentioned in the article on Romance languages. --rossb 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ON or AT?

EyeToy: Kinetic on GameSpot
EyeToy: Kinetic on IGN

or

EyeToy: Kinetic at GameSpot
EyeToy: Kinetic at IGN

Please let me know if you reply by leaving a message on my talk page. -- Thorpe ^talk 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Eyetoy: Kinetic at Gamespot, Eyetoy: Kinetic on Playstation 2. That way, you avoid any possible confusion. smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!^{(User), (Talk)} 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "At" sounds better as well. -- Thorpe ^talk 17:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straight man Comedy definition

What is the definition or meaning of straight man comedy? Is it the same as light humor?

The partner in a comedy team who feeds lines to the other comedian, who then makes witty replies. —Wayward ^Talk 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I would say the straight man (or woman) acts normally, while the other one makes funny noises, remarks, faces, pratfalls, etc. to elicit laughs. For example, in the Abbott and Costello comedy team, Bud Abbott (the tall one) was the straight man while Lou Costello (the fat one) elicited the laughs. The straight man is still needed to do the set up, however, in a typical comedy team. StuRat 21:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article straight man. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

John Wyndham Estate Trust Address

Hello,

I am trying to get an address for the John Wyndham Trust Estate? There are only a few references to the Trust on teh internet but nothing by way of contact details.

Thanks folks.

I'd recommend contacting a current publisher of John Wyndham's books, as they would likely be sending a royalty cheque that way at intervals. Don't expect them to give out the address, though; but they may send on a letter. Notinasnaid 09:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumrush

What does the word "bumrush" or "bum rush" or "bum-rush" mean, and where does it comes from.

Used in the New York Times 10-29-2005 page B1:

"Then, he later told the police, one of the new landlords, Dominick Galofaro - a man who wasn't born when Mr. Eng first moved in - bum-rushid him out the door, saying....."

See http://www.word-detective.com/122002.html, which says (in part)

"To get "the bum's rush" is to be forcibly ejected or violently thrown out of someplace, usually a bar or restaurant. . . .The phrase . . . is an Americanism dating back to the early 20th century, and simply means the "rush" (in the sense of "violent push") a bar bouncer or the like would use to eject an undesirable patron or "bum.""

—Charles P. (Mirv) 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally by grabbing the person being ejected by the seat of the pants and the back of the collar and forcing them through the door. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The state/quality of being a man

I have recently come across (in the book ”Mother tongue” by Mike Bryson) of an English word for the state/quality of being a woman. The word is “muliebrity”, which I also found in Wikipedia. Is there an equivalent word for the state/quality of being a man? If the answer is negative, can anyone provide an explanation why such a word became necessary to have for a woman but not for a man?--84.234.167.166 15:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article muliebrity says it was invented as a counterpart for virility and derived from the Latin muliebris, 'womanly'—which makes a certain amount of sense. Ander-Saxon equivalents of these terms would be womanliness and manliness, I suppose. So no, there is no asymmetry (not anymore, anyway) . . . though why a Latin-derived word was thought necessary in the first place escapes me. (Maybe because virility has connotations, mainly of sexual potency, that manliness does not? Maybe because it was thought sexist to have a Latin word for one sex's qualities but not the other's? Does anyone know?) —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts that there is actually a Latin word muliebritas "the state of being a woman", as the article claims; I think it is a neologism. (just like atheism is from 'virtual' Greek atheismos, but there never was a Greek word atheismos, just atheos). Note that mulier specifically is a married woman, aka 'wife'. "the state of being female" (not necessarily married) would be expressed by femininity. 81.63.58.220 08:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in Lewis and Short, which gives a reference to its use—but it is very rare. They also say that mulier means " a woman, a female, whether married or not". —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, I stand corrected on this point. 'muliebrity' does correlate to virility as femininity does to masculinity 81.63.58.220 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an English word somewhat equivalent to virility would be nubility. I know the connotations aren't quite the same.Mr Adequate 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

true. 'muliebrity' is a neologism and hardly in actual use anyway. Maybe (just maybe) the connotations between nubility and virility are different because the connotations between 'woman' and 'man' are different, too? Baad 09:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse Translation help needed!

I am currently participating in a contest at Universal Studios Florida. One of the clues is in a foreign language which I BELIEVE may have Old Norse roots. I thought that perhaps someone here might be able to assist me.

The clue is in an audio file, which you can hear by going to the Halloween Horror Nights website and doing the following. As it is an audio file, you will need a computer with sound.

1) Go to: http://themeparks.universalstudios.com/orlando/hhn/?__dest=hhn.OFFER_right_1 2) Click on the book in the upper right hand corner (Next to FAQ's) 3) Click on the skull in the bookcase 4) Click on the large skull at the upper right hand of map. It is here that you will hear the audio file.

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. In the event that the audio file is not of Old Norse roots, do you have any idea of what language it may be in? I have already confirmed that it is not in Latin.

Thank you for your assistance.

-Steve 10/29/2005

I cannot hear flash sound (that's mostly a good thing, but I think there is something wrong with my mozilla plugin) -- can you not host the sound file as a wav/mp3/ogg sample somewhere, so we can just download the file without all the flash? 81.63.58.220 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can listen to the file here. This is actually a better source as you should be able to start and stop the audio.

Http://www.nicksvideo.com/chant.zip

Some have suggested that it may be Tolkien in nature

I would transcribe it approximately as follows (the letters are meant to have IPA values, more or less):

lek to fraut, ungrunum tak -- sentin greil, nagt melei mak

I do not think that this is either Old Norse, or "Tolkien in nature". Listening to it backwards doesn't help, the lek to fraut sounds a little bit like the foot hell, but the rest doesn't make sense (and the rhyme would be lost, too). I assume that this is invented ad-hoc. It may still be code for something of course. Any ideas? 81.63.58.220 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. Universal has pulled a fast one, and as you have suggested it was an ad-hoc language. Anyone who made an attempt to translate was "rewarded" by a private social gathering, and particpation in the closing "scaremonies".

October 30

October 31

Humourous

There does not seem to be a word "humourous" in any English dictionary, British or American. Is this a really common misspelling, then? Is the correct adj. form of "humour" then "humorous"? Thanks.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is humorous. Compare with humoresque, humorist, humoristic, etc. —Wayward ^Talk 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmkay, thanks. Confirmed my findings then. :) Now that's something for the ignorant British-English-only crowd to bite on! :D (I'm one of them BTW, just not ignorant... I hope.)
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what British English has to do with this. "Humorous" is the correct spelling in British English and American English. Valiantis 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But compare with 'colour', 'colourful', 'colouring'.

well, so? There is no example of double-ou's. It's humour, humorous (not *humourous), because it's humeur, humoureux (not *humeureux). Baad 11:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two language questions

OK, first, when one talks like this (referrring to oneself as 'one'), is there a term one can use for this?

It might be something like the impersonal pronoun. One used to know but one has forgotten and one cannot find the answer in one's reference texts. JackofOz 01:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second, can someone explain this? The two words, 'horror' and 'terror'. Now, from 'horror', we get 'horrifying', 'horrible', and 'horrific'. All carry the same meaning as 'horror'. Yet from 'terror', and using the same sequence, we get 'terrifying' and 'terrible' ... fine so far, but then we get 'terrific'. Which has an entirely different meaning. What's up with that? Proto t c 10:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Third person. 2. Terrific also means bad, frightful, astounding, powerful, magnificent, etc. For example, "I have a terrific headache." —Wayward ^Talk 10:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The shift in meaning of "terrific" is similar to that of "awesome" (thing which inspires awe), if that helps. "Causes terror" -> "Causes strong emotions" Shimgray | talk | 11:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how many words do you speak per minute

in a formal oral presentation on average how many words are spoken per minute?

This document (PDF) from the US Army Corps of Engineers puts the average at 120 words per minute (page 9). Akamad 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

140-150 is suggested here. Guinness 12:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so, how much text is perceived in an average lifetime? Say in 80 years? (written or spoken -- reading is slightly faster than speaking) how many hours per day do you spend absorbing language? four? six? eight? I suppose the upper limit is of the order of magnitude of a billion words. 62.202.67.175 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Men, on average say 2000 words per day, and women 7000(source). Okay let's take your suggested 80 years average life time, and arbitrarily ignore the first 5 years as babies/limited talkers, that's 2000 x 365 x 75 ~55 million words spoken for a man, and ~192 million for a woman. Of course, one would expect the hear more words, due to the one to many relationship of some portion of speeches. Guinness 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that's right, I was interested in how many words you hear or read in a lifetime. Obviously this will (for most people anyway...) be a much larger number than those you speak or write. I think a billion may be a reasonable estimate for an 80-years-old. The sigma will be quite large, I assume. This would mean that the largest (selected, the internet doesn't count) electronic corpora available today (some 240 million words I think) amount to the quantity of data absorbed by a young to middle-aged adult. (I can't believe women actually talk more than three times as much as men, you are really confirming a hunch here :) 83.77.216.101 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]