Language desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 22[edit]

Funeral Blues by W.H. Auden[edit]

I was wondering what the meter is to Auden's "Funeral Blues" and if it changes at all during the poem. I found some sources saying iambic pentameter and others saying trochee. Considering these are opposites, I have little to go on. Thanks Jedi Svinje 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's accentual verse, not accentual syllabic. So it is neither trochaic or iambic. Accentual verse doesn't count the number of unstressed syllables per line or the number of total syllables. Only the stressed ones matter.

Stop all the clocks

Cut off the telephone

Prevent the dog from barking

with a juicy bone

The lines have 4, 5, 6 and 5 syllables respectively, but in each line only two syllables receive a strong stress.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lasayla 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Though I agree that this verse is not intended to be acc. syllabic, I had always heard this read with stresses (perhaps slighter?) on telephone and dog from barking. That, plus a 4/6/7/5 recount, does indeed make the 2nd and 3rd lines sound iambic, so I can see how someone might mistakenly assume it was -- especially given how much iambic pentameter shows up in high school Shakespearean study these days. Jfarber 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of -esque to describe something in popular culture[edit]

I was looking for anything that may explain -esque or -ian as describing something in popular culture. I noticed that many times it is used, although I'm not sure what the rule is for using it. The proper usage would be for example Romanesque, but other times it is used for say Fellini-esque in order to describe something that resembles a Fellini film. Also -ian used at the end of a word. Porperly it would be Proustian (as in Marcel Proust), but is also used for example Hitchcockian (director, used to describe something strange). Bascially these endings are put at the end of words for description purposes, but what is the rule for actually using those endings. And why is it such a popular (or lazy?) way to describe something? I hear people constantly adding these endings to words, but was never actually taught these endings in English. Making me wonder if they're just made up words, improper use of the ending or slang, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iluvelves (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I doubt there is any hard-and-fast rule. It seems to come down to what sounds better, ie. euphony. We hear of certain music being described as "Chopinesque" (not Chopinian), but other music as "Beethovenian" (not Beethovenesque). JackofOz 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me -ian seems to suggest a closer adherence to the original than -esque does. Is that just me? --Anonymous, March 22, 2007, 23:10 (UTC).

The Wiktionary pages show a slight distinction between -esque and -ian, with -esque indicating, to my eyes at least, a less direct relation to the root word. Via Bartleby, I found this bit about -esque from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, "In some uses it may have slightly pejorative overtones, suggesting only 'an imitation of' rather than 'very much like.' " Finally, here is an interesting discussion of "-ish" which might be somewhat relevant. --LarryMac 14:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathological capital letters[edit]

Is there a name for the pathological over-use of capital letters such as one might see in the printed handwriting of psychologically unstable people? Thanks. MisterCDE 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camel case? Dismas|^(talk) 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preteenagerhood? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

macrographia (WP only has an stub on micrographia)---Sluzzelin talk 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin means micrographia (handwriting). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, Indeed, thanks for the clarification. (But what an amazing flea! Robert Walser, who suffered from micrographia, would have appreciated this serendipitous pipelink, for sure.) ---Sluzzelin talk 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StudlyCaps might do for you, but it's more specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.145.145.242 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think macrographia is what I'm after. It's not the size of writing but the use of Capital Letters in the Middle of Sentences and Sometimes for WHOLE Words in a Manner that seems to be patterned after Some OLD VERSION of the Bible. Thanks MisterCDE 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In older Books Capitals are often seen in the Middle of Sentences; I always assumed that it was patterned after German, where all Nouns are capitalized. Also, it could be for emphasis. But that is standard practise, not psychologically unstable. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. I've noticed that Pattern too, predominantly in Texts from the beginning of the 19th Century and earlier. I've posted an Image of the United States Declaration of Independence to illustrate this (it is easier to see the Capitalization in the Article itself, which has a verbatim Transcription of the Document). Examples can be found in the First Edition of the Quebec Gazette (e.g. "with ſuch Originals, both in Proſe and Verſe as will pleaſe the Fancy, and inſtruct the Judgement") and in this Page from Shakespeare's First Folio (e.g. "Not a Mouſe stirring", "the [Rivals] of my Watch", "the minutes of this Night; / That if [again] this Apparition come", "Such was the very Armour he had on"). How delightfully Splendid it is to Write in this Most Fanciful Manner!. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's common in old texts, but what I'm talking about is modern stuff usually written by uneducated nutters, you know the sort of thing, Hellfire and Damnation will rain down unless the Council fixes the HOLE in the FOOTPATH. MisterCDE 05:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Because THE most likely kind OF person TO answer THIS sort OF advertisement HAS less trouble under-STANDING words if they ARE written in BIG letters." Adam Bishop 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does Schweigen-reigen-schöne-schützen-schmützen sauerbraten[edit]

In the Producers, the song "Haben Sie Gehort Das Deutsche Band?" has a line: It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schweigen reigen schönen schützen-schmützen sauerbraten. Is this nonesense or does it have an actual English translation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.154.100 (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The words mean "to be silent - round dance - beautify (or some oblique form of beatiful) - protect - (nonsense) - sour-roast". Try to find your own rhyme or reason to that. — Sebastian 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's basically nonsense, though the individual words have meanings. Schweigen means "to be silent"; Reigen means "round dance"; schönen is an inflected form of schön "beautiful"; schützen means "to protect"; schmützen isn't a real word, but it's close to Schmutz "dirt"; Sauerbraten is known by that name in English too. —An gr 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add, really, to the sum of both answers given above, except, perhaps, that Schützen-Schmützen could also be seen as a Shm-reduplication, and that Schützen, while meaning to protect as a verb, can also mean marksmen or gunners as a noun, and is a common prefix to martial word conglomerates such as Schützengraben or Schützenpanzer, which, of course, makes sense in the The Producers's context. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Der Rest ist Schweigen-Reigen-schöne...[reply]

It seems to me like a play on the actual title of the song, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing". ALTON .ıl 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation of french[edit]

could you please translate this paragraph for me to french?

Actually, we in the modern world have much more free time than people from centuries past. We live a lot longer, most of us don't work from dawn to dusk or on weekends, and we have lots of modern time-saving conveniences like electric stoves and salad spinners. The reason we're still unhappy is because hobbies aren't enough to fill the soul-crushing despair of humanity.

the average 'free' time in many nations has increased in the past 30 years. This can be down to less housework caused by more efficient products (washing machines/tumble dryer/dishwasher etc.) it can be down to a change in working hours (35 hour working week in France for example) or other factors. To answer part 1 you have to question individual's perception. Some say the 'keeping up with the joneses' is a big cause of unhappiness (or inability to keep up), or some say lack of social-groups (though arguably there are more sub-cultures now than ever before). The obvious advantage of hobbies is that it can lead to friendship (with fellow hobbyists) it can provide you with challenges, successes, keeps you occupied, can help give your life more 'meaning', makes you feel knowledgeable in a specific area and probably a million other psychological theories about why hobbies are good. I tend to think having a 'purpose' makes people happier, and perhaps a hobby can give life a purpose more so than someone without hobbies. I know for one I intensely dislike the idea of retiring and doing nothing at all with my days - maybe in time i'll tire and retirement will seem wonderful?Warriorzsoul 08:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)warriorzsoul[reply]

My french isn't very good, but I'll have a go: En fait, nous dans le monde moderne avons un temps beaucoup plus libre que des personnes des siècles après. Nous vivons beaucoup plus longtemps, la plupart d'entre nous ne travaille pas de l'aube au crépuscule ou sur des week-ends, et nous avons un bon nombre de convenances éonomiseuses de temps modernes comme les fourneaux et les fileurs électriques de salade. La raison que nous sommes encore malheureux est parce que les passe-temps ne sont pas assez pour remplir désespoir âme-concasseur de l'humanité. Please, please check that before you use it! Think outside the box 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do not wish to denigrate TOTB's effort, our stated RefDesk policy is that we do not do homework for our querents; I'd suggest this policy would (and should?) include large tasks such as this, which are WAY beyond the scale/scope of even the most generous reference services. On the other hand, if you would like us to help you locate a translation service or translation dictionary, or give you advice about how to determine whether a translation is reliable, we'd be happy to help! Jfarber 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I would say that Warriorzsoul has a wonderful post-modern sense of humour which Jfarber has entirely missed ... - EAH

Complex listening practice[edit]

Hello. I've recently been studying a couple languages that are quite phonetically complex, and I'm working hard to perfect my pronunciation and listening. At present, I have encountered some difficulty in recognizing labalized, palatalized, and pharyngealized consonants. I can differentiate easily enough with slow, clearly pronounced speech, but I lack the practice to tell the difference at faster speeds, and I also find it quite difficult to pronounce some consonants in certain combinations (not being accustomed to forced labializing, I often insert unneeded uvular sounds unintentionally for some vowels).

Does anybody know of any online resources that one can use to help practice listening and pronunciation of these (relatively) difficult sounds? I could also use some more practice with aspiration/nonaspiration and ejectives, if you know anything for those too!

I have lots of IPA samples, but they're not really that useful because they're pronunced so slowly and clearly. Are there no drills or anything that could be used for training? I haven't been able to pull anything up through google. 222.158.162.242 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There exists software for speech therapy, dialect coaching or orthoepy that helps with that. I heard good things about Sona-Speech; another name I could find was "SpeechViewer". Problem is that they seem to be expensive. (I'm particularly annoyed by Sona-Speech's claim to be "low-cost ", while hiding their actual price. I think they're actually very expensive.) See also An Overview of Pronunciation Software. Maybe you could make an appointment with a professional to try their favorite software on you. — Sebastian 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for how to learn what a dialect coach does and perfecting an accent or teaching others to perfect an accent, but I've had no luck. What training would they go through to learn that skill and are there books or tools available to learn it? - Taxman ^Talk 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect all you need is a degree in Linguistics and a reputation as a good accent trainer (the more accents the better). Besides, I'm somewhat of a speech therapist myself (it's part of my job description), and I am also sceptical of such "low-cost" services that are obviously serve a market filled with people with too much money on their hands. Alas, none of the aforesaid products are of much use for the languages I'm tackling (Ubykh and Caucasian languages, among others), but thanks anyway. 222.158.162.242 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call...[edit]

...someone who opposes or abstains from marriage, relationships and sex, because he is skeptical that they will never work out in the end? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A realist? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A voluntary pessimistic celibate? A number of reasons for celibacy are given in that article, you could add the one you mentioned. I'm curious: What do you mean by "someone who abstains from sex because he is skeptical that it will never work out in the end"? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why bother. The baby is just gonna turn out fugly anyways." 222.158.162.242 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A hermit, a crab, or both. Clarityfiend 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lonely virgin. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An erotophobe? —An gr 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is asceticism, which involves celibacy, but not usually for the reasons you gave. StuRat 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House hotclaws**== 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MD and diagnostician? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need summary from Latin[edit]

Need summary translation from ~~Italian~~ Latin Wikipedia. In Vicipaedia of Petrarch's Africa under the section of "Fontes" it is making reference to what appears to be like an article I started of Genealogia deorum gentilium. Can I get a summary interpretation what it is saying? --Doug ^talk 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is Latin so I am out. Stefán 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing headline accordingly. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the Petrarch article is examining the sources of his poem. He refers to a passage in Book 3 in which Petrarch describes certain golden or gilded representations of Greek gods (sic: in fact most of the names listed are Roman). He claims that in this catalogue Petrarch is following certain earlier authors, such as Isidore, Fulgentius, possibly Neckam. I'm always harping on about this, but I really think we make ourselves look foolish in writing a Latin Wiki, because we don't have authors whose Latin is up to the task (I'm not claiming that mine is).Maid Marion 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that mistake. I don't know Latin nor Italian (and can't tell one from the other). It all looks Greek to me - maybe it is! The names in that section look alot like the methology "Gods" in my article. Are these mythology "Gods" then Roman? This is related to the Boccaccio (Petrarch's friend) article Genealogia deorum gentilium. I'm looking at Petrarch's epic poem in Book 3 and it appears what you are referring to is on lines 165 to 185 (margin: The pagan gods). Is that correct? --Doug ^talk 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article does not make any reference to Boccaccio or to his Genealogia deorum gentilium. The Roman names of the gods are used simply because it's in Latin - the Romans virtually always use their own Latin equivalents when speaking about the Greek gods. Wareh 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the original context (of the poem Africa) no mention is made of the "nationality" of the gods. This is in the palace of Syphax in Numidia, and there is no specific reason to think of them as being Greek, except that the Romans simply took a lot of Greek mythology on loan. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for this information. Now my understanding is that Syphax was captured or killed at the Battle of Ilipa by Scipio Africanus. --Doug ^talk 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the section Battle of Ilipa#Aftermath, you'll see that Scipio was entertained by Syphax at his court after the battle. Some three years later, Syphax was captured by Massinissa and delivered to Scipio; see the end of the article Syphax. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on clearing that up for me. You are absolutely correct, I had it wrong. Appreciate you finding that for me. As usual, you are many times smarter on these items than I am. Perhaps that is why I ask the questions and you answer the questions.--Doug ^talk 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question #34: Difference between hyper- , super- and ultra-??[edit]

Hi all! I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but the only reason I am seriously asking this question is because there seems to be a very concise use of these different prefixes in scientific disciplines as far as I can perceive. So, when would you use hyper and not super? Is hyper really "greater" than super? Is the only difference between ultra and these two the fact that ultra may talk about being beyond limits unlike the others?

(By the way, I based some of these assumptions on what is said on the List of English prefixes, which as you can see was deleted from Wikipedia for reasons I cannot understand. I was fortunately able to find a mirror of sorts here. That page was very useful to me, and I'm very mad because of that. Just a heads-up for ya.) Kreachure 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, on the other hand, is one, so you will find the list at wikt:Appendix:English prefixes. —An gr 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP does have Greek and Latin roots in English, however, listing all three of your prefixes. I'm not very impressed by the single word translations though. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Appendix you are talking about. Now check the original wiki page. See a difference? That's right: The wikipedia article was actually useful, listing the original meaning of the prefixes, and common uses. The wiktionary page is just a list with absolutely no explanations. That, dear wikipedian, is no transwikification. Check the Differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles: it's not about a single word, it's a list explaining many prefixes. Anyways, the Greek and Latin roots in English is where it should be moved to if anything, but most of the words there still have no info! That means the original article information is still lost!! As far as my experience goes, Encyclopedias usually list prefixes and suffixes in appendices with adequate explanations, while dictionaries don't. Kreachure 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's still no answer to my questions anywhere... :ñ(

This is my perception: super < hyper < ultra. Super- seems to connotate a weak 'above-norm' condition, as in a Supermassive black hole, which is only slightly (relatively) larger than a normal Black hole. Hyper- is not only more than normal, it is unnatural. Supermassive black holes are not hyper-massive, since they are simply larger than the standard of 'massive', but hyperactive children is a result of some attention disorder or whatnot. Superactive children might be just normal athletes or something. Ultra- seems to indicate the apex of an adjectival intensity, as if no more can be attributed to it, and its basic properties far exceed expectations of the standard. Ultraviolet light is the darkest kind of 'violet' light (of course it has other properties). In latin, Ultra means "beyond". What specific terms were confusing? I know in Pokémon the Normal Potion < Super Potion < Hyper Potion. ALTON .ıl 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts, please. ALTON .ıl 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're referring to me, I did sign all my posts. P.S.'s, as everyone knows, go after the signature.) As far as dictionary definitions go, in general hyper-, super-, and ultra- all mean "above, beyond, excessively". So "beyond" alone wouldn't make ultra unique. Still, I think that in cases such as ultraviolet, it would actually refer to "(being) beyond an established limit". And according to my perception (albeit based on childhood references such as Pokemon as well): Super > Ultra > Hyper. Kreachure 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While I have no opinion on the this question nor the fate of the page "List of English prefixes," may I suggest that someone very interested in the subject, contact User:Kyorosuke and request a formal undelete-discussion or whatever the WP term is for it. In essence, try to bring the page back from the dead. Just a thought. --Cody.Pope 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming this: usefulness is not a valid reason for keeping an article. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super and hyper are related words, although the former is Latin and the latter is Greek. The two languages are related, and so are the words. The <y> in hyper was originally pronounced like [u] in very old dialects of Greek, and [h] is in place of what would have otherwise been [s]—the sounds [h] and [s] have a very linked phonological history in Greek. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in French an 'hypermarché' is bigger than the normal 'supermarché' (supermarket). Wait a few years they might introduce an 'ultramarché' too and we can compare. Also mega- is used as a similar prefix, but one that is mathematically defined. And über- is becoming common too, where do these fit?

MLA style quotations[edit]

I have a question; when writing something in MLA style, how does one formate dialog quotations?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're using more than three lines of text total (which, I note, MLA style guides discourage) -- the ideal is to make clear both a) who is speaking, and b) to try to preserve the formatting of the original text. this MLA source is one of many sources which shows how to quote dialogue in a play, but sadly not even my handy and well-thumbed MLA guidebook addresses other types of dialogue. Still, we can extrapolate from the general rule set forth therein; the only thing I'd change if your source is not a play is that, since the preservation of the appearance of the original text is tatamount in block quotes (see the ~~ee cumming~~E. E. Cummings example on that same page), I'd not add notation about who is speaking each line if it's not in the original text. Instead, I'd make sure to include that information in the sentence that leads in to the block quote. (for example: "...as in the following passage, where Sam tries to convince Ellen to give the baby up for adoption." The implication is that Sam is the primary agent in the conversation; we would thus assume it is his line of dialog that comes first.) Hope this helps! Jfarber 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the rendering "ee cummings" our article E. E. Cummings states: "His publishers and others have sometimes echoed the unconventional capitalization in his poetry by writing his name in lower case and without periods, Cummings himself did not approve of this rendering." --Lambiam ^Talk 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the comma splice in the article. JackofOz 09:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've corrected both the typo-spelling and the preferred capitalization for Cummings. Thanks for noticing it (you're a lamb...) Jfarber 12:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-a-a-a. :) JackofOz 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]