Language desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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.

November 14[edit]

Edit help Kemps Creek, New South Wales[edit]

While correcting a typo in above article I stumbled over this sentence:

To the north Mamre Road runs southeast-northwest through the suburb and there are several reservoirs, including the main one which Kemps Creek flows into, confluencing with South Creek a short while after

There is no such animal as confluencing. But short of rephrasing the whole thing, what would be the correct form? Is there one like that? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "merging with" works. IMO there are other problems here as well. Rephrasing the whole thing may be the best approach. CBHA (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Confluencing with" = joining? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that rephrasing might be the best solution. BTW. I may be defining things too narrowly, but I would read "river A joining river B" to mean that the river is only named B from that point on; "river A merging with river B" I would not be certain whether the river was then called B or C. Since I don't know anything about the place, I have no clue. (And the Australian view might differ on this point anyway).76.97.245.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I don't have a problem with "confluencing". See Verbing, a subject people have different opinions on. Still, if the subject is encyclopedic enough to be worth covering at all, it would be better to clarify what the merged river is called. --Anonymous, 16:42 UTC, November 14, 2008.

Someone could make more sense of google earth than this, but it looks like Kemps Creek runs into a reservoir and goes on flowing, later South Creek runs into it. The river along Penrith is the Nepean, a tributary of the Hawkesbury. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptops vs. notebooks[edit]

What is happening with the relative usages of these two terms? It seems to me that some people are trying to ease 'laptop' into obsolescence, we are seeing the term 'notebook' used more and more in the IT press even though I would hazard a guess most people would still refer to their portable computer as a laptop not a notebook. Here on wiki Notebook computer is a redirect to laptop which is fine by me, hope it never gets reversed. I suspect the perception is that 'notebook' sounds ritzier somehow, this may be true but is not a reason for the change. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the manufacturers don't want to imply that it's okay to put them on your lap. There have been some cases of people getting burns. Here's a random blog post that backs me up, so it must be true. On the other hand, dell.com still uses the word "laptop" even though they've been implicated in some of these stories. -- BenRG (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a very brief period both laptop computers and the then new and lighter "notebook" computers were both available. We used to call a laptop a "schleptop" computer. You'd be surprised just how far the definition "portable" could be stretched. And it was true, too, when compared to say the computer at our school that still occupied a full room at the time. The next size down from there was a desk-top computer which meant that it would occupy almost all the space on your desk, with a bulky CRT monitor (small screen, wow this one does color!!) sitting on top. So, what do you call as size smaller than a desktop? Laptop was a logical choice. (And sounded quite "ritzy" back then.) Balancing approx. 20lb. on your lap for an extended period is/was however not a recommended practice. While you won't have any trouble fitting your notebook into a briefcase, the usual transport medium for a laptop was a backpack. Some used the term laptop to include notebook computers. Little by little the old and bulky laptops died out and the term became synonymous with notebook. Since the term "notebook computer" sufficiently describes all of the laptops available now, I see no reason for keeping two expressions. (OR and in a few years a young linguist is probably going to come and do a study to say it never happened ;-)76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does cufftop have any takers? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a handheld PC (palmtop). -- Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burglar's tool[edit]

What is the thing called in UK? Two and a half foot long metal lever wrench used for prising open a door. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowbar. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aka Jemmy - X201 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, here in North America it's a crowbar too; but our burglars would use it for prying the door open, not prising, and the other word becomes "jimmy". What a language. --Anonymous, 16:46 UTC, November 14, 2008.

How to improve communication skills in spanish and english language.[edit]

Hi All,

My name is Varun Sharma, i am a langauge expert {spanish} and teach spanish as well.I want to know how to improve communications skills for my work profile and in my personal life?

I earn my livelihood through speaking work, like i work as a interpreter,translater and mediator between the customers on phone as well.

i want to some or techniques through which i can improve my language.I tried so many steps to improve it,however still i am feeling i need some extraordinary stuff which can improve strength,catching power, proactiveness and better understanding in language.

So, i am looking forward for your kind advise which could help to enhence in my carrier.

Varun Sharma language Expert {spanish} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunsharma29 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you study these articles and follow their links to other articles.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vocabulary seems quite good, but your grammar makes it difficult to understand what you mean. If you want to learn more about English, you should read the articles Wavelength suggested; if you want to learn how to speak English more fluently, you will need a teacher (or better, a tutor) to help you. What you need to do is to communicate with people who speak English natively; speak to them face to face, on the phone, and write back and forth with them. Matt Deres (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with the exception of the phrase "i want to some or techniques through which", your English is easy to understand (apart from some misspellings) and mostly grammatical. However, your spelling and pronunciation reveal that you are more comfortable with spoken English than written English. That's fine if you mainly want to speak rather than write. That said, I agree with Matt Deres that the best way to improve your speech is by speaking with native speakers. The same would be true for Spanish. Marco polo (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Wavelength, Matt and Marco suggested, you could use a method that has worked well for most of my students: Get a book, then get the same book as and audio book. (read by a native speaker, not a cheap knock off) Read along aloud to the tape. (Normal speaking volume is best, whispering is o.k. but will not be quite as effective) Some people can not listen at the same time as they read/speak. In this case play a bit, then read the bit you just listened to. This works mostly on a subconscious level. While it is more effective to have a conversation and have s.o. point things out to you, your mind will notice when you deviate from the way it last processed the audio of that word or phrase and after a wile will ring an alarm bell telling you "something was off there". If you can't figure out where, you can run that phrase by a native speaker and ask. Apart from professional literature in your field, books by contemporary authors involving lots of dialog between middle class people work best. (You don't need to learn to speak like a Mafioso, nor 18th century nobility.) Another thing you could do every day is: take 3 words you know, write down what you understand those words to mean, then look them up in a dictionary (monolingual, not the translation kind) and if applicable a phrasal verb dictionary [1] or one of the sites mentioned. Then go to a news site and search for your words (and verb phrases) there. Look at how they are used. Study where in the sentence they are. Make sentences like the ones you found that deal with things you might want to discuss with s.o. (If you have the time google your sentence to check if s.o. else has used your word in that context. Some words are used only in certain combinations.) For extra credit look up synonyms [2] and add them to your list for the next round. A little caveat on speaking with native speakers to improve your language skills vs. hiring a tutor/trainer. On evaluating the efficiency of a "language swap" program at a local university, we found that lots of participants hesitated to correct mistakes their opposite made, even though they expected to be corrected by them during the "swap". Another complaint was that people often know what they would say in a certain situation, but unless they have read up on it, will rarely know why. As an interpreter you are probably well aware of the third issue we found which was that cultural differences often complicated the discussions if the participants hadn't agreed on a topic beforehand and prepared for it. I don't mean to say that talking to native speakers won't improve your skills, but it helps to be aware that there are some limitations. Last but not least participating in forums like this one, but focused on your L2 (e.g. [3]) lets you help yourself by helping others. You get exposed to problems that you may not yet have encountered and can share what you have learned with other posters. Hope this helps. Good luck. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo - Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to criticize his grammar, just pointing out that his request could be taken in two different ways, as evidenced by Wavelength's suggestions. When I first read the question, I was going to reply with what turned out to be the latter half of my answer, but Wavelength's reply made me unsure I'd understood the question. Matt Deres (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interdental fricative[edit]

Is there any word in the English language which has an initial voiced interdental fricative and is not part of a closed word class? Wrad (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation_of_English_th#Phonology_and_distribution makes it sound like a definite list. (subsubheading "Initial position"). I don't know whether "various compound adverbs based on the above words: therefore, thereupon, thereby, thereafter, thenceforth" mean that there doesn't belong to a closed word class, and hopefully someone else will pitch in now. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words such as then, there, thereby, and thereafter are adverbs, and adverbs are not a closed word class. That said, I think that you could say that words with an initial voiced dental fricative are a closed set of words if not a true word class. That is, I don't think that the initial voiced interdental fricative is a "productive" phoneme, if the concept of productivity can be applied to phonology. Marco polo (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it couldn't. Related to this fact is the following bit of anecdotal evidence: When I was learning Welsh in a very small class (3 people) as an undergraduate, there was one woman in the class (a native speaker of American English) who simply could not manage to pronounce /ð/ at the beginning of Welsh content words like Ddafydd or ddangos; she always just used [d] unless the teacher got on her case and forced her to pronounce it correctly. I couldn't figure out why she had such difficulty since she pronounced the, then, there, etc., completely correctly in English. I guess she had her closed set of words with initial /ð/ and was unable to add to the set. —An gr 10:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adverbs is a catch-all class, but all the TH-words are function words. OED says (I think this text is from the first edition):

Initially, the same change of (θ) to (ð) took place during the Middle English period in the demonstrative group of words, the, that, and their kindred, this, these, †tho, those, there, then, than, thence, thither, thus, etc., and in the pronouns of the second person singular, thou, thee, thine, thy: these constitute the only words in English with initial (ð).

cmudict also lists THAO THAU THESING THEUS THOMANN, none of which are in OED; I suspect they're spurious. jnestorius^(talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whorf wrote somewhere (probably in Language, Thought and Reality) that if you gave a number of native English speakers sentences to read out that contained non-words beginning with 'th', they would pronounce them with /ð/ if the word appeared to function as a demonstrative or operator, but /θ/ if it appeared to be a content word. This was an example of what he called a 'cryptotype' - a non-obvious rule that any native speaker would follow without being aware of it - in fact in most cases not even being aware that there was a phenomenon that required a rule. I don't recall whether he had actually performed the experiment. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I have a word, please ?[edit]

How do I collectively refer to any type of noodles with tomato sauce ? That is, angel hair pasta, penne pasta, rotini, elbow macaroni, etc. I currently refer to all such foods simply as "spaghetti", but know that isn't correct, as that refers to a specific diameter circular noodle. On the other hand, calling it "pasta" is too broad, as that includes foods like ravioli and lasagna. I'm straining and going out of my noodle trying to find the answer to this stirring problem, and this experience has left me both limp and drained, so any help would be much appreciated. A free meatball goes to the first responder ! StuRat (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would use pasta for that...to me, lasagna isn't pasta, which leads me to wonder what lasagna is, and I conclude that it is simply lasagna. Pasta has tiny noodles, or long strings like spaghetti, with sauce and bits of meat, and you can make it in a few minutes just by boiling some water. Lasagna is made differently, and it's more like a meatloaf or something, and it has cheese and more meat...I don't know, I'm sure this is all completely inaccurate to true pasta connoisseurs. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my (southern English) world, lasagna is pasta, as are penne, conchiglie, fusilli, and so on. None of these, however, are noodles. In answer to the question, I would call use pasta as the generic term, even though it applies to other stuff as well. Algebraist 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what tomato sauce has to do with it: pasta is as much pasta in carbonara as in puttanesca. it:Pasta#Forme suggest pasta lunga ("long pasta"; plural paste lunghe). jnestorius^(talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some pasta are boiled, then served with a sauce - spaghetti, fettucini, penne, etc. etc..

Some are filled and then baked with sauce - lasagna, manicotti, cannelloni.

Some are filled, boiled, then served with a sauce - tortellini, ravioli.

Given the variety of combinations, I doubt there is a specific name for the particular combination you have in mind. CBHA (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So those 3 categories you listed don't have names ? The top one is the one I'm interested in. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No names that I know. Jnestorius suggests "long pasta", which fits spaghetti and fettucini, but not penne, shell pasta, or other small shapes. CBHA (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP used the cover-term "noodles"; I would not consider small shapes to be noodles. jnestorius^(talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to include shells, penne, elbows, rotini and other small shapes. If those shapes aren't "noodles", then I used the term incorrectly. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is "fettuccine". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) - Thank you CBHA (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lasagna counts as pasta in American English, too. I am afraid that there isn't a word for pasta boiled and served with sauce. Marco polo (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK then, I guess I'll have to make up my own. How about SPASTA, for Spaghetti-like PASTA ? StuRat (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why it's important to have a name for this, Stu? The world seems to have survived so far without one. For the record, I doubt that "spasta" would ever catch on. It's far too redolent of spastic, which for many people would be off-putting when associated with food. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, to someone who appreciates pasta, fettuccine is NOT "spaghetti-like". CBHA (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to say "Which type of SPASTA would you prefer for dinner ?". Currently this makes for an awkward sentence such as this: "We're having some type of pasta noodles tonight; excluding lasagna, manicotti, cannelloni, tortellini, ravioli, etc.; which will be served with spaghetti sauce. Which type of pasta would you prefer ?". StuRat (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "we're having pasta with arrabiata sauce tonight; what type of pasta would you prefer?" then context makes it clear that ravioli, lasagna, etc are not appropriate responses. jnestorius^(talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with saying "We're having pasta with spaghetti sauce tonight. What type of noodles would you prefer?" (But if we're making up names, I prefer "saucy pasta vixens from outer space".) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "noodles" may exclude some pasta choices which I want to include, like shells and rotini. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people use pasta to refer to both the dish and the noodles involved. Lasagna (usually) uses semolina noodles, so it gets referred to as a pasta (as in our article), but the dish itself is actually a casserole. Matt Deres (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually think of pasta as the subset of noodles such that pasta are simply Italian-cuisine derived noodles. I wouldn't call Lo mein or Soba pasta, but I would call them noodles. But then again, couscous is neither a pasta nor a noodle, but it is essentially like both. Hmmm... Once again, language proves to be an imperfect system. C'est la vie... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]