Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 15

need russian speaker

hellow everybody. I know that this is Wikipeida and not wiktionary but there doesn't seem to be a refdesk on wiktionary so I'll just ask here. look at the pages in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_phrasebook Can someone give me a key on the pronounciations that are provided (by for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%8B_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8) Personlly I like the other way you transcribe better since I recognize it from my OED. why did you stop and can you switch them back? Thanks. --Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.108.68 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you’re looking for a basic pronunciation guide I’d ignore both of the versions available in the history of that page (the transliteration given looks fine to me as a Latin letter equivalency of the Cyrillic letters, but if you don’t know the Cyrillic alphabet very well it won’t tell you more than the broadest basics of pronunciation). I would give the pronunciation as VIY gahvahrEEtye puh-anglEEski, accent on the capitals. The letter ы is not so much a simple i or ee (like in sheep or feed, as much as a diphthong whose component parts are a short-i (like slip or pit), plus the long i or ee, for a total effect something like "-iy". And in Russian, most any letter O that is not the main accented syllable of a word is pronounced more like A. I don't really have the time to hammer out a comprehensive pronunciation guide for all of those phrases, but I hope this helps. ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Purchase or buy

Hello, what's the differences between purchase and buy?

• Let me buy you a glass of beer.
• Let me purchase you a glass of beer.

thanks.--180.234.153.23 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no real difference; they simply have different origins. Purchase descends from Anglo-Norman and buy descends from Old English. Sometimes Latinate words (such as purchase) are considered "more formal". See English language#Vocabulary and List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the second of these would never be used in normal conversation, unless the speaker was trying to sound ironically formal and buttoned-up. Come to think of it, "a glass of" would not be used either. "Let me buy you a beer" would be said. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...unless it's equally likely that "a beer" refers to a glass or a can or something else. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hayden. Purchase is just a more formal version of buy - in this case the formality is not appropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my observation is that purchase is rarely used with both a direct object and indirect object, while buy is. E.g., "purchase him a gift" is rare, but "buy him a gift" is more common.--达伟 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Near-synonyms quite often subcategorise differently. "Purchase" doesn't take an indirect object, while "buy" can (of course either can take a prepositional phrase such as "for him".) As another example, consider "eat", which can take a (direct) object or be used intransitively; "dine", which cannot take a direct object (though it selects a PP with "on"), and "consume", which must take a direct object (in the literal sense, at least. It is now also used intransitively in the sense of "be a consumer"). --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The typical company has a Purchasing Department which buys stuff for the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion: "purchase" = pretentious word used by people who think long words must make them sound more intelligent. "Where did you purchase the vehicle?" = "Where did you buy the car?" "buy"= exactly the same meaning, but good old Anglo-Saxon, shorter, older, better. The only excuse for using "purchase" to mean "buy" is if you're talking about the Purchasing Department and it actually has that name. Evangeline (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a not-uncommon reaction to the use of Latin/French-based words vs. Anglo/German-based words. The former tend to have several syllables, and the latter often have just one or two, and appear to be more crisp and direct than their Latin-rooted synonyms. Longer words sound more bureacratic and PC. (Then mix them with passive voice and you've got an unreadable memo.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

flat earth language

I recently did this tour http://www.astrotours.net/ASTRO_TOURS_-_the_Ultimate_Journey_to_the_Stars.html

The guy Greg Quicke told us we still talked flat earth language. We were, of course, skeptical. Then he asked us who had ever watched the sun set/rise. Of course we all had. He made the obvious observation that the sun doesn't do anything; us earth mob do. So.... we've known this for over 400 years...why hasn't language caught up. We tried making statements to reflect what truly happened...clumsily! My questions are: why hasn't language caught up with scientific knowledge; and is there any other area where language has lagged behind knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moirabroome (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This very example is used by the author Gene Wolfe in his 1980 novel The Shadow of the Torturer. Early in the story (so not really a spoiler!) the protagonist Severian observes a sunrise and thinks of it as the horizon dropping: this is one of several oblique clues that the story, though set on Earth, takes place so far into the future after spaceflight had become commonplace that language has caught up with the post-Copernican viewpoint. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question! I had noticed the sunset/sunrise thing but didn't look for more. There must be dozens, or hundreds if you leave English, but I can only think of these:

Health

• Are the names of the four temperaments (“choleric”, “phlegmatic”, “melancholic”, “sanguine”) derived from body fluids, or were the body fluids named after the tempers? Either way, empiric science has abandoned that AFAIAA.
• “Common cold” and similar terms in Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages are a bit misleading; Mandarin and Japanese apparently use terms that don't have “cold” in them.
• I think “lunatic” also qualifies. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• And "hysteria"! Ignore her, it's just her womb playing up again... 81.131.66.254 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Animals, plants, food

• Ziegenmelker “nightjar”, from the superstition that they milk goats. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Barnacles are named after the barnacle goose which they were supposedly the young of. 81.131.66.254 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Latin lyncirium “amber”, from the speculation that it's hardened lynx urine. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a matter of convenience. Whether you choose a heliocentric, a geocentric or a topocentric (which puts a place on the earth's surface in the centre) or even an egocentric reference frame doesn't matter from a physical point of view: Everything can be described in any reference frame. However, the description in some frames may be simpler than in others; this is the case if the reference frame is somehow adapted to the symmetries in the process you are trying to describe. Mathematically speaking, this amounts to a choice of a coordinate systems, and coordinate systems are what's "relative" in special and general relativity. Since there are no absolute reference frames (although Quicke seems to imply wrongly that there are), there's no wrong or right here. For sunrise and sundown, a topocentric description is well suited because it holds your standpoint fixed. In other frames you would have to take your movement into account, which complicates matters. Astronomers use topocentric descriptions when they talk about the visibility of stars, e.g. in preparing observations. If the pros do it, everybody else can do it, too; no need for language to catch up. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentions many more misnomers. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be something relevant at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_idioms. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See Sun#Motion and location within the galaxy (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible spoke figuratively of the four corners of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/7-1.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-8.htm), centuries after it revealed that the earth is round (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-22.htm).

It mentioned figuratively the foundations of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-21.htm), after revealing that the earth hangs on nothing (http://multilingualbible.com/job/26-7.htm).

It spoke of the sun being made to stand still (http://multilingualbible.com/joshua/10-13.htm) and also of a shadow being made to go backward (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/38-8.htm). It speaks of the sun rising (http://multilingualbible.com/matthew/5-45.htm) and it speaks of the sun setting (http://multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/1-5.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument did not refer to the Bible but rather to the OP's comment about our current physical knowledge. I claimed that the common usage of language does not contradict our physical knowledge. How does the Bible have anything to do with my claim? HOOTmag (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag, I indented my post in reply to the original post, and not in reply to your post.—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But you've put your post under my post. Now I re-ordered the posts, so that yours be under your previous posts. HOOTmag (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Bible it's more than figurative. In Genesis it talks about a "firmament" separating "the waters above from the waters below". That "firmament" was a fancied "dome" over the flat earth, separating it from the waters above (except when "the windows of heaven open", i.e. it rains). In general, we anthropomorphize nature even though we know it's not true - referring to a storm as having "angry" clouds, for example. And while we know that the sun doesn't really rise and set, it looks to us like it does, so it's a convenient reference. I would go a little farther and say this is all, at its root, connected with "folk" religion a.k.a. "pagan" religion, which has been displaced but has never totally died out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That which some translations call a "firmament" is called an "expanse" by other translations. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/1-6.htm) Contrary to the idea of Biblical teachings evolving from paganism, the Bible itself gives the credit to God. (http://multilingualbible.com/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I try not to be a dick, I really do, but the only possible response to that is "no shit!" Why do you keep quoting the Bible anyway? It has nothing to do with anything but you bring it up like every other thread. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using profane language? It does not help communication. I have repeatedly had to see it on these pages, and it is not pleasant, and I have often turned away because of it.

I quote the Bible because I am familiar with it, and I do so in some of the discussions where I see a relevant connection with it. Maybe you would prefer me to quote from Aesop or Shakespeare, but I am much less familiar with them.—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What 87.81 describes is sometimes called "phenomenological language" (our various phenomenological articles don't seem to say much about this usage directly). I don't feel competent or comfortable discussing this question philosophically, but the Scripture is full of phenomenological language and it is also a reference for modern day English. That is a relevant link for context, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Scripture quite literally includes the false mythological beliefs in question, so it's irrelevant to the OP's original question. The question was about language not catching up with knowledge. The numerous authors of the Bible didn't have any knowledge about whether the Earth was round, had four corners or anything else, so their use of expressions wasn't figurative either. The Bible is full of stuff that is scientifically wrong, and Wavelength is speaking like a Biblical near-literalist who believes that it's consistent, "reveals" scientifically correct things, and is the literal word of God. Seriously, this kind of attitude may belong in a church, but it is quite misplaced on a Reference Desk, which should inform and not dis-inform people.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking it all in a different perspective, despite our knowledge that the Earth is rotating around the sun and doing the moving part of the equation, it's still a matter of subjectivity. Although we know that the sun is not actually moving, because of the huge difference in magnitude between a person and the earth, and the earth and the sun, and the great distance involved, the perspective is still there that the sun appears to our eyes as the one that is moving relative to us. Despite reality, it's important to consider that perspective will still be the prevaling area from which we look at it and refer to it. It makes less sense to refer to the horizon falling than to the sun rising, because we cannot perceive the horizon falling. From our position, everything is stable and the sun is moving; the reality of relative movement is immaterial. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, astronauts in space and on the moon talk of 'earthrise', just as we talk about sunrise and moonrise. Steewi (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because all astronauts have been raised in and have spent all of their lives, bar very short periods of adulthood, in the same subjectively-seeming geocentric milieu (to which you rightly refer) as the rest of humanity, and therefore retain the mental habits of the languages and viewpoints that have developed over centuries and millennia in that milieu, despite their extra experiential confirmation of our common intellectual knowledge that "E pur si muove!". Such linguistic and cultural conventions can be very entrenched - consider that English speakers still use day names commemorating Norse gods despite widespread worship of those gods having been dormant for over a thousand years. If (as postulated for example in the Wolfe book mentioned above) humanity were to achieve routine spaceflight, and large numbers of future cultures were to live much or all of their lives off-planet over centuries or longer, the underlying cultural assumptions and individuals' thinking might shift. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have studied physics, mainly Kinematics, you should have known that every movement is relative, so it's impossible to decide which object moves and which one rests. In your case, it's still possible that Earth doesn't move at all, while the sun rotates around itself (the other planets rotating around themselves and moving around the sun as well). To put it more intuitively, just imagine yourself stand in a room, and suddenly you see the room start to rotate around itself: then you won't be able to decide whether it's you - or the room - which rotates around itself: both options result in the same way... HOOTmag (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotating frames of reference can be distinguished by using Occam's razor. If one explanation requires fictitious forces then it is usually preferable to use the frame in which fewer forces are needed to explain motion. (However, we ignore this principle when measuring local gravity.) Dbfirs 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

strange habit

hey all. I was in France (Alsace) at a small, family-run lodge last week. There were only two English-speakers on the staff, and when I arrived both of them were out, luckily my party could all speak passable French. There was this other person who was clearly American, and who clearly did not speak any French. He was trying to indicate by signs to the desk clerk that he needed a room, but for some reason he was also speaking very loudly in English and emphasizing his mouth movements to the clerk as if she were hearing-impaired, even though she made it clear that she didn't speak English. I knew that this wasn't because he himself was hearing impaired because he talked in a normal voice to his wife but very loudly to the clerk. Why do people do this? I also saw this when I was in Mexico and when people interact with the Deaf (not hearing-impaired, but completely deaf). 76.229.183.71 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Thanks

See Ugly American. Matt Deres (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't mean Americans in particular, I mean why do people talk loudly to people who can't understand the language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.183.71 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Can't understand the language" is not a binary distinction. Even if the clerk is not able to converse in English, she may recognize some basic words (especially since she's French, just like a sizable part of English vocabulary). Speaking clearly, slowly, and in not too many words can help to get the point across in such a situation. Speaking very loudly is pointless, but for many people all these properties come in one package.—Emil J. 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(OR alert) In addition, it seems to me that part of this phenomenon is nothing more than habit, as you titled this thread yourself. Most everyday life situations of not being understood (on this basic level) are caused by acoustic problems (perhaps combined with slurred lazy speech). Repeating it louder and with clearer enunciation is a common way of handling such a situation. Add the fact that not being understood can be a frustrating experience. I have observed this frustration within myself and also with others in foreign language classes taught by someone who doesn't (or pretends not to) understand any other language. It is a good teaching method, but initially it can be very frustrating when you can't get you point across, when you want to communicate, but can't. We often don't think rationally, but raise our voices, when frustrated. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking unsuccessfully for discussions of this, but "talk louder to the foreigners and they'll damn well understand you" was a British stereotype before the US acquired the confidence to take over the role. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my family of origin, it was a long-held tradition that the younger you are, the louder adult members speak to you. But it's not just my family; has anyone ever done the stupid "kootchy-koo" thing to a baby in a pram at normal speaking volume or softer? No, it's completely unheard of. Always at a raised volume. Babies and young children are not, generally speaking, deaf, but you'd never know it the way some adults operate around them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is normal and instinctive. Whenever anyone attempts verbal communication and fails, they will often (usually unconsciously) try again using various tactics to improve the communication - slower speech, better enunciation, simpler phrasing, louder volume, stronger eye-contact, physical contact or descriptive gestures. most of the time this is an effective and useful strategy, but when it falls through it looks really, really stupid. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a famous Saturday Night Live skit from the 70s about this kind of thing. At the end of the fake newscast, Chevy Chase says, "And now, news for the hard of hearing." Garret Morris appears in an oval in the corner of the screen, like sign-language translators in the days before mandatory closed captioning. Then, the following:

Chevy Chase: Our top story tonight:
Garrett Morris: [cupping hands around his mouth] OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT!!!
Chevy Chase: President Ford flew to Paris for a summit conference, and boy, are his arms tired!
Garrett Morris: PRESIDENT FORD FLEW TO PARIS FOR A SUMMIT CONFERENCE, AND BOY, ARE HIS ARMS TIRED!!!
Chevy Chase: Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Garrett Morris: GOOD NIGHT, AND HAVE A PLEASANT TO-MOR-ROW! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of habits of speaking which are useful in many cases, but sometimes we speak in the same way when it isn't appropriate at all. An example from my experience: When my father in law had lost his voice because of laryngeal cancer, he soon learnt use an electrolarynx for speaking. But he spoke slowly. One day, when I spoke to him at the telephone, I suddenly noticed that I was speaking slowly too. I apologized, I said that I hadn't done that on purpose, and that I knew that that didn't make sense because I knew that there was nothing wrong with his hearing. He answered that I wasn't the only person who spoke to him more slowly than usual. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See "complementary schizogenesis" at http://www.scribd.com/doc/27178621/Paper-2-Lang. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware that link, folks. It sent my computer off in its worst tail spin in years. And not in a good way, either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had known that it would adversely affect a computer, I would have refrained from providing that link, or at least I would have provided a warning.—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Wavelength. I'm sure there was no premeditation involved. It's all OK now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Prefix "un."

I must admit, I'm very much amused. My friend just e-mailed me the following:

I'm at starbucks and I ordered a coffee, and the Batista asked if I would like it sweetened or unsweetened. Wouldn't unsweetened imply that sweetener has been removed? The way unleaded gasoline has had the lead removed? Thoughts?

Now, first of all, what's a Batista? As for the question, I'm guessing un can be used either to mean lacking x substance (let's call it definition 1) or with x substance removed (definition 2), no? Doesn't seem to me like either one is used incorrectly, though if one is, I would assume the prefix de would be preferable for gasoline (i.e. deleaded gasoline).

Cheers and thanks in advance. 65.13.61.125 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Batista usually refers to Fulgencio Batista, the dictator of Cuba overthrown in the Marxist revolution there. though (as I'm sure you know) your friend means a barista. and 'un' can legitimately be used to mean 'removed' or 'not', so unsweetened coffee is not 'de'-sweetened but simply 'not' sweetened.. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A barista is a person that serves coffee in a coffee shop. I agree that 'de-' is preferable when something has been removed. 'un-' just means it doesn't have it. Also, I don't think unleaded petrol has the lead removes. Leaded petrol has lead specifically added. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the coffee may be un-sweetened and de-caffeinated, but not the other way around. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)::I think your original assumption is wrong. Both cases have the "lacking" meaning. Unleaded petrol is petrol which has not has tetra-ethyl lead added (it has other things instead). I can't think of any examples where "un-" refers to taking something out. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:un-, which mentions "undress".—Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also "unscrew" a light bulb. It does seem much less common for a chemical process than "de-" but it does have some uses in this sense. The American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition (hardcopy) also has "uncurl," "uncover," "uncross" (as legs), "unglue," and "unhand," and I've definitely seen "unmanned" as a horrific euphemism for "castrated"... ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the answers. I guess it's another "use as you see fit" word in the English language. Cheers, 65.13.61.125 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The two meanings of the prefix "un-" are actually etymologically distinct, and so they are sometimes considered different prefixes that happen to be spelled the same. See [1], for example. —Bkell (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Un" generally means "not". If you feel like getting into a hopeless quagmire, you could stop by the talk page at the Circumcision article and weigh in as to the proper usage of "uncircumcised", among other related issues, which has been schlepping along for 2 or 3 weeks now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Giggity giggity goo Rimush (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that's one reason circumcision is done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Lee Whorf wrote an essay on 'cryptotypes', (his neologism - I'm pretty sure it's in Language, Thought, and Reality) for groups of words that share some grammatical property which all native speakers are aware of without consciously knowing. One of his examples was verbs which can take the prefix 'un-' - nearly all the words are about closing, wrapping, sealing, rolling up.

Some Klingon wrote an essay, big deal. Rimush (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, some fire inspector for an insurance company wrote an essay, big deal. +Angr 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What, we've gone back to grammar school now? anyone for a rousing chorus of 'neener neener neener'? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Angr: So observations by non-professionals are of no value and only fit for mockery? Most of us had better stop editing Wikipedia then. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't engage in original research, publishing silly and insulting hypotheses about the way Hopis perceive time. At least, if they do, they don't do it on Wikipedia. +Angr 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ommitted pronouns?

Hi everyone. I know that in Latin, the subject (if a pronoun) is often omitted. This persists in its major descendants of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese (not sure if Romanian does this ornot). So why is it that French always uses pronouns? For example if I were in Portugal I could say "Vou para a loja" but in France I would probably draw confused looks saying "Vais au magasin". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.221.98 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(We have an article Pro-drop language.) One important reason is that the French verb forms in any particular tense cannot be relied on to be to be unique in pronunciation (as opposed to spelling), except for the 1st plural and the 2nd. plural. E.g. in the paradigm "je parle, tu parles, il parle, vous parlez, nous parlons, ils parlent", the forms parle, parles, and parlent are all pronounced exactly the same... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, adding "il" or "ils" to "parle" or "parlent" won't disambiguate the grammatical person in speech either. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanian omits pronouns too, but this isn't very obvious with the verb "to go" because it's reflexive: "Mă duc la piaţă" ([I] am going to the market) instead of "Eu mă duc la piaţă" (I am going to the market) - the phrase still has a pronoun, the first person singular reflexive pronoun "mă". The lack of the pronoun-as-subject is more obvious with non-reflexive verbs: "Mănânc fasole" ([I] am eating beans) instead of "Eu mănânc fasole". Here there is no pronoun left. Rimush (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

French could omit pronouns when it was still pronounced like it is spelled (many hundreds of years ago), so presumably it does have something to do with the ambiguous pronuncation as AnonMoos said. Also, some verb forms now mean different things without the pronoun. "Nouns allons au magasin" means "we are going to the store", but "allons au magasin" means "let's go to the store" (i.e. without the pronoun it becomes imperative). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be "nous", not "nouns". --Магьосник (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is there a word for dropping "I" or even "we" in English, as it is sometimes done on postcards or in letters. Is this also considered telegram style? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Good question. Have wondered the same myself. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nat King Cole sings "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" at YouTube - NAT KING COLE - DON'T GET AROUND MUCH ANYMORE.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

July 16

Turns the accusation around

I am looking for a word that describes the tactic of accusing someone else of doing what they are not, in fact, doing, but you are doing yourself. Children use it a lot. Bielle (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)looking for word

Well, there's "the pot calling the kettle black". --Anonymous, 19:16 UTC, July 16, 2010.

Hypocrisy? Googlemeister (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In psychology, it's projection. L. Ron Hubbard said that the proper response of any criticism of Scientology was to always accuse the critics of being criminals.[2] -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, AnonMoos. It is possible that the person who is doing this is involved in Scientology. If that is true, it explains a lot. Thanks to all of you for your suggestions. Bielle (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So projectors are necessarily accused of projecting projection? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Running a car race

Does one run a car race, or simply race it? Should it be "I'm going to run the Dakar Rally" or "I'm going to race the Dakar Rally"? AdamSommerton (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In my idiolect, neither. 'Run' to me would imply running on foot, and I wouldn't use 'race' transitively, except perhaps with a rival as an object. I would say "enter", or "compete in", or "drive in". Others may have different answers. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If someone told me that they were going to run the Dakar Rally, I'd be impressed that they were organising such a major event. If you're taking part then I reckon you can only run things like marathons, otherwise I might say that I was 'doing' something like the rally. Mikenorton (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec #2) : I agree. If there's a person who's in charge of organising the whole event, he/she might say "I run the Dakar car rally". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the American South (North Carolina). I would easily know what you were talking about, even if it would be slightly unusual. We use "run" in the context of cars all the time, although running the NASCAR race would sound a little odd. If my mother (okay, she's from the Northern US), says "I'm running up to the store to get milk," it is implied that she is not physically running to the store, but driving. In terms of a race, I'd probably say "racing" or any of the others that ColinFine suggested. Falconus^{p t c} 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would understand "running to the store" as walking to the store. Then again, I guess no one really drives to the store in Manhattan. Rimush (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Word that means goods and services

Is there a single word that means goods and services?--92.251.133.213 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In business-speak product or offering might work, depending on the context. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There can be, but it wouldn't apply in all contexts. I might talk about my "purchases", referring to both the goods and services I've bought. But a provider of goods and services can't use that word. "Commodities" sometimes applies to both, but just as often means physical things only. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Offering"? Really? Just yesterday my co-worker asked me what I thought of the phrase "software offering" and I said it sounded like someone was going to lay a piece of software on an altar and stab it with a knife as a ritual sacrifice. +Angr 07:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Musical Offering. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not quite relevant. It's the name of a musical work, not a collection of goods and services. But I can confirm "offering" or "product offering" is used in business, to refer to exactly what it is that the customer gets, or potentially gets, for their money when they buy a particular product. I've only ever heard it in the health insurance industry, whose products are typically services, not goods (the services being payment of monetary benefits to cover or partially cover the cost of medical treatment). They sometimes provide goods such as mountain bikes, CDs etc as a gimmicky incentive to take out membership, and these are all part of the "product offering". Now, does this mean we can use "offering" as a generic collective term for goods and services? I'm not entirely sure. It's only ever used from the perspective of the seller, not the buyer, so I can't see it being used in non-business contexts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot will depend on context. In economics, "exports" can mean both goods and services. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In economics, "goods" might in some context refer to both goods and services (in terms such as "public goods", for example) Jørgen (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Photon

I noticed that the Japanese word for photon is 光子 koushi, while each other language listed on the Wiktionary page uses a word which is phonetically similar to "photon. Where did this discrepancy come from? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that it is common in Japanese (and Chinese) for borrowed concepts (or theoretically, native concepts which also overlap with non-native terms) to use a meaning-based substitute instead of a phonetically-based substitute. That said, Japanese uses a lot of phonetic borrowings in general (at least relative to Chinese, due in significant part to Chinese's lack of a phonetically based script like Katakana). However, note that other languages often use meaning-based borrowings as opposed to phonetic borrowings:e.g., German and Icelandic.--71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What does koushi literally mean? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Light particle (particle of light). --Kjoonlee 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

An excerpt from a Bulgarian-Japanese phrasebook. The Bulgarian is given translated, and the fourth column contains the respective Icelandic terms, just for comparison.

computer monitor, display mouse keyboard printer hard disk file password modem hardware software server window icon to copy Internet site email

コンピューター モニター マウス キーボード プリンター ハードディスク ファイル パスワード モデム ハードウェア ソフトウェア サーバー ウィンドウ アイコン コピーする インターネット サイト E メール

konpyūtā monitā mausu kībōdo purintā hādo disuku fairu pasuwādo modemu hādowea sofutowea sābā windou aikon kopīsuru intānetto saito E mēru

tölva skjár mús lyklaborð prentari harður diskur skrá lykilorð mótald vélbúnaður hugbúnaður miðlari gluggi táknmynd afrita Internetið vefsíða tölvupóstur

By the way, コンピューター, konpyūtā, fails to match the Japanese Wikipedia interwiki for the computer article, which is コンピュータ, konpyūta. Why so? --Магьосник (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can read Japanese, see ja:長音符#長音符の省略 (Omission of Chōonpu). It has been common practice to omit ending chōonpu in engineering and IT related writings and there is a general rule for the omission of chōonpu defined in JIS Z8301:2008; in a nutshell, you omit chōonpu if a word is longer than two morae. The Japanese article for computer follows it. Also note ja:サーバ and ja:サーバー are different topics and server (computing) links to the former. --Kusunose 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese, but I'm certainly hoping this will change soon. So, could we say my phrasebook is wrong in the case given, in addition to being quite scanty as a whole? And yes, I noticed what Japanese article Server (computing) linked to, but the leading sentence of ja:サーバ gives both サーバ and サーバー in bold; I assumed they could be used interchangeably, and chose what the phrasebook was recommending. --Магьосник (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your phrasebook is not wrong. They are interchangeable and unless you are writing for specialists, in which case it is better to follow the standard, it is fine to add chōonpu. In fact, Agency for Cultural Affairs recommends the use of chōonpu for English -or, -er, -ar and such as a general principle.[3] --Kusunose 12:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 17

"eruditional"

Can one give examples how "eruditional" is used in a sentence?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One way to find examples is doing a google books search for "eruditional". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried googling for eruditional -dictionary -encyclopedia, to exclude definitions, and found these:

"Laden with eruditional prowess" -- from a review of a Nigerian play

"The conceptual assembly of a menu or the eruditional aesthetics of farm to table" -- from a blog about food

"This project is not about tapping into eruditional efforts or well-traveled elitism, but enjoying a rendition of eastern music" -- from a review of an album.

It seems to be used mainly by critics. I also found a few people using the similar word "erudical", though I can't find it in a dictionary. 213.122.0.218 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The OED has eruditional but not erudical. The latter seems to be used in places like facebook as a "made-up" word. Dbfirs 17:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Erudical turns up in a couple of Scots documents from 1812 where is seems to be used as a synonym for erudite. I can´t find any recent / current example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese honorifics

Which would a crew member of a ship use to address the captain? What about the other way around? What about with the captain and the admiral? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a crew member of a ship would address just 船長/senchō/captain or xx(name) senchō. As for the other way around, I have no idea. Probably just name: xx san or with title like xx 機関長/kikanchō/chief engineer. There is no rule what to address. It depends. Sorry, but I have no idea with captain and the admiral either. Oda Mari (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that would be the same for a starship? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no starships have yet been created and crewed (and likely won't be for some considerable time, if ever), we can have no idea of how their hierarchical relationships might be designed: they could be based on Naval customs, on Air Force customs (if different), on some other existing customs, or be totally novel. You can therefore assume whatever you like so long as (preuming this is for fictional purposes) you make it plausible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The question of how it would be on a starship is, in fact, very valid. After all, Star Trek and numerous other sci-fi programs/films have been and continue to be translated into Japanese for the audience in Japan. The OP may want to check out episodes of these programs (either dubbed in Japanese or with subtitles) to compare. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be the same for a starship. Captain of an air plane is 機長/kichō or キャプテン/kyaputen. Additionally, as for warship/軍艦/gunkan, it would be 艦長/kanchō. As for submarine/潜水艦/sensuikan and destroyer/駆逐艦/kuchikukan, the captains are called just 長/chō. Because they do not use 船/ship for their name. As for yacht, it would be 艇長/teichō or スキッパー/sukippā. Oda Mari (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

July 18

Swiss Standard German pronunciation

Is Swiss Standard German (NOT Swiss German) pronounced more or less the same as Hochdeutsch in Germany? Are there any notable or interesting differences? I ask because there's no phonology section in our article. Lfh (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Helvetism may be of help until user:Sluzzelin comes around. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article Helvetism and its section on Pronunciation correctly convey, Swiss Germans have a very recognizable accent when speaking Standard German. I'm not good at recognizing accents, but I can identify a Swiss German after a few seconds of hearing him speak. Rimush (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rimush is correct, though it has to be pointed out that there is a gradient of more or less Swiss-sounding spoken Standard German. Basically the phonology follows that of the individual speaker's native Swiss German dialect. So the spoken Swiss Standard German will retain some of the characteristics mentioned under Swiss_German#Pronunciation. The phonology varies among dialects, and it is often possible to guess the speaker's particular dialect (Bernese German, Basel German, etc.) from hearing their spoken Standard German. At school we were taught to lose the distinct Helvetic (and, to many ears, ugly) voiceless velar and uvular plosives (the "k" and "ch"), but other aspects, such as non-aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] prevail with most speakers. As I said, there is a gradient. There are people who even use the "horrible" "k" and "ch" when speaking Standard German, while, at the other extreme, there are those who try to imitate German speakers, often with mixed success. Most are somewhere in between, distinctly Swiss-sounding, as observed by Rimush, but without the "Stallgeruch" ("barn smell") cultivated by some populist politicans, who want to sound as Swiss as possible in defiance of anything non-Swiss, also in defiance of anything that has to do with education </soapbox rant>. Katja Stauber, a Swiss television news anchor who grew up speaking German Standard German with her parents, originally read the news with a very German sounding pronunciation, but, because of critical comments in the media, de-germanized her speech and started ending her presentation with "uf Widerluege" (Swiss German for "auf Wiedersehen", "good bye")

Another, perhaps the most important, give-away is the Swiss prosody and melody of speech. Put simply, we speak in trochaic verse. An American friend said it all sounds like "YUffen DOOffen DUffen" (spelled "JAffen DUffen DAffen", in German, meaning nothing in either language).

You often hear German comedians (official and self-proclaimed) speaking Standard German sentences with their impression of Swiss phonology and prosody, pretending they are speaking Swiss German. I remember Harald Juhnke doing this, and it was doubly hilarious. The only American actor I have ever heard do an accurate impression of a Swiss German accent in English is Robin Williams. Often, when a film shows a Swiss character (such as a banker :-), they choose a German accent, which really is quite different. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You can usually tell if someone is Austrian when speaking Standard German as well, although I have trouble (as I said, I'm not good at recognizing accents) identifying if he/she is Austrian or Bavarian. What's interesting is that (from my experience at least) people from Vorarlberg speak Standard German neither with a Swiss nor with an Austrian accent. I would've expected a Swiss accent, but they have a sort of own way of speaking, which shows the based-on-specific-dialect-of-speaker-accent thing.Rimush (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin has already mentioned prosody – it might be a wrong stereotype, but I'd suspect that, on average, Swiss Standard German is pronounced more slowly than Germany Standard German. Perhaps somebody can refute or confirm this. --84.46.66.247 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could do worse than listening to some clips of German-speaking Swiss speaking Standard German on youtube, to get an idea of the spectra (across different dialects, and across different degrees of Helveticness). I currently have no way of listening to stuff, but I'll try to compile something for you later on. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is all interesting information. I was curious about the extent to which speakers were influenced by their particular Swiss German dialect. The pronunciation section at Helvetism seems to sum it up quite well, but (as the article notes) it is in the wrong place - shouldn't it be at Swiss Standard German, under a "Phonology" or "Pronunciation" heading? Perhaps with one of those tables of phonemes, like at e.g. German phonology. Lfh (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as promised but with some delay, here are a couple of soundbites. (I have to admit that , perhaps fittingly, I had trouble finding exactly what I was looking for in terms of typical markers within the spectrum). Former Federal Council Adolf Ogi's New Year's speech here. His native dialect is that of the Bernese Oberland, a Highest Alemannic German dialect. Of course this is a televised speech (and an Ogi speech to boot) - no one speaks that way in conversation, but the phonology is still typical. Same with Doris Leuthard in this clip. Her dialect is from a part of the canton of Aargau. With a few differences, it resembles Zurich German quite a bit, and to me her Standard German speech could almost be that of a native Zürcher (though there is a clear difference when she speaks dialect). A bit more academic, in the sense that you hear no Chuchichäschtli "ch"s or hawking "k"'s, but still very recognizably Swiss, this time from Zurich is Christoph Mörgeli's "personal remark" here (Here too, it has to be pointed out that Mörgeli's style of pausing and emphasizing so frequently is entirely his; he talks that way in Swiss German too.

For some older generation examples, Friedrich Dürrenmatt who had his very own, sloppy, but still very Swiss and audibly Bernese way of speaking Standard German in this famous speech (Just for fun, though he doesn't say much here, he does light a fire in the studio in this old clip, and his speech contrasts with the German moderator's, and Marcel Reich-Ranicki's often imitated accent - MRR also blows at the fire, making things worse). Max Frisch speaks about his relationship with Dürrenmatt here in a fashion typical for academics and intellectuals of his generation. It sounds educated (and these days pretentious, reflected in his gestures). For example, he does use the typically German final obstruent devoicing; he pronounces übrig as "übrich", while most Swiss would say "übrig". Yet he too sounds unmistakably Swiss.

Finally, for a caricature, but an entirely realistic and not at all unheard of one, Emil Steinberger translated his Swiss German sketches into Standard German (pronounced with about as strong a Luzern phonology as is possible) in order to reach German audiences, as can be seen in this clip, for example.

84.46 is correct that Swiss German speakers generally speak Standard German at a slower pace than Germans do, with regional and individual exceptions of course, but even people from Zurich, notoriously fast speaking as opposed to the stereotypically slow Bernese, on average speak SG more slowly than Germans do. The speech melody is quite a bit more pronounced, with more ups and downs, than average German speech. People from the cantons of Bern, Obwalden or Uri, for example, have real sing-songy way of speaking, which often carries over into their Standard German too. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. I don't know about the OP, but I'm definitely gonna listen to these (for the lulz, if not for anything else). I love it when people provide Utube videos and not videos from some obscure site that looks unsafe. edit: After listening to Ogi, it seems that Swiss Standard bears some similarities to how Transylvanian Saxons speak Standard German. They do it with a Romanian accent, but not like an average Romanian who learned German as a second language - Swiss probably sounds similar because the "r" is pronounced similarly to the Romanian "r". Rimush (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the work you've put into your reply, Sluzzelin. I certainly will listen to all of the clips, and your information answers my question in full. I've just started the Ogi clip - it's certainly distinctive. He doesn't sound like a German, and to my totally non-native ears he actually sounds like a fellow non-native speaker of (Standard) German, although I'm not properly able to judge that. The alveolar r and the lack of devoicing are what I noticed first. I laughed at 1:45, not because of anything to do with his speech but because the camera pulls out and a train goes right past him! Odd place to do a national address, by the side of a railway. Lfh (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, ignore that last bit, he's just explained why he's standing in front of that tunnel. Lfh (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Days

A lot of Scandinavian/Nordic nations have Name days:
Sweden > (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_namnsdagar_i_Sverige_i_datumordning),
Denmark > (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danske_navnedage),
Norway > (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_norske_navnedager),
Finland > (http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Faroese_Name_Days),
Faroe Islands > (http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Faroese_Name_Days),
Estonia > (http://www.happynameday.info/country.php).
Is Iceland an exception? I can't find any Icelandic name calendar in the web. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was nordicnames.de, but I see that you already checked it. Rimush (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Icelandic Wikipedia has alphabetical lists of native men's names and native women's names. Additionally, there are pages with given names by number of bearers: 10+, 3 to 9, 2, 1 (A-J), 1 (K-Ö). All of them are linked, and many have an existing article behind them. A few minutes of browsing could not help me find a single name with any name day date specified. There are also articles on every date of the year, but none of them seems to be mentioned as someone's name day.

The Icelandic for "name day" seems to be nafndagur. --Theurgist (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The link gives no indication that there is any use in Iceland, rather it refers to name days as a Catholic tradition. --Soman (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

...and [4] gives almost no results at all. It seems that Icelanders don't celebrate name days. If you consider how un-Christian most the names at the at icelandic wiki lists are, it is not so strange. --Soman (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Icelandic is an inflected language. --Theurgist (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Swiss German (and Swiss French)

The question above (about Swiss German) made me realize that this might be a good place to ask this. I am a French major at NC State University (in the US) and I wish to do a study abroad in French-speaking Switzerland (likely Lausanne). I am also planning on minoring in German, and have taken the first couple levels of that. Part of my reason for choosing Switzerland over the more common option (France) is that they also speak German there, and I was looking at studying in Fribourg, right on the Linguistic Border. I then realized that Swiss German is very different than the High German (from Germany) that I'm learning in class, and realized that it may not be all that useful for my German (I would love to know Swiss German, but I'm not sure that I could follow it with my current level of High German). I know that French French and Swiss French are quite similar, with some differences (the numbers 70, 80, and 90 for example), and should not be a problem, but in terms of getting practice with German, are there any suggestions? Is it a lost cause or would it be worth it to consider going to Fribourg instead? On that vein, does anybody have any personal experience with either college? Thank you, Falconus^{p t c} 16:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the Swiss wouldn't mind speaking Standard German to you, but from what I know, Swiss German is used widely in Switzerland, to the extent that you probably won't get much Hochdeutsch practice from everyday life in a Swiss town (im Gegensatz to Austria, for example, where mostly everybody speaks Austro-Bavarian but you rarely encounter anything written in dialect, and you very rarely hear people speak in the dialect on TV or in radio shows, and where living in z.B. Vienna would give you a lot of Standard German practice). French also seems to outweigh German in Freiburg, according to our article. Rimush (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Swiss know that Swiss German is a bit of an in-group thing, and if they have you pegged as a foreigner (which will happen as soon as you open your mouth, if not before), most Swiss will use Standard German with you, rather than Schwiizertüütsch. (That's also a bit of linguistic politeness. Swiss are notorious polyglots, and tend to speak the language which is easiest for the person on the other end.) A bigger issue is that on the Francophone side of the Röstigraben they're rather reluctant to speak German, even when their knowledge of it is excellent. I've heard recommendations that, for non-German-speaking foreigners dealing with a Francophone Swiss, it's better to muddle through with imperfect English, rather than "insult" them with perfect German. But, as with all things, it'll vary based on who, exactly, you're interacting with. (And due to the fantastic train system, it's quite straightforward to travel from Lausanne to German-speaking Zurich/Bern/Appenzell/etc. if you do want to interact with German speakers.) -- 174.24.196.51 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the responses. Would the classes conducted in German at Fribourg be in Swiss Standard German or Swiss German? Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Standard, I would think. Rimush (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I found it curious that language courses teaching Swiss German (not talking about classes conducted in Swiss German) as opposed to Standard German were apparently unusual enough in Switzerland to appear on television for their novelty value a few years ago. There had been some demand from immigrants who said that learning (or knowing) Standard German is not enough to fully integrate into Swiss German speaking communities. --84.46.72.26 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the demand for Swiss German classes has risen. On the one hand, speaking dialect has increased (on the radio, on television, at events, etc, even writing in dialect, previously done by very few people, has become popular with text-messaging and e-mails). On the other hand, Switzerland now has a higher percentage of highly-educated immigrants (many of them from Germany) than it had previously, and these immigrants are more interested in taking classes, for various reasons. These Schwyzertütsch classes, however, are all designed for people who speak or at least understand Standard German. The American friend I mentioned two threads above wanted to learn Swiss German without learning German, but it was impossible to find either a course or even learning material for non-German speakers, such as English, French, or Italian (these were the languages she spoke). Meanwhile I have found such a learn-box, at a ridiculous price, but at the time, her only option was to find a private teacher.

What 174.24 says about switching to Standard German "as soon as you open your mouth, if not before" is true, to the extent that it annoyed my friend because she actually understood Standard German less well than dialect. Regarding Falconus, I do have to say that while Swiss German speakers will try to accomodate you by switching when addressing you directly, they might very well switch back to dialect when saying something to someone else in the group. I observed this very often during my own university days in Zurich when we were a mixed group. (Maybe you could hang out with the German students? :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 19

Not only... but (also)...

I was reading something online about a recent College Board Official SAT Question of the Day, which went as follows: "Tantra paintings from India are not only beautiful but _____: in addition to their aesthetic value, they are used to facilitate meditation." The answer here was "functional". However, I have a question on the correlative conjunctive (at least, I think that's what it's called) in the sentence. It seems that, per web searching, "not only... but also..." is more popular and common than simply "not only... but...". But when is it appropriate to omit the 'also'? Are there any special grammar rules one must follow which determine whether or not to include 'also', or does it boil down to whichever sounds smoother? Are they interchangeable, and if they are, in what type of situations? Any examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 141.153.217.214 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one usage where you couldn't dispense with the 'also'. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WHAAOE! hydnjo (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend using "not only X but also Y" whenever you can, that is to say, whenever both X and Y are valid.

• "not only a scholar but also a gentleman"
• "not only a spouse but also a parent"

I recommend restricting the use of "not only X but Y" to situations where Y is valid but X is not valid.

• "not only an amateur but a professional"
• "not only a middleweight but a heavyweight"

—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength, I find your latter examples deviant: to me "not only X" implies X, so I would find those confusing. My answer to the OP is that there is no grammatical rule relating to the "also" but that rhetorically and prosodically it balances the two terms. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Experience might be limited to usage where X is valid, not only in your case but also in my case, but there is nothing inherent in the words and their definitions that would restrict us from using them where X is not valid.

• "not (only/just) an amateur but (even/rather) a professional"
• "not (just/only) a middleweight but (rather/even) a heavyweight"

—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a logic flaw there? "Not just/only a middleweight ..." says to me that, whatever else this person can be said to be, he is still a middleweight. But if he's a heavyweight, how can he simultaneously be a middleweight? Isn't this like saying "He's not only poor, but also rich"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, the expression "not just/only a middleweight" is ambiguous as to whether this person is a middleweight. The expression "but rather/even a heavyweight" disambiguates the first expression. It makes clear that this person is not a middleweight.—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So why mention middleweight at all? There are bazillions of things a person is not; except in particular cases, we talk only about what they are. If someone's suggested that he's a middleweight, but we know that's wrong and and we're refuting it, we'd say "He is not a middleweight, but a heavyweight". Putting in "just" or "only" after "not" says something very different. 180 degrees different. And as confusing as "Columbus did not just land in China, he landed in the Americas". That's rubbish, as he did not land anywhere near China, despite what he may have believed. Take the "just" out and you've got a decent statement that's supported by historical facts. As it stands, the sentence is saying Columbus landed in both China and the Americas, which is a physical impossibility unless we're talking about different voyages. Compare it with sentences like "He was not just/only the national champion, but the world champion". Does that deny he was the national champion, or is it in any way ambiguous? Not to me. If he definitely wasn't the national champion but still the world champion, we'd be either not mentioning the national championship at all, or making it clear he did not hold it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There can be many reasons to mention what a person is not, and the reasons might be indicated by the context.

• "He is only a middle manager. His brother is not only a middle manager, but rather the chief executive officer."
• "Is he only a middle manager? No, he is not only a middle manager, but instead the chief executive officer."
• "He was not just a runner-up, but instead the winner."
• "Columbus landed, not just in an insignificant place, but rather in the Americas."
• "He is not merely a middleweight, but rather a heavyweight."

—Wavelength (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of a huge gap between different varieties of the same language. In my English, a CEO cannot be said to be a middle manager at all, or vice-versa; they're mutually exclusive. A runner-up is not a winner, and a winner is not a runner-up; they're mutually exclusive. To me, you're misusing "not just"; you're using it as an exclusionary device, where it's meant to be inclusionary. It's "this, but ALSO something else", but you're using it to mean "something else, and NOT this". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A chief executive officer is more than a middle manager (in regard to rank), but he/she is not a middle manager and does not include a middle manager. A winner is more than a runner-up (in regard to performance), but he/she is not a runner-up and does not include a runner-up. If Y is more than X without being or including X, then that entity is not just X but rather Y.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm with Jack here. To my ears, what you suggest only works where something can actually be X and Y, and where X and Y are somehow qualitatively related. For example: He doesn't just outweigh a middleweight, but also a heavyweight or He didn't just score more points than the runner-up, but also than the winner, but he was disqualified for cheating. You can be a subject that outweighs both weight categories, but you can't be in both categories at the same time. To me "she isn't just X ..." implies that she is, in fact, X, but also more. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I can imagine a dialogue where someone would say: "Oh, look at that middleweight up against a poor little flyweight". And you could respond: "He's not just a middleweight, but a heavyweight!" Here "is" is short for something like "is at least as heavy as" though, and the response wouldn't make sense with "but also". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Inflection of hyphenated adjectives?

I'm curious about forming the comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives in English.

Would one do so by declining the first word?

    well-known   better-known  best-known
    true-to-life truer-to-life truest-to-life
    ill-suited   worse-suited  worst-suited

Or would he do so by declining the whole adjective —as a unit?

    well-known   more well-known   most well-known
    true-to-life more true-to-life most true-to-life
    ill-suited   more ill-suited   most ill-suited

I, for one, prefer the former in my writing style; nevertheless, I keep encountering the latter quite often. Does any rule exist in Fowler, Oxford, or any other respected authority regarding this? Thus far, my search for one has turned up fruitless. Pine (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives, and I found answers on the following pages.

• http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv140.shtml
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives
• http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm

—Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in http://www.onlinestylebooks.com/home.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese video translation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jVpPDXcac&feature=related

Can someone be kind enough to translate what the characters are saying? Thank you! 64.75.158.194 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Town in Cyprus

Could someone confirm whether the authentic Greek pronunciation of the Cypriot town of Peyia, that is Πέγεια, is [ˈpejia] (3 syllables) or [ˈpeja] (2 syllables)? I need this so I can most accurately render the name in Bulgarian Cyrillic. Thanks. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Still me, decided to give up my old sig.

July 20

Opposite of exaggerate

I've been wondering about this for a while... what us the opposite of exaggerate in a) English and b) Chinese? Kayau Voting IS evil 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly 'understate' or 'minimize'. Sorry I don't speak 'Chinese' 86.4.183.90 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Meiosis (figure of speech) might be a linguistic antonym of exaggeration. Also Litotes has a Chinese example, but these are not quite what you were asking. Dbfirs 08:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

vitirinaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margho (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Downplay". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch name: In' t <-- meaning?

A guy at my company is (first name) In' t (rest of family name) and I was wondering what that stands for/means? It's not an easy thing to google, what with the apostrophe and all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.189.63.171 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

't is a contraction of het.—Emil J. 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a combination of two tussenvoegsel (in het, in 't = in the): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tussenvoegsel#Combinations Rimush (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In 't is short for In het, meaning In the. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Dutch wikipedia suggests names with tussenvoegsels are often nobility, so you better curtsey your co-worker :-) . 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Syntax: How can one use a possessive relative pronoun for combining a conditional clause with the main clause?

The following pair of sentences:

• 1. "I met a person".
• 2. "That person's nose is purple".

can become one sentence, using the possessive relative pronoun "whose" - as following:

• 3. "I met a person whose nose is purple".

How about combining both clauses, 1 and 2 (by a possessive relative pronoun as before), when the second clause (no. 2) is conditional, e.g.

• 2. "If that person's nose were green, the world would look better".

Note that the main clause (no. 1) is still as before, so the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must begin with: "I met a person...". Additionally, note that the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must preserve the original list of nouns ("person", "nose", "world") as well as the original list of adjectives ("green", "better") as well as the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new nouns / adjectives / verbs (e.g. the verb "to have" and likewise) is permitted.

For more clarification, see 174.24.196.51's comment below, and Kpalion's comment below.

I ask all of that, because such a combination of two clauses (the second one of which is conditional) by a relative pronoun - is possible in other languages.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking whether it is correct to say "If I met a person whose nose was green, the world would look better", the answer is, yes, that is an acceptable sentence. However, it is not clear what you are asking. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough: please read again the first sentence in my last paragraph (beginning with the word: "Note"). HOOTmag (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think he's asking for the equivalent of "I met a person who, if their nose was green, would look better.", but with "[person being met] would look better" replaced by "the world would look better". (That is, the meeting of said person is a fact, with only the green nose being the hypothetical.) -- 174.24.196.51 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you interpreted me correctly, and I'm still waiting for the correct way of combining both clauses by the (possessive) relative pronoun. HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer "I met a person who, if his nose were green instead of purple, would make the world look better." However, we are guessing what HOOTmag means. His response to Marco polo's very polite request for greater clarity is not appropriate. Bielle (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated above, one must preserve the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new verbs (e.g. the verb "to make" etc.) is permitted. Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman. HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I met a person, if whose nose were green, the world would look better. Not sure, if this is grammatical in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you interpreted me correctly, and like you, I doubt if your sentence is grammatical in English. However, its structure is similar to the structure of the following grammatical sentence: "I met a person, at whose nose - I'm looking now". By the way, how would my original question be solved in Polish, if at all? HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered changing your user ID to the Polish words for "The Riddler"? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As before (at the mathematical Ref Desk), here too, it's not really a "riddle", but rather a question, whose answer I don't know yet (by the way: some hours ago, EmilJ gave me the full solution for my "riddle" at the mathematical Ref Desk, after I gave Tango - some hours earlier - my partial solution, ibid. You're welcome to enjoy EmilJ's instructive full solution, ibid.). Anyways, as far as the Polish words for "the riddler" are concerned, I'm beginning to like your sense of humor :) HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kpalion, HOOTmag, you are right that Kpalion's sentence is not grammatically correct. Actually, I think there is no English contruction that meets all the requirments in HOOTmag's original question (no new nouns/adjectives/verbs). (I am a native speaker of British English). --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Its ungrammaticality is not only in British English. Anyway, if you are right, and my question has no solution in English, then I think this is very interesting, mainly from a linguistic point of view, because my question does have solutions - in languages other than English... HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In English one would have to turn the sentence round I met a person, the greenness of whose nose would make the world look better but it is still clumsy. Languages that make a different implicit assumption about the subject of the last clause might allow your suggested word order. Dbfirs 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you haven't read what I wrote above (when I presented my question), so let me quote (or almost quote) myself again:

• "Note that the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must preserve the original list of nouns ("person", "nose", "world") as well as the original list of adjectives ("green", "better") as well as the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new nouns / adjectives / verbs (e.g. the noun "greenness" or the verb "to make" and likewise) is permitted".

HOOTmag (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hoot: "His" following "person" does not necessarily indicate gender; it was the standard singular for a person of unknown sex when I was growing up, back in the Jurassic era, when "person" followed by "they" would have cost you points on any paper. What happened to "purple"? Bielle (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "his/they", it's a well known controversy (see footnote no. 48). Anyway, my main point was not about the "his", but rather about your adding a new verb ("to make"), and...yes: also your adding the "purple" is prohibited. Again: you must preserve the three original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs, as indicated above. Just think about the classical usage of "whose": it really preserves the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs - in the sentence: "I met a person whose nose is purple". HOOTmag (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As it is controversial in the sense that some experts say yes and others say no, it ill behooves you to write definitively: "Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman". I can, and shall, continue to do so. If others wish to play your "purple/green nose" game that is up to them. Bielle (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really a controversy, in which you took a side (when you wrote definitively: "I can, and shall, continue to do so"), just as I took a side when I wrote definitively: "Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman". But again, it's not my main point. My main point is another one, as I've already explained above, and...no: it's not a "game" at all: three Wikipedians (174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg) who followed the rules, didn't think this was a game, because they well understood the rationale behind these rules: the word "who" (as well as the word "whose") - is a syntactic word, hence its usage is not supposed to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Just think about any other axample in which this syntactic word combines two clauses into one sentence, and you'll realize that using this word doesn't have to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. HOOTmag (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we've all done our best for HOOTmag who likes posing obscure and ill-defined riddles on various help desks. Perhaps he (or she) could explain what they are really wanting. and yes, we have read what you wrote, and tried to make sense of it! Dbfirs 07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all of you have done the best: you are six Wikipedians on this thread: Three of you have really done the best: 174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg, who realy followed the rules, and didn't change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs, becuase they well understood the rationale behind these rules: the word "whose" - is a syntactic word, hence its usage is not supposed to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Just think about any other axample in which this syntactic word combines two clauses into one sentence, and you'll realize that using this word doesn't have to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Regarding what you call "obscure and ill-defined riddles": Whoever understands the rationale behind all of my questions (like 174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg, on this thread) doesn't think my questions are obscure and ill-defined. Now it's up to you whether to try to understand this rationale and to follow the rules this rationale is behind. HOOTmag (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In Polish I could construct a sentence equivalent to the one I wrote above, but it would be similarly ungrammatical. I wonder in what languages this kind of structure would be allowed. Can you give any examples, Hootmag? Curiously, I can't think of any Polish word for a riddler. If I had to invent one, I'd use sfinks metaphorically. In Polish translations of Batman comics, "the Riddler" is rendered as Człowiek-zagadka, literally "Man-conundrum" – not exactly the same sense for me. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that your construction is possible in any language (although it may be). I only said that my question is solvable in some languages, by using a relative pronoun, which can combine two clauses, the second one of which is conditional, without changing the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. For example, let's take the Semitic languages: every word in those languages has a grammatical gender (which may be different from the natural gender). E.g. the english word "person" we're talking about, may be translated - in every Semitic language - into a few words, some of which have a masculine grammatical gender, the other ones having a feminine grammatical gender. For our instance, let's take (in any Semitic language) the (grammatically) masculine word for the english word "person", and let's denote it here (in this thread) by: person. So, the new (Semitic) sentence will look like: "I met a person, who if his nose were green, the world would look better". Note that this solution, that uses the relative pronoun who for combining to clauses (the second one of which is conditional), is always possible in Semitic languages, and is considered to be acceptable in a formal speech as well as in an informal speech. HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At my job, I have to try to help difficult people with nasty attitudes like HOOTmag's, but when volunteering on the Reference Desk, I am under no such obligation and will certainly avoid any questions by this person in the future. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you misinterpreted me, and I profoundly apologize if anything in my words insulted you, although I hope that nothing did. Anyways, I realy can't understand what was nasty in my asking you to read again the first sentence in my last paragraph (beginning with the word: "Note")". Does this request insult? Again, if it does, then I fully apologize, and I'll be happy if you give me a second chance to explain myself: I thought that I was "clear enough" in the beginning of this paragraph which begins with the word "Note", where I wrote explicitly that the main clause (no. 1) is still as before, so the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must begin with: "I met a person...". Your proposal does not meet this requirement, does it? Again, I hope you forgive me if I was not clear enough in my last response to you. Have a nice day, all the best, take care. HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag, if I may, you often pose questions which look highly specific, full of all sorts of restrictions regarding an acceptable answer, yet often unclear as to what you are actually asking. Then, when we ask for clarification, you order us to read again. When we attempt to interpret what you are asking and give our best response, you rigidly quote yourself and argue why that answer is incorrect. You also often take us far too literally (Your paragraph beginning with "Not all of you have done the best ..." comes across as extremely petty and would definitely not be an incentive for me to spend my brain cells and time on helping you). We're just a couple of volunteers at a reference desk, not MENSA test candidates, not classmates or professors on whom you can hone your logical and argumentative skills in debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

French language

Hello everybody! A while ago I read about a Francophone area where the k sounds turned into x, so the paradigm sacrebleu changed from sɑkʁəblø to sɑxʁəblø. What area is this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.147.33 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish place names containing “fick”

Are the any Swedish place names containing “fick”? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the closest you will find are places ending in "vik", such as Västervik, Valdemarsvik, or Örnsköldsvik. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there is a place containing the wonderful word "fika". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are many. Fickasjön (lit. "pocket lake") in Örby, Fickeln in Nora, and Fickfjärden in Nordmaling to name a few. decltype (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, let me know if the word HOROLOGY exist?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.193.79 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes: horology. Xenon54 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have dictionaries for that sort of thing. Falconus^{p t c} 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Hinglish please

Hi - any Hinglish speakers out there? - can you give me the current slang term for 'penis', please. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can one learn a language by listening to the radio?

Is it possible to learn a foreign language solely by listening to the radio? Non-interactive, one-way communication with no indications of meaning outside the stream of audio? I've skimmed the Language acquisition article, but it seems to be no help, as it seems to assume an ordinary environment in which one is in the actual presence of other humans. If it's considered possible, is there any thought as to how much of the language must be understood to serve as a foothold? I imagine that if I knew, say, 50% of the everyday vocabulary of a particular language and had figured out some large amount of its grammar, then I would be able to acquire the other 50% with time and attention. My assumption has been that if I had understood only 2 words of the foreign language going into this, then there would be no hope. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you could pick it up if you knew nothing of the language. There's no context, no visual cues. Like if you knew "da" and "nyet" meant "yes" and "no" in Russian, and were listening to a Russian station, you might be able to pick those words up. Consider how they translated the Rosetta stone. They had no hope of translating hieroglyphics until they found that stone and starting matching words up. That kind of thing is what you would be faced with trying to learn a language from the radio. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As a simple example, decades before more sophisticated tools like the Rosetta Stone series of language instruction, there was a series of books such as Spanish Through Pictures. The first four pictures were stick figures of an adult male, adult female, young male and young female. In turn, each one had its right hand over/pointing to its chest/heart and saying, Yo soy un hombre, Yo soy una mujer, Yo soy un muchacho and Yo soy una muchacha. That approach might be a little clumsy until you figure out their "system". But if you heard those words on the radio, how would you learn the language? Well, in that simple case, you might pick up the fact that a man, woman, boy and girl are speaking. But you're still missing the visual cue of them pointing to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And just think how could you understand adjectives, especially colours, without an intermediary interpretation? I'd say it was virtually impossible for the average person. 86.4.183.90 (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 21

DALF French language exams

If you take the DELF/DALF exams to prove your French language level, do you have to start at the bottom with level A1? Or can you just pick the hardest one you think you would pass? What does it cost? 86.144.113.85 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

no, you can just take the DALF C1 or C2 from the gitgo, as I did. (I took the C1, twice, first passing then failing). You don't need to do anything in between. 84.153.179.98 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ノルウェイの森

Could anyone provide a translation of the dialogue in the short trailer to the upcoming film adaptation of Norwegian Wood? It is located here [5]. Thanks! decltype (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing you mean the single sentence the actor says after the song has finished? In which case, he says 'That feeling was a feeling I had never once felt before.' (Original Japanese: あの気持ちは、僕が今まで一度も感じたことのないものだった) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I suppose "narration" would be more accurate than "dialogue". Sounds like a very roundabout (poetic?) way of saying "I had never felt like that before". decltype (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it would mean in normal English, but he's speaking in a dreamy, poetic kind of way, so I provided a more literal translation. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of medieval logic mnemonic

Does this mean anything in Latin, or is it nothing but a list of names? (If the latter, do any of those names have real-world referents besides the syllogisms?)

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio que prioris;

Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroko secundae;

Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton,

Bokardo, Ferison, habet; Quarta in super addit

Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison

68.123.238.146 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They're just mnemonic words (some made up) chosen for the arrangement of their vowels, which represent the various combinations of the four kinds of propositions (signified by a, e, i, and o) in the types of valid syllogisms. See Syllogism#Types of syllogism for a full explanation. Deor (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as to "real-world referents", many of them don't (at least, I'm not aware of "Felapton"′s [for example] having any meaning in Latin or Greek), but some do: "Barbara" = "a female barbarian", "Celarent" = "they were hiding" (subjunctive), etc. Deor (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation request

Can someone help me to translate my project in english please..."Noong hindi ko pa kilala si Hesus bilang tagapagligtas ng buhay ko ako ay palaaway at devoted sa mga santo at sila ang aking tagapagligtas, para sa akin ang aklat ay para sa mga taong kampon ng diyablo, kapag nakakakita ako ng taong may dalang bible tinataguan ko sila sapagkat ang alam ko sila ay papunta sa impyerno. ganon ang buhay ko noon. purihin ang Diyos at nakilala ko sya bilang tagapagligtas ng aking buhay. dating masama pero ngayon ay binago niya ang buhay ko at tinawag upang magbahagi ng salita ng Diyos sa mga taong nangangailangan ng kaligtasan. napasarap palang maging anak ng Diyos may kapayapaan at tiyak pa ang kaligtasan. tinawag niya ako. purihin ang Diyos na buhay. sa kanila po ng aming pagsubok masaya pa rin po naming naibabahagi ang salita ng Diyos napatunayan ko din na ang Diyos ay nanatiling tapat at biyaya niya ay sapat sa amin. sa ngayon ay may maliit kami na simabahan kasama ang mga myembro na masayang naglilingkod" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannedaze (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An online Tagalog to English translator gives: When I do not know Jesus as savior of my life I was pugnacious and devoted to the saints and they are my savior, for me the book is for those who are allies of the devil, when I see people carrying a bible I tinataguan because they know they are heading to hell. still, my life then. praise God as she and I met in my life savior. former bad but now has changed his life and called to share the word of God to those who need salvation. napasarap falange become children of God there is peace and certainly more safety. he called me. praise God lives. Please them our testing we enjoyed po naibabahagi still the word of God I also verified that God is still faithful and He is enough to grace us. now we have little simabahan including serving members happy. I hope a speaker of the language may know more, as this makes little sense.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)