Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 27

Looking for the meaning

Hello I am Looking for the Meaning and correct spelling of the Word "Wedo" often used to refer to A Light Skinned Hispanic, and or A white Person Can you help?

Thank you Roxie

Is it English or Spanish? List of ethnic slurs doesn't mention anything... 惑乱 分からん 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Guido" was kind of a late 1970's term to refer to stereotypical Italian-American males with gold chains and unbuttoned shirts; never heard it in any other meaning... AnonMoos 05:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See Guido (slang).  --Lambiam^Talk 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The term has nothing to do with guido - it's spelled güero. Often in Spanish, /g/ sounds at the beginning of syllables are dropped, as in saguaro. The term is used to refer to anyone who's light-skinned or light-haired. It's not necessarily a slur, but can be used that way in the right context. I don't see anything in Wikipedia, but a quick Google search should provide some results. Straughn 06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "account for"

Hello, I noticed that it is very common to find the expression "account for" used with the meaning of "take into account". I consulted both the Merriam Webster Unabridged and the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary; according to them, "to account for" only means "to explain the reason for something" or "to form the total of something". However, another usage seems very common. For example, with a quick search with Google I find this example: "U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would require states to prepare disaster evacuation plans that account for the needs of society's most vulnerable members". Now here "account for" can clearly mean neither "explain the cause of" nor "form the total of"; it seems to be used as a synonym of "takes into account". Is it an incorrect usage? Alfredotod 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say no yes, and circle it with a big fat cyber-redpen, but other people probably feel different. It is very common to use it in the same manner as "take into account", and I assume it will only become more common in the future, meaning that it will probably become correct.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I totally meant to say yes, it is incorrect.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people are influenced by the common phrase "there's no accounting for taste". Nobody ever says (as far as I know) "there's no taking taste into account". Loganberry (Talk) 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, it frequently means "take into account". To use the accounting metaphor, when something is "accounted for" it is entered into the financial books, which is the same as having been "taken into account". StuRat 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would not use the expression with this meaning, and it might be confusing. For example, "New policy accounts for increasing terrorism" to me means: "You want an explanation for the increasing terrorism? Look no further, it's all the fault of the new policy." What I do use is "take account of"; I think I may use it preferentially over "take into account".  --Lambiam^Talk 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

explicit, implicit and inexplicit

I want to know what is the difference between implicit and inexplicit? is it similiar to the case in the pair flammable/inflammable? thanks --Paul 27th oct 21:08

I think the in- in inflammable is related to Latin in- meaning "in(side)", not in- meaning "not"... 惑乱 分からん 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Something can be inexplicit without being implicit. Inexplicit means literally not explicit, which can include things which are simply not clear or completely absent. Implicit means understood, but not explicit. –RHolton≡– 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 惑乱 分からん 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would too if this were not rather binary. Explicit means you spell things out for people. If you don't, and there is an underlying meaning, then that is implicit. I don't see how something can be in between, like only partly explicit. It's either the one or the other, right? DirkvdM 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone says: "You may be wrong", it does not have as an implicit meaning that you are an evil person and ought to be put to death. That meaning surely is not explicit. So it is in-explicit. And yet it is not implicit.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be wrong. :) DirkvdM 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing, not opposites. -THB 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the point he tried to make, but he didn't quite make that very explicit. DirkvdM 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have been hoist with your own petard, Dirk. If it's binary, as you claim, then it's not possible to have degrees of explicitude(!). "Very explicit" would be as meaningless as "very unique". Is this so? JackofOz 07:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

At last someone notices. I had already given up after 5 days. :) DirkvdM 08:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"make love with" versus "make love to"

Seeing someone asking about the difference between replace by and replace with remind me of this one. I was wondering if "make love to" implies a lack of consensual agreement between the two parties, but it seems that this is not the case. So What is the difference between make love with and make love to? or can they be used interchangebly?

"Make love with" strikes me as strange, otherwise, my impression is that "make love with" would emphasize the act, and "make love to" the other person, although that's perhaps just my impression... 惑乱 分からん 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's probably right. And anyway, you can't really have nonconsensual lovemaking, that's part of the difference between making love and f*cking. There are cases when to or with can be used after we made love in different ways as in we made love with our clothes on or we made love to the sounds of Kenny G. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aeusoes1, your analysis is perplexing. I don't think many people would agree that consent is the difference between lovemaking and fucking; in fact lots of people (including yours truly) would say there's no difference between 'lovemaking' and fucking. Anchoress 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At least in some circles, fucking is synonymous with copulating, which focuses on the purely physical aspects, while lovemaking would equally include the emotional aspects. I suspect this is the distinction Aeusoes1 was making. –RHolton≡– 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I didn't say I didn't understand it, I said it was perplexing. I already inferred what you said in your post, but it doesn't obviate the statement he made implying that one of the differences between lovemaking and fucking is consent. Anchoress 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a problem some people might have with "making love to" is that it could imply doing something to someone rather than with someone. But I think the distinction is more apparent than real. As Wakuran says, "making love to" is the usual expression, so you can always say "let's make love to each other" if there's any doubt about what you mean. Of course, some couples enjoy the "power mode" aspect when it comes to lovemaking. Perhaps the more romantic ones prefer the "love mode".--Shantavira 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"And anyway, you can't really have nonconsensual lovemaking, that's part of the difference between making love and f*cking." It seems clear what was meant: nonconsensual lovemaking is a contradiction in terms, since making love requires not just consent but a meaningful deep affection. This property is not true of fucking, since fucking does not require affection. This distinction encapsulates part of what we emphasize when we use the phrase "making love" rather than the term "fucking". Not perplexing at all. Personally, I find the intransitive "we made love" most natural; as AE noted, the choice of "making love" here implies a mutuality that to me seems to fit best with the collective plural subject. Tesseran 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Up until maybe fifty years ago, "make love" mainly meant sweet-talking and coy flirting (whispering sweet nothings in the ear, etc.)... AnonMoos 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is a "sweet nothing" anyways? Wedgeoli

Strange double meaning on cereal TV ad

I've noticed an ad for Kellogg's Special K has a strange double meaning:

"People who like cereal, like Special K, weigh less."

"People who like cereal, like Special K way less."

So, depending on the interpretation, the slogan can be claiming it will help you to lose weight, or it can be taken as meaning that people don't like how it tastes. I'm thinking a disgruntled employee of the ad agency snuck in this double meaning. I'm not sure how it ever got onto TV like that, you would think somebody would have caught the double meaning. Has anybody heard anything about controversy surrounding this ad ? StuRat 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Double meanings are common in advertising. In any case, the whole art of advertising is about saying one thing but implying something else.--Shantavira 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this double meaning implies something bad about the product, that's the whole point. StuRat 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there was any controversy per se (maybe internal to Kellogg's or their ad agency), but I remember seeing the ad and thinking the exact same thing. The most obvious explanation is that they wrote the copy and didn't even consider/notice there was a homonym. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be an accident; it looks forced, to me. The easiest way to say it helps your diet is "People who eat Special K lose weight", and there's no double meaning there. Also, the ad has been out for weeks now, I would have expected them to pull it as soon as someone told them about the double meaning. Perhaps the person responsible for approving ads would have to admit their mistake and risk being fired, if they pulled the ad. They may just be hoping their boss never figures it out on his own. Another thought, they may subscribe to the "any publicity is good publicity" theory and figure that the negative double meaning will at least have people talking about their cereal. StuRat 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You would never make an ad exec (you'll probably take that as a compliment). "People who eat Special K lose weight": do they? Where is the evidence for that? "People who like cereal, like Special K, weigh less.": less then a pregnant hippo that is. The point is that slogans have to be catchy, factual but without real content and pithy. I suspect that every word was peered at and even the punctuation with "like Special K" set apart with brackets (strike that, sounds like an after thought, try em dashes). I would only ever ascribe the basest motives to advertisers but "way less" sound like it would only be comic to Valspeakers. MeltBanana 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite familiar with the tricks of ad execs. Note that my version doesn't say how many people lose weight, so as long as two people who eat Special K lose weight, then it's technically true. Of course, two people who eat pretty much anything will lose weight out of all the millions who eat that item. As for the current "weigh less" slogan, that is an intentional incomplete comparison. StuRat 07:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And they've just got a whole lot of free advertising here... Aaadddaaammm 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was going to say. Most people underestimate the saying "any publicity is good publicity". It's possible that this was done completely on purpose for exactly these reasons. It's more about brand recognition then what you actually think of the product. Have you seen those ads that imply a cadbury picinic bar look like a stool sample? Vespine 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

skewboglish

What is the definition of skewboglish?

Ermmm, it probably isn't a word. Googling turns up ONE result. -- the GREAT Gavini 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a Lincolnshire dialect word meaning skittish.[1] It is apparently from skew meaning wonkey, sometimes heard in the expression "skew-wiff", and bog[g]lish meaning tending to boggle or startle. I personally can't wait for the next time I see a skittish horse so I can use the word. MeltBanana 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and at this point I would like to rant on about the depressing assumption that because there are few reliable printed sources (or even web pages) which use the word it must be imaginary, ignoring the vibrancy of unwritten slang. But as I found this with google I had best shut up. MeltBanana 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

La plus que lente (2)

The archiving goes quicker from day to day. See an answer @ october 24. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

L'archivage plus que vite.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vraiment. JackofOz 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 28

Marnus

There's an ad on at the moment in New Zealand which uses the word "marnus" (munnace? pronounced munn-iss). Urban dictionary says it is what you call someone after they do something foolish, but this seems like it's just been taken from context in the ad. Someone else said it meant anus in Maori. It doesn't sound like a Maori word though. Does anyone have any insight into its origin and/or meaning? Aaadddaaammm 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's from the Maori language - all Maori words end in a vowel. It looks as though people are using the spelling 'manus', try this search: [2]. Natgoo 10:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "unwonted"

Is there a difference in pronounciation between "unwonted" and "unwanted"? --HappyCamper 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There can be: unwonted but you may pronounce them the same. Is there a difference in the vowel the way you say won-ton and wanted? Pronounce it the way you would pronounce won-ton. -THB 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not for me: I pronounce the first syllable of 'won-ton' and 'wanted' the same, but '(un)wonted' like 'won't'. (I'm in Britain.) --ColinFine 12:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm from California and I pronounce them differently. In IPA, it's [ʌnˈwɑntɨd] and [ʌnˈwʌntɨd] respectively.

Right Usage

Hi, I am confused about the usage of the words 'speak/spoke'in the context of talking to someone. Kindly let me know what is the right way; 'speak with/spoke with' or 'speak to/spoke to'? Regards....

This should probably be the same as "talk", which Americans apparently use with "with" but the British use "to". See Differences_between_American_and_British_English#Different_prepositions_in_certain_contexts -- the GREAT Gavini 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What? I won't address the accuracy of that page, but what you just said is completely false (at least regarding American usage, which is all I know). The following are all completely natural and commonly heard in American usage: "Talk to me!" "Hey, I wasn't talking to you, buddy." "You talkin' to me?" "I will not be spoken to in that tone!" In fact, I'd say that "talk to" is more common than "talk with" in generic contexts in American English.

To answer the original question, both are correct. The idea given below, that "spoke with" is two-way while "spoke to" is one-way, may be helpful but can also be misleading. For example, a man might say to his wife, "I spoke to my boss today about that raise, and he thinks XXX." Clearly the conversation was not one-way, since an employee cannot dictate to his boss; it is the boss's side of the conversation that is important here. One possible implication of "spoke to", as in this sentence, is raising a topic in conversation. A principal to a parent: "I would appreciate it if you would speak to your son about alcohol abuse [because I think he might have a problem].

If you happen to be learning English, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that this is a very subtle and difficult point (as questions involving phrasal verbs often are); there is no simple rule that tells you which to use, and the only real way to use them naturally is to keep learning the language and listening to as much native speech as you can. The good news, however, is that since both are OK, no matter which one you use, you won't be wrong. At the worst, it may sound a little unnatural, but in any situation either phrase might be said by a native speaker.

One final note: if you are only talking about normal conversation, in general "talking" will be more natural than "speaking"; as a tendency (not a rule), "speaking" is used for things that are a little farther from your typical boring everyday conversation. Hope some of this helps. Tesseran 10:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Speaking with" someone implies a two-way conversation, while "speaking to" someone (or even worse, "speaking at" someone) implies one-way communication from you to them only. StuRat 07:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You can also give someone a 'talking to', meaning you'll 'put them straight', during which they are not supposed to say anything back. There's another term; 'talk back', which can mean something like youthful rebellious behavoour. When a father gives his son a good talking to, the son is not suposed to talk back, but even the reverse can be true. When a father (casually) tells his son to do something and the son talks back, the father might give him a good talking to. DirkvdM 07:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A nonnative English speaker giving advice on English ? Well, you seem to have gotten it right this time, aside from your rather unconventional spellings of "behavoour" and "suposed". :-) StuRat 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be biased, but I don't think that that necessarily will lead to incorrect usage. Also, it could possibly be helpful looking at the language with an outsider's eyes. 惑乱 分からん 14:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whereas in American English "with" and "to" can be used interchangeably, indeed, as surmised above by the GREAT Gavini, "speak/spoke to" has a strong preference in British English, just as for "talk".  --Lambiam^Talk 11:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You call Joe's number and somebody else picks up the phone. Do you say "May I speak to Joe, please" or "May I speak with Joe, please"? In Australia, it's probably 95% for to, and 5% for with, even though in most cases you would intend to have a dialogue with Joe rather than providing him with a monologue. Funny that. JackofOz 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Determiner

Please explain the complete definition of using determiner: The Philippines. Thank you

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see determiner. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. .--Shantavira 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mystery insect? Noun?

I'm trying to find out what a certain word means that was scribbled inside a toilet I saw today. It was written in Japanese (赤ジルマ), but I'm quite sure it's not a Japanese word, and from the context I can gather that it is likely a type of insect. Due to the way transliteration works in Japanese, I can only reduce it to the following possible names:

red jilma, red gilma, red geelma, red jeelma, red girma, red jirma, red geerma, red jeerma

None of those appear to be anything real... does this ring a bell for anyone? IYRWTK, the full inscription translates something like "All the aka-jiruma of the world, begone! Filthy parasites!"  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was an 8 year-old in Texas in 1910 named "Red Gilma", but there's no connection : P.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure it couldn't just be germ? (I know next to nothing about Japanese.) Tesseran 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "germ theory" has some merits. How else would you transliterate "germ" in kana? The ジ could be also the transliteration of "zi". Not that that seems to help to make sense of the message.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching for ジルマ on the web gave me info on Mahou Sentai Magiranger. --Kjoonlee 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the hits have some connection with magic. On this webpage of a sushi place blog I find for last Sunday a posting with heading ジルマで塩辛 and text 焼津の定置網のジルマ〔するめイカ〕で、今日は塩辛つくろかな！ Perhaps this gives you a clue. I'm copying it over because I don't know how long it will stay. There is also a company named La Jiruma.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia also gives Mahou Sentai Magiranger, note that everything written in Katakana isn't a loanword from English, though, and I guess Japanese toilet slang could come from just about anywhere... Could be some schizophrene/psychotic hobo scribblings, for what I know... 惑乱 分からん 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it be an anti-communist message, since they are often called "reds". The phrase would become "All the red germs of the world, begone! Filthy parasites !". StuRat 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can be sure it's related to germs. Japanese has 菌 (fungi/bacteria), 細菌 (bacteria), and 微生物 (microbe) but none of them are pronounced like [dʒəm] or [dʒam]. --Kjoonlee 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about "germ" for a minute, but the trailing -ma implies it may be the word "germ" in a language other than English such as German (not a pun, but suprisingly punnish!) or Portugese, though I don't think "germa" is a real word in either. "Red germ" doesn't really make sense anyways. I don't think it has anything to do with Mahou Sentai Magiranger either, or at least I can't seem to make sense with it in such a context. Google searches give up random links to a lot of different things, but nothing to "aka-jiruma", so I'm totally at a loss.

One of my roomates thinks it could be a nickname for someone, but he admits that's only because he usually assumes strange words like that are usually nicknames when he can't understand them; a reasonable strategy I guess.

"Red Zelma" seems to be the name of a racing horse in 1999, and Tokyoites are definitely into horse racing... so I guess this could be a possiblity. It's very unlikely that the graffiti was left over from 1999 though, as it was a very new washroom, and "Zelma" wouldn't even be spelled properly. Ah, this may be too thick of a nut to crack.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the cuttlefish shiokara connection a dead end? I think the sushi blog text means something like: "Shiokara from jiruma / Jiruma (cuttlefish squid) from the fixed shore nets of Yaizu". Not that I could venture a guess why the poor red[3] cuttlefish should be lambasted for being filthy parasites.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They look somewhat phallic... =S 惑乱 分からん 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

nickname pompey

why is pompey the nickname for portsmouth?

You could start with http://www.pompeyweb.co.uk/misc.htm. Google is your friend. --ColinFine 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it's the anclicized version of Pompeius, a popular name among Roman generals and Charles XII's dogs. --BluePlatypus 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

October 29

Dog eat dog

Does anybody know why this is the phrase, rather than "dog eats dog"? It's bugging me. --Estrellador* 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that is normal when its an adjectival phrase rather than a statement. However, I haven't so far been able to think of any other examples of that construction.--Shantavira 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Johnny come lately" perhaps?--Shantavira 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a variation of an old Latin proverb(?) "Dog does not eat dog", with the modern usage originating in 30's USA http://www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterD/dogeatdog.html 惑乱 分からん 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Estrellador* 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtual and Virtue

Is the word "virtual" related to the word "virtue"? The article about "virtual" talks about that "another core meaning has been elicited", but my English is not so terribly good, and I understood no word of that. If the words are related, is the meaning related?

wimdw: 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtue in English means good personal character (implying especially honesty, strength, probity and honor), and derives from the Latin virtus which meant strength (originally it literally meant manliness). Virtual is also derived from virtus but in English has recently gone a paradoxical meaning shift so it means the exact opposite of what it used to mean. In English, until the late 20th century, virtual and virtually were used as an intensive adjective and adverb meaning "truly", but in the last few decades, English speakers ignorant of the precise meaning began to use virtually to mean "almost". Computer geeks seldom have advanced language skills and in the last 2 decades reconverted the adjective virtual in computer jargon to mean "simulated", as in virtual reality (the opposite of true reality). Ironic and annoying to some of us. alteripse 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From etymonline.com

1398, "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities," from M.L. virtualis, from L. virtus 
"excellence, potency, efficacy," lit. "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). 
The meaning of "being something in essence or fact, though not in name" is first recorded 1654, 
probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (1432). 
Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959. 
Virtually (c.1430) originally meant "as far as essential qualities or facts are concerned;" 
sense of "in effect, as good as" is recorded from c.1600.

惑乱 分からん 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The computer usage seems quite consistent with the 1430 usage, meaning "virtual reality" is "in effect, as good as reality" (or at least that's what the advertisers claim). StuRat 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtus derives from vir, man, which gave also virilis, virile, triumvir, &c. (but not virus).

It is interesting to note the possible influence of, or correlation with, might. The meanings are 1) power and 2) could (virtually, as having enough power) ... What do you think ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 惑乱 分からん. The computer term is completely consistent with previous usage, and it is accepted by most authorities. I agree with Alteripse, however, that the use of "virtually" to mean "almost" is a regrettable broadening of the sense, but such is the case with many other adjectives, and there is not much to be done about it. Lesgles (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This virtually answers my question. :wimdw: 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"...have contributed to the production costs..."

A PBS TV program in Michigan, called Off The Record, ends each program by saying "(This week's sponsors) have contributed to the production costs for Off The Record". I think they mean to say that those sponsors helped to PAY for the costs, but it sounds like what they are actually saying is that those sponsors have made the show more expensive. Is my interpretation correct ? StuRat 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are correct. Which one is more reasonable? --BluePlatypus 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

StuRat makes an interesting point. The former phrase is correct, but it's also ambiguous. I hadn't noticed the ambiguity until he pointed it out.--Shantavira 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would state it differently: "Unnecessary and unwanted ambiguity is to be avoided whenever possible". A better way to say it would be: "(This week's sponsors) have contributed financially to cover production costs for Off the Record". StuRat 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "hoik"

I am seeking the origin and derivations of the word "hoik". Normally used as a phrase, "hoiked up"; within the context of "purposely generated or manipulated public interest created in a previously little-known subject or event, sometimes to the extent of causing alarm or dismay in the areas of public discourse, usually for the cynical purpose of publicizing a particular political candidate or philosophy. I heard this word used in various political discussion forums, but I've never seen it in print, so the spelling of the word may not be correct. Does anyone have pertinent information on this word? Thanks for your curiosity. 75.15.156.234 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My edition of the OED doesn't say, but I strongly suspect it's the word "hoist", made slang by adding a glottal stop.--Shantavira 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED spells it hoick and suggests it derives from hike, earliest cite 1898. It is interesting I have not really heard it used in the way you describe, similar to hype, which probably influenced it. I understand it to mean something like "pull up" as in "he hoiked his socks up" but according to the OED hoick also is a variant of "yoicks" said to excite hunting dogs, earliest cite 1607 which also sounds like what you are describing. BTW hoick also means spit probably from "hawk" which is what I feel like doing when I hear some political discussions. MeltBanana 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is probably onomatopoetic, from the sound of rapid moist airflow in the back of the throat, as in "The old man hoicked up a gob of plegm," or "The cat just hoicked up another hairball."Edison 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To check if I get your meaning of the word right; the biggest hoik of the moment must be the attention given to terrorism, the death toll of which is negligible to that of loads of other causes of death that get nowere near the same amount of attention. Is that what you mean? Oh, and thank you for giving me an excuse to ventilate my opinion (am I hoiking?). And thank you for thanking me for my curiosity. :) DirkvdM 09:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobow

What does nobow mean?

It's in that rap song, "you must not nobow me", you must not nobow me.

Urban dictionary isn't hip enough to have it obvio.

Can my nan nobow me if my boyf can't? Can I nobow my nan? My mam or my pa nobow me? Can I nobow them?

I also wanna know is it proper rude like "roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked" or owt like that. You must not Nobow me 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just a guess, but it looks like it's probably "know (a)bou(t)". --Ptcamn 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobow? Nan? Boyf? Roger with a rampant rabbit until overcooked? Excuse me for not being hip enough to follow, but what are you talking about? 惑乱 分からん 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

He's just British. Hairs on a bobbin. --Ptcamn 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank god for Google: [4], Btw:

Bullet Tooth Tony: A bookie's got blagged last night. 
Avi: Blagged? Do me a favor, Tony, speak English. 
I thought this country spawned the fucking language, and so far nobody seems to speak it. (Snatch)

惑乱 分からん 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search doesn't turn up much for "nobow", but maybe the song you are thinking of is "Irreplacable" by Beonce. Look at this question on Yahoo Answers. The chorus is You must not know about me / You must not know about me / I could have another you in a minute / matter fact he'll be here in a minute - baby. I don't nobow whether that's the song you're thinking of, but if it is, then I imagine your parents do indeed nobow you... Philbert^2.71828 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah that's the song. I didn't know it was beyonce. I don't like rap music. I want to know though, why if it's "know about" does she sing "nobow"? And what on earth does it mean? If shes singing it to her boyf of course her boyf knows her, duh. (he probably does the thing with the rampant rabbit too). You must not Nobow me 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Her accent is different than yours, probably. It sounds like "know about" to me. --Charlene 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that's a lot easier to understand Beyonce than you... (Nan? Isn't that some Indian bread? Owt?) It's used in the sense "Who do you think I am?", by the way... 惑乱 分からん 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nan = grandmother: owt = anything: they are overdoing it slightly, though. 86.139.237.132 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I googled around and found out that it apparently was some Northern English dialect... =S Also, it seemed like a rampant rabbit was some sort of burrowing bunny, but I still have to find out what "Roger" meant... =S 惑乱 分からん 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger = "have sexual intercourse with". StuRat 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"boyf" = "boyfriend" ? StuRat 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's "Roger" rhyming slang or something?: "Roger Moore" - "Hardcore", "Roger Milla" - "Drizzling Drillah", "Roger Wilco" - "Deep Digging Dildo" @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"You must not know about me" addressed to a boyfriend can't have the literal meaning "evidently you don't know of my existence". Rather, I would take it as "I presume you are not familiar with my reputation, abilities and/or behaviour", and it continues "because I could obtain another boyfriend like you instantly". Now why couldn't she just sing that? Notinasnaid 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't scan -sthomson 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A question about japanese

how is this ヴァン pronounced? 207.118.239.193 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Van", I'd think... But it needs IPA... 惑乱 分からん 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What is IPA? 207.118.239.193 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the International Phonetic Alphabet. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

/vaɴ/ possibly, ヴァ is not really a native sound in Japanese, so I'm not sure how it's pronounced... 惑乱 分からん 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The combination ヴァ was introduced to represent the "un-Japanese" sound /va/ in transliterations of foreign names, so the speaker's familiarity with the sound in general and in the source language in particular, as well as the "ear" to hear this and the ability to contort one's speech apparatus into unfamiliar positions, all are a factor in how it will be realized. It is used in the Japanese Wikipedia in the transliteration of, for example, Albrecht von Wallenstein (アルブレヒト・フォン・ヴァレンシュタイン), corresponding well to how it sounds. The city Van likewise becomes ヴァン, but a Japanese speaker who knows Turkish will presumably ignore this unphonetic rendering and pronounce it as if it had been transliterated ワン. Raoul Wallenberg, on the other hand, simply becomes ラウル・ワレンバーグ, which is quite a departure from the actual sound, also for the final "g".  --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 207.118.239.193 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 30

AAVE Bible?

I seem to remember reading there was an old African American Vernacular English translation of the Bible that had been created to help witness to younger African-Americans. Does anyone know what this translation is called, or where I might find it online? NeonMerlin 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A Google search turns up the name "P.K. McCrary". Does that help?--Siva 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's hard to imagine: "So God, he bees axing Adam, 'Wheres you at, foo ?' " :-) StuRat 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, "What up, lord, ya trippin'?" 惑乱 分からん 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Cotton Patch version of the Bible - Google turns up lots of references to it. It's probably not what you're looking for, but it's interesting. --Shuttlebug 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Siva's suggestion of P.K. McCrary pointed right to the Black Bible Chronicles. It seems unlikely that they will be available online, but you can check out the Aussie Bible instead. Lowerarchy 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Make nothing of it"

Im not from english speaking country,so I have a question about phrase "Make nothing of it".

If you saw the movie Pulp Fiction,you may remember when John Travolta say "make nothing of it" after girl thanked him on the cigarete.Funny thing is that I never heard anyone saying those words,neither on the movies,or where I was in England.

So,my question :Is it something that should be said after someone thank you for something? Or is it just something they made up for the movie?

I know its a pretty stupid question,but still I would like someone to answer me.

Thank you very much

212.200.200.65 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In my experience as a native English speaker, "think nothing of it" is more common in the context you describe, e.i., as an alternate response to "Thank you". "Make nothing of it", on the other hand, as in "I can make nothing of it", is used to mean "unable to comprehend or analyze something productively". Although now that I think more, "make nothing of it" might have been an old way of saying "don't make a big deal about it", "don't be obsequious." However, "think nothing..." carries more or less the same meaning and is what one hears 90-95% of the time. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Another meaning is "don't conclude anything from it". For example, if someone notices that the German stock market goes down whenever it rains in Saskatchewan, that can't possibly be the cause, but just a coincidence, so you shouldn't "make anything of it". In the given context of immediately following a thank you, though, it's a modest statement, similarly to "aw shucks, it was nothing, really". StuRat 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot,I though it was something in the line of that.Another question connected to it:Is that phrase used in everyday language in USA,UK,Canada?? I mean,does people really use it,or is it more like "it can be used,but is not really used".Thank you again 212.200.200.65 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not something I (an American) can really recall hearing (although I could gather its meaning easily enough). "Don't mention it" or "don't worry about it" would be what I would probably say to get that meaning across. -Elmer Clark 06:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bit less common than those other forms, in the US, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's rare. StuRat 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an archaism. The two main characters in that movie sometimes spoke in an odd manner. -THB 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was supposed to take place in the 70's. I guess Tarantino might have taken inspiration to the dialogue from movies and other popular culture produced in that era... 惑乱 分からん 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese syntax and translation help

I'm seeking Vietnamese translations (in any dialect) for the following; piecing together vocabulary words from various websites felt too reckless. Much thanks.

"Wasted poetry" "Abandoned butterfly" Wolfgangus 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Verbs of Elimination

Speaking of waste, why is it that we defecate/defaecate but not deurinate? Or why do we urinate but not fecate/faecate? JackofOz 05:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says I don't? DirkvdM 09:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would assume faecate would refer to the creation of faeces or at the very least, used to refer to that (and therefore defaecate would be kind of undoing it). Wiktionary's definition is to empty one's bowels of faeces so I would assume faecate on its own would just mean to fill them up (or again, used to mean that). Why urinate isn't a similar situation, I can't say. Maybe it used to mean the to fill your bladder up, and evolved into the same word, despite being. Somewhat similar to how personne in French means both someone and no one. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 10:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The English language is like that, which is partly why it is so interesting. These are also words that we read and write but never actually say to anyone.--Shantavira 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a fascinating language. But with great respect, telling me that the English language is "like that" is equivalent to telling me you don't know the answer to my question. There is a reason for everything, but we don't always know what the reason is. I'm hoping to discover the reason why one of these words starts with de- and the other doesn't, when they describe similar functions that are often carried out simultaneously. JackofOz 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary is useful for these sorts of queries - check out urine and defecate. Natgoo 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question contains the assumption that all words should be formed consistently, which would require that a committee defines new words according to a strict set of rules. However, words are just made up, on the fly, by anybody and everybody. English, in particular, borrows words and rules from many different languages, so you frequently get inconsistencies, for this reason. StuRat 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "inconsistency" already existed in medieval Latin: defaecare and urinare. The latter verb is not attested in classical Latin, which had a deponent verb urinari, "to dive", "to submerge oneself"; hence, an urinator was a diver.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Feces are "waste" or "dregs" (this meaning predates the meaning "excrement"). Fecation would perhaps be the precipitation of dregs or the generation of waste, which is quite different from the elimination (defecation) of waste or dregs so produced. Consistent with this interpretation, OED gives a sole citation for fecation: "1884 Syd. Soc. Lex., Fæcation..a term in the older chemistry for the separation of a deposit from a fluid." This line of reasoning is only so satisfactory, but if you accept that we think of the production & passage-through of urine as part of one single process, but we think of feces as possibly staying around quite a while before the act of defecation (the alternative being the pathological condition of "dia-rrhea" or "through-flow," which is exactly what urine does in a healthy person), you could get some mileage out of it! Wareh 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the contributions. Thanks. JackofOz 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese name

How would the names "Sato" and "Toshiko" be written in Japanese? I can see that in Katakana it would be along the lines of "サト" and "トシコ", but would the name usually be written in Kana, or would they use Kanji, which I don't yet know, for proper names? A BabelFish translation gives 佐藤 for Sato, but can;t find anything for Toshiko. Laïka 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Names such as those are almost always written in Kanji. Names can be given different kanji for the same pronunciation as they can be pronounced in different ways in different contexts (unlike kana). I don't know exactly what the most common kanji compounds for Sato and Toshiko are, though. I can see them being written in hiragana in a personal letter or something, but certainly not in "daily life". EDIT: After running that kanji compound through JWPCE, it can be pronounced Kisato, Saiu, Satoa, Satoo (probably the one you're looking for!) or any other number of ways. There are about 200 entries for Toshiko alone - you're going to have to pick one :) --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, the IPA for these would be /sɑːtəʊ/ and /tɒʃiːko/ respectively. Laïka 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but because kanji can be pronounced differently in context (think English times a billion), there are a lot of different kanji for one pronunciation, and a lot of pronunciations for a kanji compound! Perhaps a context would be nice. Basically, if you're doing this in some sort of story or program where you have flexibility with the names, you can choose 智子 or 聡子 or whatever for Toshiko. The differences primarily reside in the meaning behind the first kanji - you can choose a pronunciation of "Toshi" with a meaning that you find fitting. Sorry for any confusion - kanji is like that, unfortunately, I much prefer kana. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... direct googling result: [5]. In addition, for you convenience, quoted from this page (and most of them can be found in my ATOK),

• トシ子
• 季子
• 歳子
• 寿子
• 十糸子
• 叔子
• 淑子
• 俊子
• 捷子
• 聡子 (Satoko reading is much frequent)
• 智子 (Tomoko reading is much frequent)
• 登志子
• 敏子
• 稔子
• 利子
• plus, I believe there probably are hiragana names としこ and とし子

Note, however, any of Toshiko above is felt a name of middle aged or so woman, as of 2006 (at least so I feel). And you know they say "--ko" naming itself is not that familiar these days. --marsian 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Marsian has much more patience than me for writing all of those out. ~ko is indeed old - used to be almost standard for names but it's dying out now or so I hear. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

démerdes

Doews anyone happen to know what this word means? I believe it is french. ALso the word gesticules?

My dictionary says that démerdes is the tu (informal "you") conjugated form of to figure things out. According to my dictionary, it's a reflexive verb so I imagine you would see this in a context like tu te démerdes which means you figure things out for yourself. Gesticules is the tu form of to gesture. Philbert^2.71828 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very good at French, though, so take that information with a grain of salt. Philbert^2.71828 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good thing to say in extremely refined company. Se démerder literally means something like to manage to get yourself out of the shit, although in French it is not quite as strong as the English suggests.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I always use "crap" instead of "shit" for "merde". -THB 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merde means shit. Atleast that's what my old french teacher used to say. --The Dark Side 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary translates merde as shit. If it means crap then they don't have a word for shit because that's as vulgar as French excrement words get. Why were you taking an Old French class? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do you people think "crap" means?  --Lambiam^Talk 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it meant "rubbish" until I read The Vicar of Nibbleswicke. --Kjoonlee 06:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant an old "French teacher," an old person who taught French, or an "old, French, teacher," an old French person who taught classes. --Kjoonlee 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he meant that the teacher used to teach him, instead of saying that he/she was old. --Kjoonlee 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that merde is closer to crap than shit on the offensiveness scale. -THB 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So is there a word in French that is closer to shit on the offensiveness scale? I was under the impression that that was the top. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression has always been that body and bodily functions aren't as capable of being offensive in Europe as in the US, and perhabs UK. -THB 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kjoon was right. I meant old as in previous, former, past, étc. Honestly, Old French? Didn't anyone take French in school here? --The Dark Side 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it in college. Did I waste people's time with a lame joke? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

October 31

Cigarettes

"What's in a cigarette? Those which we call toxins, by any other word would be as deadly." Does that modified quote make sense and is gramatically correct? If so, what does it mean? Jamesino 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a play on Hamlet's "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" (paraphrasing here!). Insert a comma after word, because it's a clause by itself, and it's fine grammatically. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 01:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet? I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but isn't that a Juliet quote? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes it is WKQT. Whew, I thought I had been wrong all this time! Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be "remove the comma after toxins". The word order is a bit poetic (as you'd expect) but grammatically fine. Tesseran 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the sentence make sense though? Or is it like...redundant? Jamesino 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that toxins are lethal—whether we call them poisons or something more obscure and exotic like nitromethane or o-Toluidine, they are still deadly chemicals—then yes, it makes sense. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Those" doesn't sound right to me. I would replace it by "That", and replace "word" by "name" if you want to be closer to the original:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet;

--Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

 --Lambiam^Talk 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask not just about the grammar, but also if it makes sense. The problem with toxins is that anything is potentially a toxin. The poison article says 'Paracelsus, the father of toxicology states-- "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison".' It would make more sense to speak of toxicity or toxic dose. Even water can kill you if you drink enough of it. So it is at the very least misleading to say that toxins are deadly. It completely misses the point of toxicity. So no, the phrase does not make sense. Not to scare you, but if you use this phrase in the US you should be careful not to get sued - tobacco companies certainly have the money for that. Also note that the toxin article says that "Toxic substances not of biological origin are more properly termed poisons" So are you talking about additives and are they biological in nature? Depending on how and where you are going to use this, be very careful what you say. DirkvdM 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a paraphrase, it's not a good one. The original is making the point that names are just labels - it doesn't matter what you call something, it's still the same thing. (The context being Romeo's family name) But the paraphrase is doing something altogether different by equating two names for different things. "Cigarrette" doesn't mean the same thing as "toxin", so it does actually matter what you call it. All in all, it doesn't make its point well, and it sounds very strained and even pretentious - if you paraphrase Shakespeare you should know the text, and if you know it, you shouldn't have a problem finding a more suitable quote. --BluePlatypus 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "O Cigarettes, Cigarettes! Wherefore art thou deadly?" Jamesino 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a word I can't remember

I'm trying to remember the word for the flat metal plate that can be installed on the outsides of doors to prevent the locks from being pried open. I've already looked at a bunch of lock security sites but they don't seem to even have them. I am pretty sure the word ends with 'al' and I think it might start with 'f'. I'm in Canada, and I guess the word could be local. I used and heard the word a bunch of times when I was on my Strata Council, but it's slipped my mind now. Anchoress 08:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean like a Security Door Reinforcer? or a latch guard? Maybe it is a regional word. --Andrew c 17:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like a latch guard, only longer. But weirdly, we called it an astragal in our Council meetings, and that word (which I found thru one of the links, thanks) has a different meaning from what we give it. Don't know if it's my property manager's mistake, or if it's a regional thing. Anyways, right or wrong now he'll know what I'm talking about lol. Anchoress 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The doors have metal plates,

fitted to the inside of the exit alleys to the front gates,

Security's expensive,

it can cost a fortune if you buy your locks

(duh-doo-doo)

from the wrong place

(duh-doo-doo) (Sorry, was reminded of that song :)) --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fetocide vs. feticide

At feticide, an editor has changed "(sometimes referred to as fetocide)" to "(sometimes mistakenly spelt fetocide)". I pointed out that we had cited sources of medical professionals using that spelling, and for us to call it a mistake, would not only be POV pushing, but also be spitting in the face of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. So I am here to ask for a third opinion at Talk:Feticide to weigh in on these matters. Is it ok to call common variant spellings used by professionals in the field of study in question a spelling mistake?--Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other party in this, and it is clear to me that fetocide is a misspelling for linguistic reasons given at Talk:feticide. It is certainly not a matter of national varieties of English. It is an exaggeration to say there are "cited instances of medical professionals" using this spelling, and it does not appear in any dictionary.. at very best it is a recent and uncommon neologism. It is much more likely to be a mistake. Zargulon 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there are 11,000 google hits for 'fetocide', including extracts from this clinical study, so I think it's fair to say that 'sometimes referred to as "fetocide"' is more accurate than 'sometimes mistakenly spelt as "fetocide"'. Also, the former is less POV. Anchoress 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes it a commonly misspelt word. There are 1,040,000 google hits for the misspelt "comittee". Zargulon 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You said right above that it was an 'exaggeration' that there are 'cited instances of medical professionals' using the spelling; there are clearly numerous instances. How about we find a compromise? If you can find a legitimate reference stating that it is a mis-spelling, you can say that in the article. If Andrew finds a legitimate reference (not necessarily a dictionary) stating that it is a variant, he can say that it is. Otherwise it stays out of the article. How do you two feel about that? Anchoress 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is a common misspelling, the fact that it is a misspelling is conclusively proved by its absence from dictionaries, and strongly supported by the strict pattern of other -cide words. Zargulon 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Sometimes a misspelled word becomes so prevalent that it eventually becomes an accepted variant, at least in some parts of the world. Appendectomy, license (noun), fetus, defense ... there are thousands of them. But I wouldn't accept fetocide, not just yet anyway. The fact that a medical professional misspells a word does not of itself give the alternative spelling legitimacy. JackofOz 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other problems with that article. it's at Feticide, but it uses Foeticide throughout, making one wonder which version of English should be used throughout. As in, should it be "spelt" or "spelled"? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know there are different views on this, but I would argue for "spelled" and "misspelled" (or "mis-spelled"). Spelt is a grain. "Spelled" is sometimes pronounced "spelt", but even that might be a mis-pronunciation depending on where you're from. JackofOz 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer that concern, an editor who was drawn to the page due to my request changed the spelling in the article to 'foeticide' and proposed a move. Before today, feticide was used consistently throughout.--Andrew c 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat widespread use doesn't automatically get you to "accepted variant." Ph.D.'s and academic journals don't automatically produce well-edited prose free of misspellings. Any word spelled feto- or foeto- (except for fetor, a rare word for "stench" related to "fetid") is a barbaric misspelling. At a certain point, of course, what started out as an ignorant misspelling may make it into the dictionary. Cultivated users of the English language (including any medical researchers, etc., who happen to have the extraneous qualification of being literate) will still look down on it. A good example of a misspelling that made it into the dictionary is parallelopiped. But this one hasn't made it into the dictionary. All that said, I don't mean this as a comment on what the Wikipedia article should say. Obviously, a neutral tone is appropriate to an encyclopedia. However, if what's written doesn't tell the reader that it ain't in dictionaries, and ain't gonna be soon, then I'd say some information is missing. Wareh 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When I page through the Google hits for "fetocide", they seem to almost all be citations from medical journals. This is hardly a singular misspelling. I fail to understand the opposition to mentioning this spelling. Rmhermen 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Google gives 79,000 hits for feticide, but only 11,000 for fetocide. Clearly the latter is not uncommon, but that alone doesn't make it a correct spelling. Apparently there is no lexicological reference we can use to support a claim that fetocide is an alternative spelling. Without such a reference, we'd be breaching the no original research rule. Millions of people use effect and affect interchangeably; or their, they're and there; or its and it's; or to, too and two; or your and you're - but despite the increasing incidence of such errors, they still all fall into the category of misspellings, not acceptable alternative spellings. Maybe in 20 years it will be different. Until then ... JackofOz 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The formation "fetocide" is an illiterate abomination, suggesting a non-existent Greek origin fetos instead of Latin fetus. I also find some hits for "fetacide", and they are not about the slaying of cheese.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, it would suggest derivation from Latin fetus (2nd declension) rather than Latin fetus (4th declension). You might as well have "domocile" for "domicile." Interestingly enough, there is a 2nd declension Latin fetus, the adjective meaning "pregnant, fruitful, productive." So "fetocide" would refer rather to the killing of persons or things that are pregnant, fruitful, and productive. "Feticide," on the other hand, is the killing of the young, the brood, the fetus. Wareh 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Lambiam is right and I'm wrong. -ocide is even pretty barbaric for Latin second declensions (though such barbarisms are not unexampled in the dictionary). It follows from general principles, but fungicide is a good example (not fungocide). Wareh 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

old polish words??

I am reaserching my Polish family history and my grandmother has the word 'freblanka' written as her occupation. I am told it may mean nursey teacher but cannot find a way of confirming this. Does anyone have any ideas please?

• Sure -- look it up on the Internets! Now, I don't speak Polish. However, a search led me to this: Freblówka (Europa) (naz. F. Fröbl, pedagog niem., 1782- -1852) nauk., daw. typ przedszkola prowadzonego wg metod F. Fröbla, w którym zwracano uwagę na wszechstronny i harmonijny rozwój dziecka, zgodny z jego cechami indywidualnymi.

So I then figured out this refers to Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel, German educator ("pedagog niem."). "Przedszkola" appears to mean nursery school, so, yeah, looks like you're right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I think "Przedszkola" is (partially through borrowing) cognate to preschool. Polish sound shifts include z's popping up a lot in unlikely places... 惑乱 分からん 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my guess but I didn't want to go so far. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

S letter

Do you have to have an (s) after the following words: Afterward, inward, toward?

You don't have to, but you can. dictionary.com definition Laurən^whisper 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it depends.

1. *Afterward, I was terrified.
2. Afterwards, I was terrified.
3. It came toward me.
4. It came towards me.
5. I was in the inward chamber.
6. *I was in the inwards chamber.

This is how I would "star" some sentences. The starred sentences are the ones I find awkward. --Kjoonlee 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out what the Wiktionary has to say on the subject. Laurən^whisper 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, the preferred form of these words does not have a final 's'. (That said, a final 's' is not unusual in spoken American English.) In British usage, the final 's' is preferred for these words, except for "inward" (or any compound ending in -ward) used as an adjective, as Kjoonlee's last example shows. (The adjectival exception also applies to spoken American English.) Marco polo 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "afterwards" is more common in the US than "afterward", which (unlike in British English) is also quite acceptable. Note that this is typically an adverb. In contrast, "toward" is more common there than the quite acceptable "towards". A simple rule that gives an acceptable form everywhere is: Use "-ward" for adjectives; "-wards" in other cases.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that "afterwards" is more common in spoken American English than "afterward." However, in U.S. publications, "afterward" is the norm. In my day job, I am an editor in the United States, and every company where I have worked has preferred "-ward" without a final "s" in every case. Marco polo 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a remnant of the English case system, where you'd sometiems have the genitive "s" ending, so you can correctly use it wherever you'd have a genitive preposition, such as the ones given. Usually it's the ones where you can imagine an omitted 'to' or 'of', e.g. "Afterwards (of the event), I was" and "It came towards (the location of) me". But you don't say "tops", you say "on top of" or "to the top". Whereas in Norwegian, "to the top" can be both "til topps" ("to tops") and "til toppen" (and also "til toppa"). And you have similar things going on in Swedish and Danish as well. So it's not specific to English, but a shared trait of all the Germanic languages that have thrown out the case system. --BluePlatypus 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhyme

Hi all, Can some one plz tell me a noun that rhymes with jazz? jazz here is a name not the music type. As i want to say "Jazz the ...?". Thx

196.218.50.29 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Jasmine

Bass (fish)? 惑乱 分からん 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spazz? --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spazz is your best bet. The only other common words that rhyme with jazz are "as" and "has". Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx but words that rhyme with jazz wasnt very helpful, also i found that spazz means stupid. I really dont think that my nickname should be jazz the stupid, right :) ?

Jasmine(Jazz)

Spazz means more like "crazy". --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say more like clumsy. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from, spazz is generally understood to mean spastic. I'd go with razz if I were you! --Auximines 10:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jazzie the razzie, Jayzie the crazy, Jazzie the juicy, Jazz the lass, Jazzy the sassy, Jazz sexy-ass? =S 惑乱 分からん 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

La Paz.  :) JackofOz 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to know a guy who was proud to go by "Spazz." But the question, Jazz, is this — are you a spazz? If so, Jazz the Spazz, provided you don't have a complex about it. If not, keep lookin'. Wareh 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A little Vietnamese, please.

I was doing a bit of work on this article and I was translating some of the song titles. Most were fine, but for the Vietnamese "Búp Bê Không Tình Yêu" was difficult. What I got when looking up dictionaries was "Bud Carry Without Being in Love" which I'm sure is not that close, since Tình and Yêu both seem to mean 'love' (with the latter being a verb?). Búp was difficult as well. So can anyone help in translating the title? Thanks in advance --Bearbear 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Búp-bê" is actually one word meaning "doll". The word comes from French "poupée", so it's just a two-syllable wordt. In Vietnamese all syllables are written as separate words (because of the language's monosyllabic nature), so you can't just search every single syllable in a dictionary and expect to find anyting sensible. "Tình yêu" is something of the same, except that it's a compound word. Vietnamese uses duplication quite a lot, and just using two words for "love" means "love" again. So the entire title translates as "Doll without love". Greets, David 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a footnote, I think Chinese is similar, words often turn two-syllabic because of clarity, if you understand what I mean... 惑乱 分からん 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was helpful and interesting! Vietnamese makes a lot of sense. I kind of thought it was strange that the two terms sounded so alike. --Bearbear 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Should earth by caps, also is newscasts correct? or is news casts

This is for a publication.

Usually words like "Earth", "Moon", "Sun", of which there is only one, are capitalized. See for example how this is done in our article Earth. "Newscast", with plural "newscasts", is spelled as one word (just like "broadcast"). See for example the use in our article News broadcasting.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, there are many earths, many moons, and many suns, and in a general context you should not capitalise them. But if you're talking specifically about our planet and its satellite, and the centre of our solar system, then I agree, there is only one of each and they should be capitalised. JackofOz 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and when I moon somebody on a sunny day then fall and get earth on my butt, that's no cause to make a capital case out of anything, either. :-) StuRat 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, flashing by night, mooning by day. I'm pleased that you display a well-balanced approach to this sort of thing, and that your time is fully occupied when you're not loitering around Wikipedia. At least it keeps you off the streets, and in the park where you seem to feel so much at home.  :-) JackofOz 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kangofu

Would someone please give me the Japanese character for nurse/kangofu? To be clear, this is a nurse like in a hospital, not breastfeeding. Thanks! -THB 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Til next time, check out Jim Breen's dictionary Kanji is 看護婦 , Hiragana is かんごふ (Katakana is spelled the same as Hiragana, but I'm too lazy to write it out). 惑乱 分からん 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get that link to work right now. Thanks for translating. -THB 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

November 1

Is this saying present in other languages??

After you answered my last question so fully,I decided to ask another thing which was on my mind for some time.

I want to tell you not to get it wrong,it has nothing to do with politics,it is just a sayin which Im interested to..

In my country during 1990s there was a saying :"They dont attack Serbia because of Milosevic,but they attack Milosevic because of Serbia"

Nowdays it became a normal in the everyday speech to say this,off course changing words "Milosevic" and "Serbia" to another words to fit the context

Basicly,I wonder if this is specific to our language,because I think it might be used in another languages,off course little changed to fit another subject,but with the same meanging.

My english is not very good,so if you dont understand the question I may explain it again,its basicly "Is there a saying similiar to this one in other languages",because I think I heard it somewhere else,but Im not sure,my friends say its our invention,but I kind of doubt it...

Thank you

212.200.201.169 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely follow, but wasn't sentences like "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" common long before Milosevic? It's hard to see anything special about that sentence... 惑乱 分からん 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the OP asks if that phrase is commonly found in other languages. I don't think it's an idiom, so I see no reason for it not to exist in other languages. Syntactically, it probably can exist as well in languages that use complex grammar. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar sentence structures are chiasmus or antimetabole. MeltBanana 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are asking more about a different saying with the same meaning, than a saying with a similar sentence structure. I don't quite follow the meaning myself. Attacking Serbia because of Milosevic makes sense, because he was the leading force behind Serbia declaring war on most of it's neighbors. But why would people attack Milosevic because of Serbia ? StuRat 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's like the same line of thought that i hear frequently in regards to America: People will say, 'We don't have a problem with Americans, we have a problem with America.' (Meaning, of course, that their dispute is with America's government rather than individual American citizens.)

Applying that to this situation, the statement might mean that people are not decrying Serbia for Milosevic's actions, but rather are decrying Milosevic for Serbia's actions (which presumably he had a hand in).

I'm not an expert in the politics of that region, though, so that's pure speculation. If that is what it means, though, then the answer to the question is yes, variants of that statement are present in at least (but probably more than) one language. ~ lav-chan @ 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not what you mean, but there is an English expressions with a similar structure. To parphrase your example it would be "You can take Milosevic out of Serbia, but you can't take Serbia out of Milosevic". I don't know if that would be applicable here, but it would mean that Serbia will always be on Milosevic's mind. DirkvdM 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the original saying was a way of the pro-Milošević camp to put a spin on the international criticism, using the paranoid tendency of Serbs to believe the rest of the world is against them: We are under attack, and our enemies use Milošević as a pretext.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont quite understand Serbophobia attacks seen here by Stu Rat and Lambiam.I dont know what I said or wrote to provoke such disgusting hate speech,and so many lies in just a few sentences by some of you.

My question was simply about the line "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" (i just used words "Serbia" and "Milosevic",as they are most common in this sentence,but other words are also used),it had nothing to do with the politics,but some of you are just so full of filth and hate that you just cant resist telling some lies.

Anyway,thank you to everyone who responded to my question,I guess there is no similiar saying("They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X") in other countries 212.200.201.174 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? How can you have misunderstood our answer so completely? 惑乱 分からん 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In English this sort of X/Y/Y/X construction is called chiasmus or antimetabole. --Anonymous, 00:55 UTC, November 2.

Wakran,not you,your answer was OK.I just dont think that lies(like "Serbia declared war on most of its neighbors",while in fact it didnt declare war on anyone) and insults(like "paranoid tendencies") have anything to do with my question...Wakran understood my question right,and responded to it,but insults like those I`ve just mentioned are really not necessery...

Thank you once again

212.200.201.174 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles on a French calendar

For my niece who is just starting to learn French, I am making a calendar of the year 2007 for her. Should the holidays identified on it have articles or not? That is, should it say, for example, Fête du Canada or La Fête du Canada? (Or is it La fête du Canada?) How about Équinoxe d’automne or L’équinoxe d’automne? If it’s one way or the other, are there any exceptions? I’m leaning toward omitting the articles, but I’m not 100% certain. In case it means anything, the months and days at the top just say janvier, février, mars, etc. and dimanche, lundi, mardi, etc. — Michael J 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be articles on these already. On the French Wikipedia, there's fr:Fête du Canada corresponding to Canada day. Looks like equinox maps to fr:Équinoxe too. Oh, by the way, check out the French resources on Wikibooks: wikibooks:Category:French and the award winning wikibooks:French. --HappyCamper 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of taste (and how much space you have). This calendar leaves out most articles, whereas this calendar sports them. Omitting them seems a bit more "modern", but wanting to appear modern is so 20th century...  --Lambiam^Talk 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambiam. I think it looks better without the articles, so I’m going to leave them off. ... Thanks too, HappyCamper, but I think you took the wrong meaning of “article” in my question. I was referring to grammatical articles, such as le, la and les (the), not Wikipedia articles. I appreciate the effort, though. — Michael J 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

done, through, and finished

Is there any difference when you say "Are you finished?" "Are you done?" and "Are you through?"

thank you.

I think you have them listed from most to least formal, but it's a rather subtle difference. StuRat 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'Are you through?' is very rarely used in a context of finishing something. I'd say it's more likely to be said when the person being asked is crawling out of big tube or something, than in a context of asking about completeness. The other two, however, are pretty much the same. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken English is, and always will be, 'have you finished?' in all contexts. The other forms are American-isms.

German :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" or "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen"

Hello,

I am surprised to see that both of these :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" and "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen" result in many results on Google. Which one is correct? I'd say "etwas" is direct object, and the person you ask something in the indirect object, so I'd go for a dative--> Ihnen.

What do you think? Thanks! Evilbu 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos you are asking a question to them, Definitttaly Ihnen. Englishnerd 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" is correct. The person you ask something is the direct object. I don't think "etwas" is the direct object because I can't think of any constructions where you can directly replace "etwas" with the topic of your question. *"Darf ich Sie Weg fragen?" is incorrect, it's "Darf ich Sie nach dem Weg fragen", with an inserted prepositional phrase (which requires dative "dem Weg". With more elaborate questions, it's similar: "Darf ich Sie fragen, ob Sie den Weg kennen?". Again, the content of the actual question is in a different clause. I'd say "etwas" in your examples is something like a placeholder, kind of like a case-less stand-in for the indirect object. I hope I didn't confuse you anymore than was necessary. Rueckk 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sie and etwas are both direct objects. German is far from being the only language in which the verb "to ask" takes two direct objects, of the thing asked (internal direct object), and of the person asked (external direct object). (I link to cognate object because it is the closest equivalent covered here. There is no grammatical difference between "I talk the talk" [cognate internal d.o.] and "I strike the blow" or "I ask the question" [non-cognate internal d.o.]) Wareh 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

French-English translation

What is the translation of the following French piece?

• Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting."

Does "viennent confirmer" indicate uncertainty in the statement being made? Viennent could have been omitted as well, making the "thèse" certain in that case, not? Thanks! Los Intangibles 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My French is bad, but my impression is that you have misunderstood completely, my rough interpretation is something like:

The satellites movements* (subclause) shall confirm this thesis as one "manoeuvre of lifting."

*(Something seems missing from the French example)

Note, however, that I only have two semesters of French studies behind me... 惑乱 分からん 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"The satellite movements..., which continue their actions without modifying their ancient political line in anything at all, come to confirm their thesis of a "lifting manoeuvre"." This is as close as I can get to the original. Greets, David 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but shouldn't the first clause read "Les mouvements des satellites" or something? 惑乱 分からん 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of names in Kurdish to English.

I am an English woman married to a Kurdish man and we are expecting our first child, and wish to name our child with a true kurdish name, but I would like to know the meaning of the name we chose, is there anyway I can find these out, apart from asking my husband all the time? Thanks in advance

195.93.21.69 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Kurdish given names would be a start, although most of the name entries do not include the meaning. I hope that is some help, and congratulations to you and your husband! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You live in the US I believe? You could try looking for some books. I know here in NZ there were various books in the libraries about Chinese names (with English translations). Unfortunately Kurdish names are probably a bit more specialised but you could still take a look. Even if there's nothing in the libraries, you could try a bookshop. Perhaps look at Turkish and Iranian name books as well. They might have a section on Kurdish names. You could also try contacting any Kurdish associations you know of and see if they have any recommendations. Also, I don't know if this is viable in your circumstances but have you considered asking your in-laws for help too? It could way to improve relationships (of course it could be impossible or a bad idea) Nil Einne 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Help a Korean-speaking wikipedian (not me)

It might be helpful if a Korean speaking wikipedian can help here. User talk:Jimbo Wales#A question about gathering in Korean wikipedia. The user appears to be asking a serious question, although I'm not sure if it's something for Jimbo to answer or even to be considered at the English wikipedia at all (as opposed to them considering it themselves). However, although I think I can guess what the question is as can Jimbo probably, it will IMHO help if we can be sure so a Korean speaking wikipedia should try and contact the user and try and provide a better translation. Nil Einne 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)