Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:00, 28 October 2016

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

Trying to decipher a couple of words from a BBC podcast.

The podcast is: Friday's business with Joe Lynam. A 'perfect storm' for Rolls Royce. Joe Lynam presents the business podcast. It can be found here

I'm trying to understand the first 15 secs. "Rolls Royce the greatest symbol of British engineering" It's only the next couple of sentences from this speaker that I am curious to understand. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.72.82 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "we all salute that particular 5-door". Siuenti (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the OP would probably like a little bit more. I've tried but it won't play. Letting you know so you won't think I'm ignoring your request. Basemetal 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't play for me either. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

That link won't play for me, but I googled the phrase "'perfect storm' for Rolls Royce. Joe Lynam"; the iPlayer link has also gone dead, but here it is on Audioboom. This is what I hear:

Rolls Royce - the great symbol of British engineering. We all salute that particular flag - or at least we have for many years. Joe - but it's going through a difficult time. It's going to get more difficult today.

Hope that helps. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find this original Galileo quotation?

Hi! A few months ago I read The Information by James Gleick, which at one point quotes Galileo saying that "names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards". I am going to go ahead and assume that Galileo didn't actually say that in modern English. Could someone please source the original quotation for me? Thanks. Kisses. Equinox ◑ 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a partial quote in an 1843 edition of Vocabolario degli accademici della Crusca. It reads as follows: Gli attributi si deono accomodare all'essenza delle cose, e non l'essenza ai nomi. link. I found this by Googling gli attributi devono accomodarsi all'essenza.

This is a dictionary entry for the verb accomodare, and it seems to be referenced to Gallil. Macch. Sol. 2. 95, if that helps. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's from Prima lettera di Galileo Galilei a Marco Velseri circa le macchie solari in risposta della precedente. The quote in context is:

Ma che elle non possano esser nel corpo solare non mi par con intera necessità dimostrato, perchè il dire, come egli mette nella prima ragione non esser credibile, che nel corpo solare sieno macchie oscure, essendo egli lucidissimo non conclude, perchè tanto doviamo noi dargli titolo di purissimo, e lucidissimo in quanto non sono state vedute in lui tenebre, o impurità alcune: ma quando ci si mostrasse in parte impuro, e macchiato, perchè non doveremo noi chiamarlo, e macolato, e non puro? i nomi, e gli attributi si deono accomodare all'essenza delle cose, e non l'essenza ai nomi; perchè prima furon le cose, e poi i nomi.

link --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little convoluted and it's late for me to be translating something so involved, but here's a quick try, might be guessing wrong at some pronoun referents:

But that they [spots, I'm guessing?] cannot be in the solar body does not seem to me to be entirely necessarily proven, as to say that it is not credible that there are dark spots within the solar body, because the Sun is very bright, is not conclusive. We must grant him [the Sun] the title of most pure, and very bright, as no shadows have been seen in him, nor any impurity whatsoever, but when he were to show himself to us in part impure, and spotted, why should we not call him so, and stained, and not pure? Names and attributes must accommodate themselves to the essence of things, because first were the things, and then the names.

Well, more or less anyway. It's a bit hard to parse. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

If you read Italian, there's a bit more backstory at Mark Welser (translated as Marco Velseri in the Italian source). It seems that Christoph Scheiner had seen the spots, and come to the conclusion that, as the Sun was an "incorruptible celestial body" per Aristotelian doctrine, they could not be marks on the Sun itself, but must be stars between the Earth and the Sun. Welser wrote to Galileo asking for his opinion, and Galileo responds above. I think the first egli in the passage, which I took to be impersonal, actually refers to Scheiner. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for eighths

For the 150th anniversary, we have sesquicentennial; where sesqui means "and a half". For 125th and 175th, there's quasqui (meaning "and a quarter") and terquasqui (meaning "and 3 quarters".)

Now let's deal with the thousands. We know that 1000 is millennial and 2000 is bimillennial. We can use the above prefixes quasqui and terquasqui for the 1250th and 1750th anniversaries. But because the interval of 1000 years (between the 1000th and 2000th anniversaries) can be divided into eighths, we need a similar prefix for "and an eighth" using consistent etymology with the above prefixes. What would this prefix be, attaching it to "millennial"?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quasquicentennial (which I've never encountered before) appears to have been made up in 1962 by somebody who didn't know or didn't care how Latin combination works. It follows no regular pattern, and is effectively a portmanteau word: 'quarter' (or 'quadrate', or 'quattuor', who can tell) and 'sesquicentennial'. This suggests that you can make up 1 1/8 however you like; but since the common part of Latin words for eight, eighth, eighty etc is 'oct-', that would suggest 'octesquimillennial', which I find rather unwieldy. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, Latin does have an attested word for "one and one-eighth": "sesquioctavus". "Sesquitertius" is also attested for one and one-third (both were used by Cicero to translate Greek fraction words). Then several centuries later, Boethius used "sesquiquartus" (and so forth) to complete the sequence. They're adjectives though, so I'm not sure how we could stick them onto another word as a prefix. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquitertiocentennial, sesquiquartocentennial, sesquioctavocentennial? Just guessing; no sources here. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility between Igbo dialects

We have a problem over at the sister project Wikivoyage. voy:Igbo phrasebook is a candidate for Featured Travel Topic, but there is still one important question unanswered which would need input from someone speaking or familiar with Igbo.

There apparently is a "high variation and low mutual intelligibility between many Igbo dialects". In which Igbo-speaking areas is a user of the voy:Igbo phrasebook (with its vocabulary and pronunciation guidelines) likely to be understood well, to some extent, or not at all? Ypsilon from Finland (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fall 2015

With a fall 2015 freshman acceptance rate of 6%. Shouldn't the F in Fall be capitalized since it is part of the term 'Fall 2015'? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of style. Some people (not so many now) view the names of the seasons as proper names and always capitalize them; some view constructs like "fall 2015" as proper names and would capitalize "fall" for that reason; and some view them as simple descriptive expressions and don't capitalize. Wikipedia style is that they aren't capitalized. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be autumn anyway, as that is understood far more widely than fall. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you are. Checkout the University of Minnesota calendar for this year.[1] The word "fall" appears over 30 times. The word "autumn", 0. And "Fall" is capitalized in the calendar only in the dropdown and when it begins a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP meant that Fall is a US and perhaps Canadian term and is not used anywhere else in the English speaking world. Sort of a World famous in New Zealand situation, except that in this case you're saying that it's the US where Fall is world famous. Akld guy (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the US is a significant portion of the English-speaking world. And etymologically, spring and fall are nice counterpoints. If you're going to say "autumn" instead of "fall", you should say something like "verna" instead of "spring". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given it refers to a specific school-term it should be capitalized, just as one would say he went south, but The South lost the American Civil War. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my first response. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I didn't read your comment all the way to the end, since you started with "it's a matter of style". But we agree on the rationalization between why it's done. When I was in elementary school, the seasons, days, months and cardinal directions were always capitalized in any context. I have since dropped that with directions and seasons except under the circumstances noted above. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "public viewing" in English

In German, the term "Public Viewing" is used for public live ~~broadcasting~~screening of sport events. In German newspaper columns and blogs, for years there has been squabble going on how this expression is actually used in English or not, and whether it's a pseudo-Anglicism. Here in the English Wikipedia, Public viewing is a redirect to Lying in repose, and this has been used as source in the debate. What do native English speakers usually think of when the term is used? Lying in repose, a public broadcast, an open house day, having a look in declassified papers...? Is the redirect appropriate? --KnightMove (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just one person, but as a Midwestern American, the first thing that "public viewing" brought to my mind was the "lying in repose" sense. In my neck of the woods Viewing (funeral) is a familiar use of the term. Deor (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain the term usually refers to the period before an auction when the items can be viewed by potential bidders. A public viewing area is a place set aside for the public to observe some activity: there will often be one at an airport where enthusiasts can watch the planes. Sport events which have to be available to everyone are known as "free to view" and the process of allowing the public to observe the body of someone who has died tends to be called a "lying in state" (even though that should only refer to an official event for someone of public importance). Wymspen (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with using the term to describe a public live broadcast of some event or other. I can't see what else you might call it. --Viennese Waltz 07:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting because I would never have thought that you could use the expression to mean a "live broadcast" if you hadn't told me here. It's certainly not so used in my (northern) English. To me a "viewing" essentially involves the "viewer" going to a specified place to "view". Dbfirs 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what we're talking about, a group of people (viewers) going to a park or square or other public place, to sit in front of a large screen and view the event. --Viennese Waltz 08:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That's a public screening (and not a broadcast), though I suppose it is also a public viewing in a sense. Dbfirs 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that viewing a corpse is not part of British culture, we generally expect the lid to be firmly nailed-down beforehand. Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good shout. I actually think "public screening" is preferable to "public viewing". --Viennese Waltz 09:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "big screen" is widely used in the UK for sports events: see World Cup Big Screens: where you can watch the football games and Rio 2016: Here are the best London big screens to watch team GB go for gold. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a native British-English speaker, I most associate the phrase "public viewing" with an exhibition of art mostly not on display, like before an auction or of art in a private collection like the government's. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear the phrase used for something like putting a screen up in a public square to show a sports match. Blythwood (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "British culture". At Ghanaian funerals in Britain the mourners file past the open coffin at the beginning of the service and are given pieces of material which has been torn into strips. They're as British as any other citizen. 86.128.234.239 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and there are parts of traditional UK where it is not unusual for the coffin to be left open for public viewing, but the practice is rapidly dying out. Dbfirs 16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian Orthodox funerals (and possibly other orthodox churches), not only is the coffin open, but the congregation files past and each person bends over and kisses the body. I'd be surprised if this practice doesn't apply to Orthodox Britons. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Funeral practices: British customs which suggests that not viewing corpses is a fairly recent development here. Of course, Ghanaians in the UK may wish to follow Ghanaian customs and so on, but I have never been invited to view a corpse and hope I never shall. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point 86.* was making was to call you out on your questionable use of the term "British culture". Britain is a multicultural society and "Ghanaian customs" are as much a part of British culture as Morris dancing. --Viennese Waltz 11:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point in a way, but how would you describe the customs of people of "white British" (per the census) descent without entering a PC minefield? I'd be the last to suggest that British people of Ghanaian descent shouldn't feel free to follow Ghanaian customs, but at least one strand of our multi-cultures is the one I belong to. Alansplodge (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I probably wouldn't generalize about it at all, I would have kept it as a comment about your own experience ("viewing a corpse is not part of my culture, I generally expect the lid to be firmly nailed-down beforehand"). --Viennese Waltz 14:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we'll leave it there. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian here. I would never use "public viewing" in the context of a sporting event. Without any context, I would likely assume the "lying in repose" meaning, but an art gallery or similar showing that was open to the public (especially in contrast to an earlier "private viewing") would also be sensible. Matt Deres (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy of testicles to balls, or to other objects, in various languages.

In English, the most common analogy of testicles is to balls. In Hebrew, the most common analogy of testicles is to eggs. What is the analogy (if any) of the testicles, in other languages? 185.3.147.184 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian it's yaichki, "little eggs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish huevo (egg). Navajo ayęęzhii (egg). Khmer ពង (pɔɔŋ, egg). —Stephen (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Spanish used cojones (KAH-HONE-EASE). StuRat (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And English has multiple slang words for testicles too...--Jayron 32 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish does also have cojones, but that's the entire set: scrotum, balls, and all, from Latin cōleus ‎(sack). As a figure of speech, a cojón means a testicle. —Stephen (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian translation of the Bible uses yatra, an obscure word for "viscera", but most likely chosen by association with yadra, meaning "cores" or "cannonballs". KJV used "stones" in the same passages. --90.221.197.129 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In German Eier, (eggs).
Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Persian, it's eggs. Omidinist (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi?
Sleigh (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Farsi. And, I add, Arabic synonym of eggs is used to seem more polite. Omidinist (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In French paire de couilles, (pair of balls).
Sleigh (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct, but we also use "noix" (walnuts), wich may be closer to the answers expected by OP. Kainkenny (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But couille doesn't literally translate as "ball", according to Wiktionary it is derived from the Laitn coleus meaning "bag". Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese (Mandarin), "eggs" is also typical. However, this phenomenon seems to demonstrate the cognitive effects of familiarity on listeners' perception of what seems logical or appropriate. To many native English speakers, the use of what would otherwise be an exclusively female-related biological object (e.g., ovum) for a male body part seems incongruous.--208.58.213.72 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise in Polish; it's jaja, "eggs". The same word also has two metaphorical meanings in Polish slang. One is "courage" (like English "balls"); the other is "funny situation", as in ale jaja!, "how funny!" — Kpalion^(talk) 09:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Polish medical term for testicles is jądra, which literally means "kernels". — Kpalion^(talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Welsh properly ceilliau but may be peli (balls) ... ouch. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Cockney (doubtless a foreign language to some), besides the usual terms, I have heard "conkers". Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More usually in Cockanay, of course, it's "cobblers (awls)". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC) (me old china)[reply]

Meaning "balls" of course (see rhyming slang). Also "knackers" although I'm not sure why. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knackers "may be derived from nakers – small mediaeval kettle drums which were typically played in pairs suspended from a belt around the waist." I am also informed by a young neighbour that the current schoolboy slang in England is "nuts" Wymspen (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! We have an article on the very thing called Naqareh. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chill thy beans, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. growing up in Wales, if one played "too enthusiastically" on the rugby pitch, one always risked getting a "swift kick in the taters".[reply]

Avocado#Etymology SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of reading Lord of the Flies in school, one of the few details I remember is the use of pills. —Tamfang (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a story...
A cockney's chicken has escaped over the neighbour's fence. Peering into next-door's garden he spots both the chicken and a freshly laid egg. He knocks on his neighbour's door, whereupon a foreign gentleman answers.
The cockney says "Scuse me, but my chicken seems to have laid an egg in your garden." The neighbour replies "Yes, I know. You may have your chicken back, but in my country the person whose garden it is laid in owns the egg."
Momentarily taken aback, the cockney says "Er, but this ain't your country is it sunshine? Round 'ere we have a way of settling disputes such as this. We both kick each other in the plums. Now we're both bound to hit the deck of course. Whoever gets up soonest, gets the egg."
The neighbour says "Oh that sounds fair I suppose." Cockney goes "Right, I'll go first" *WALLOP!* boots him right in the knackers.
The foreign gentleman falls wailing to the floor. After a couple of minutes lying in the foetal position, with tears in his eyes, he slowly stands back up. "Ok then" he says "now my turn..."
The cockney laughs and says "S'alright mate, you can keep the fucking egg!" --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me no understand the joke. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, I said Cockney was a foreign language to some. The gist of it is that Cocney proposes to solve the dispute by kicking each others testes ("plums", another expression that I'd forgotten about), the one who recovers fastest wins. However, the Cockney cunningly avoids getting kicked by conceding the contest before it's his turn to be on the receiving end. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've 'eard that this joker Billy is a bit of a Plum Duff. He just 'as to be a rebel, don't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get back to Canterbury ya Berkeley. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further, his real goal was to kick his neighbor in the testicles with no repercussions, he didn't really care about the egg. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he felt that the testicles could be found within the scrotum, demonstrating the power of deduction often attributed to the Cockney, a subgroup of the larger British population. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chirurgery vs chirugery

Strangely, the latter shows up many results from Indian contexts. Universities are giving degrees in this supposed area of medical science. Any idea how the former can have such a variant for this particular region? --14.139.185.2 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mirriam-Webster gives the first as an archaic spelling of surgery, but has no definition for the second one. --Jayron 32 11:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries. including England and India, a first medical degree is Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery - or in Latin, Medicinae Baccalaureus, Baccalaureus Chirurgiae. From that it is clear that the second R is the correct spelling. Both "chirurgy" and "chirurgery" have been used as alternative words for surgery, but both forms are now archaic. If they are being used in academic contexts it is nothing more than a desire to make the course sound more traditional that would be implied by surgery. Unfortunately, "chirugery" is just an error - which may well have been propagated by imitation. Wymspen (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant posting by banned user removed –Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that explain dropping the second R? CodeTalker (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping duplicate second consonants or syllables is known as haplology, or jokingly as haplogy. It's a not uncommon phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately from Ancient Greek χειρουργία, from χείρ ‎(“hand”) + ἔργον ‎(“work”). —Stephen (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

thank you in German

In German, what is the difference between Vielen Dank and Danke schön? 184.147.116.156 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Danke schön" is more personal: you would use it in face to face interactions, like when the shop assistant hands you your change. "Vielen Dank" is used in more formal occasions, often in writing rather than in speech. Wymspen (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schön, that's very helpful. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C10 languages

What do the "C" numbers mean in the context of languages? What is a C10 language for instance? Or a C13? Here for instance. SpinningSpark 21:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view that page, but if you can go back to page 101 of the same book you'll see a tabulation of the 542 Bantu languages (or dialects; I'm not sure of the best translation of parlers) based on an earlier work by someone named Mann. Presumably this letter-number code is either Mann's way, or this author's way, of identifying which of the languages form related groups. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's not the only place I'm seeing this kind of notation. Here's another table, but this time saying it's after Guthrie (1967). Do we have an article on this notation? SpinningSpark 21:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Got it at Guthrie classification of Bantu languages. SpinningSpark 21:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 {{Wiktionary|Wiktionary:Information desk}}
 {{Wiktionary|Wiktionary:Translation requests}}
-= October 20 =
-== a question-phrase ==
-What's French for ''how often'' ? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 06:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-:[Banned user's comment and replies deleted]
-::::::<small>I am reminded of ''[[English As She Is Spoke]]'', a 19th century Portuguese–English phrase book, compiled by somebody who allegedly couldn't speak English but used a French-English dictionary to translate an earlier Portuguese–French phrase book, resulting in some very odd translations.  [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 08:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)</small>
-::::::Strictly speaking "combien de fois?" is "How many times?" but in some contexts that would be the most natural equivalent, e.g. in my opinion the most common way to say "How often do I stir the soup?" in French would be "Combien de fois je dois mélanger la soupe?". In some other contexts you would add "par [period of time that applies]" for example "How often do they change the water in the pool?" you would say "Combien de fois par semaine ils changent l'eau?" etc. "À quelle fréquence" is accurate but sounds a bit learned to me, it would not sound the most natural in some contexts. You've also got "tous les combien de temps? de microsecondes? d'heures?" etc. depending on the interval of time. It depends on context. What's the sentence? Btw the way, the same applies to all English "How" phrases (how fast? how hard? how slowly? and so on) Where have all native French speakers gone? [[User:Basemetal|<span style="color:black">Basemetal</span>]] 08:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::I know that "combien de fois" literally translates as "how many times" but I didn't think it was worth pointing that out.  The fact that it's the most natural equivalent in some (in fact most) contexts was implicit in my answer.  Here's another example:  "How often do I have to tell you?" = "How many times do I have to tell you?" = "Combien de fois faudra-t-il que je te le répète?" --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 09:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Since other Romance languages are likely to present the same problem (and I didn't get where I am today without knowing an obvious cognate when I see one), I find the first pointless interjection helpful. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-::::::<small>I wonder why some jerk didn't delete the above, which is indirectly a response to the banned user. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)</small>
-:I depends. What's the sentence? [[User:Basemetal|<span style="color:black">Basemetal</span>]] 08:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-:: I dealt with a cashier whose nametag had the annotation ''Je parle français.''  I wanted to ask "How often do you speak French?" (as I haven't had occasion to do so since moving here), but couldn't think how to put that in French.  <s>VW's</s> Basemetal's first suggestion, ''Combien de fois par [unité de temps]?'', is awkward whatever unit I choose: if I choose "week", the natural answer may be zero; if I choose "year", my interlocutor has to do some arithmetic. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-::: "Combien de fois par siècle?" and so on was my suggestion, not VW's, but it was only an additional suggestion to VW's "combien de fois". Here you could have said "tous les combien de temps il vous arrive de parler français ici?" if you wanted to stay close to your English "how often". But the most important is that you made here ''the number one mistake'' when trying to speak a foreign language: attempting to translate from your native language into the foreign language. Instead you should try to convey your ''meaning'' with the tools you have at your disposal in that foreign language at whatever stage of linguistic proficiency you have reached. Anyway, in this case the most common ways to convey the meaning you intended, i.e. trying to find out how often that cashier gets to use their French would be: "Il vous arrive souvent de devoir parler français ici?", "Combien de gens vous addressent la parole en français d'habitude?", "Il y en a beaucoup qui vous parlent français?". The cashier most likely would have answered: "Non, ça n'arrive pas très souvent; peut-être une fois toutes les trois semaines" or "Oui, ça arrive assez souvent; à peu près une fois tous les deux jours". [[User:Basemetal|<span style="color:black">Basemetal</span>]] 12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-::''The Canadian Dictionary'' / ''Dictionnaire Canadien'', concise edition (1962, 4th printing published 1969 by McClelland & Stewart) translates ''How often?'' as ''Combien de fois?'' (which it annotates as "at what intervals") or ''Tous les combien?''. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.61.230|69.159.61.230]] ([[User talk:69.159.61.230|talk]]) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-::: If ''combien de fois'' means ‘at what intervals’, I wonder how you'd say ‘how many times’. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::: Same. Context. And the tense of the verb. Again: strictly speaking ''Combien de fois?'' is ''How many times?'' It is only in context and colloquially that it is often used to mean ''How often?'' [[User:Basemetal|<span style="color:black">Basemetal</span>]] 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-::::: "Tous les combien?" is quite often used, it works as a short direct question in many cases where it's the answer that will elaborate or will be constructed in a different more detailed manner. [[User:Akseli9|Akseli9]] ([[User talk:Akseli9|talk]]) 15:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:Google Ngram Viewer has [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=combien+souvent&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccombien%20souvent%3B%2Cc0 search results] for '''combien souvent'''.
-:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:Compare the Spanish phrases ''[[wikt:cuántas|cuántas]] [[wikt:veces|veces]]'' and ''[[wikt:cuán|cuán]] [[wikt:frecuentemente|frecuentemente]]'',
-:and compare the Portuguese phrases ''[[wikt:quantas|quantas]] [[wikt:vezes|vezes]]'' and ''[[wikt:quão|quão]] [[wikt:frequentemente|frequentemente]]''.
-:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-::I don't really know why you posted that. "Combien souvent" is mangled non-French. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 07:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-::::: Basemetal above is correct. As a native French speaker, that's how I would put it: "Il vous arrive souvent de devoir parler français ici?", "Combien de gens vous adressent la parole en français, d'habitude?", "Il y en a beaucoup qui vous parlent français?" Personally I find it so awkward that French language doesn't allow "combien souvent", that I some rare times use it nevertheless, with the feeling of inventing a new word and with the will to be ready to defend my invention, should anyone say something like "combien souvent ce n'est pas français". I do that also with the very convenient "hopefully" which doesn't exist in French. Although it doesn't exist, as a native French speaker speaking French in France with other French people, I proudly use my "espérablement" and the meaning is so obvious they usually don't dare making a remark like "hé, espérablement n'est pas français"... [[User:Akseli9|Akseli9]] ([[User talk:Akseli9|talk]]) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::: Interesting.  Lots of times, things that Anglophones want to translate into French, but don't exist in French, have the same issue in Italian.  But ''quanto spesso'' sounded fine to me.  On the other hand I don't really trust my intuitions anymore, so I Googled it.  Lots of hits, and they generally seemed to be using it naturally.
-:::::: But when I Googled ''combien souvent'', the hits were mostly talking about how there was no such phrase in French (and some of them echoed Akseli and said it was too bad there wasn't).
-:::::: So just one more little isolated fact to remember about French, I guess.  The one that amuses me is that sometimes "how much" gets translated into Spanish as ''como mucho'' ("I eat a lot"). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::: So, "hopefully" is spreading its despicable tentacles into other languages. How low the world is sinking.  --  [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::: Thanks! —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-::::::: Regarding ''combien souvent'' the following paper in French looks promising, at least if you're interested in the historical perspective going as far back as Old French. Hopefully (sorry Jack) Google will let you access it in its entirety (cause it won't let me): [https://books.google.be/books?id=jwMNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA103 Lucien Foulet, ''Tous les combien passe-t-il?''] in [https://books.google.be/books?id=jwMNAQAAIAAJ ''Studies in French Language and Mediaeval Literature: Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope, by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends'', Manchester University Press, 1939]). [[User:Basemetal|<span style="color:black">Basemetal</span>]] 20:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::: Yes, sorry Jack for ruining the wor(l)d but may I emphacize on that, "espérablement" is NOT [[Franglais]] (and I don't wish it was) [[User:Akseli9|Akseli9]] ([[User talk:Akseli9|talk]]) 06:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
-::::::::: Oh, there's no need to be so melodramatic, Akseli. Let's maintain some perspective here. You certainly haven't ruined the world.  No, you've just ruined my life, that's all.  Irreparably.  A somewhat lesser charge.  :)  --  [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 06:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 == Trying to decipher a couple of words from a BBC podcast. ==